Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 September 13 September >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 01:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bondo (putty)[edit]

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

This subject fails both GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. No reliable secondary sources are cited to establish notability. After and extensive search on Google including the regular search engine, news, and Google Scholar I have not been able to find any sources that would establish notability. There is no reasonable expectation that this article can be improved beyond its current state in the future. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like Thinsulate, this is an established and well known brand, which has been covered in many reliable sources over many years. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me towards these reliable secondary sources that establish notability for Bondo. I would love to be proven wrong. If someone can come up with those sources I will get to work building the article up myself. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I have been looking at is previous revisions of the article and Highbeam. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources cited in the article, as well as significant coverage from Core77 ([1] [2] [3]). — Newslinger talk 12:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Bradv 07:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very common well-established brand/product. Easily meets GNG. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major consumer product with ample coverage for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improved now passes GNG etc per work done. Widefox; talk 13:20, 17 September 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. This is a messy discussion. It is quite true that meeting the NMUSIC SNG is sufficient for demonstrating notability; however, it is also true that we need more than "this person was nominated for this award in this year". Thus the argument that the individual needs to also meet GNG is incorrect (or I, at least, can find no basis for it) but we do need verifiable information about him. The presence of such was not demonstrated, and thus I have to close this as "delete". Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Brawley[edit]

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

straight forward GNG. No references - except the subject's own facebook page. nothing significant in independent sources Rayman60 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 01:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brawley was nominated for a Juno Award for Producer of the Year, which meets WP:MUSIC. I have added a source verifying this. Chubbles (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. While being nominated for a Juno Award is a valid notability claim in principle, even people who have a valid notability claim still have to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing — the fact that the nomination itself can be nominally verified by a glancing namecheck of his existence in a list of the nominees does not, in and of itself, hand him a free exemption from still having to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about him. So I'm willing to reconsider this if additional sources can be added to support more than just the nomination alone, but the fact of the nomination does not singlehandedly absolve him of ever having to show any other notability-supporting references. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Topics that meet an SNG do not also need to meet the GNG. Their claim to notability under the SNG needs to be verified with a reliable source, but that has already been provided. Chubbles (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, topics that meet an SNG most certainly do still need to also meet GNG, because this article is not allowed to say anything about him without supporting that with sources — technically speaking, this article as it stands has to be trimmed back so that the Juno Award nomination itself is the only thing it says about him at all, because nothing else in the article is citing any sources. The entire "career" section, and even the claim in the introduction, that he's currently based in Los Angeles, have to be removed from the article entirely if they can't be supported by legitimate reliable sources. There is no notability claim that any person can make that ever exempts them from having to have reliable source coverage in media just because the notability claim is technically verifiable — even a President of the United States would not qualify for an article on here if they somehow managed to hold the role without getting any media coverage about their work in the role. SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a notability claim as long as it's properly supported by GNG-worthy reliable sourcing — they do not serve as an exemption from having to actually have any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not, descriptively, the case - if topics needed to meet GNG along with the SNGs, there would be no need for SNGs at all, and we would be a GNG-only encyclopedia (which we are not). It also should not be the case - there seems to be a movement to make the GNG the end-all-be-all of whether something has an article, but the SNGs exist for good reason; there are a variety of things we can, do, and should cover that are not captured appropriately by the strictures of the GNG. This is a topic for another discussion page, of course, but it should be clear that the reading of how the SNGs should work given above is not universally held. What sourcing this notable article needs is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Chubbles (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person who has a clean pass of an SNG does not have to cite as much coverage as a person who's shooting for "doesn't pass an SNG but still gets over GNG on the sourceability anyway", I'll grant — but no, passing an SNG does not constitute an exemption from having to have any sourcing more substantive than one glancing namecheck of their existence in a list, because we do still have to be able to properly verify everything else the article says about them too.
And no, it is not true that "if topics needed to meet GNG along with the SNGs, there would be no need for SNGs at all", either — people on here quite routinely think that GNG is automatically passed the moment a person can show two media hits in any context whatsoever (even purely local coverage in non-notable contexts, like winning a high school poetry contest or organizing a community picnic), which is not correct either. SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a legitimate notability claim in the first place, and GNG serves to clarify how the notability claim has to be supported before the notability claim actually translates into an article actually becoming keepable — they're not mutually exclusive alternative paths to notability, but work in tandem as distinct aspects of the same notability equation. Saying that a person can get into Wikipedia by passing an SNG or GNG, but does not have to pass both, is exactly what opens our notability rules to getting gamed by self-promoting wannabes who claim passage of an SNG they don't really pass (such as the way that every actor who has any role at all could always simply claim that the role was "major" enough to pass NACTOR #1, if just saying the word "major" were in and of itself enough to exempt them from having to have the correct type of reliable sources to prove how major it was), and/or think they pass GNG the moment they can show one article in their hometown paper about their winning of a high school poetry contest (or that every fire chief, every police chief, every city councillor and every school board trustee in every town passes GNG the moment one or two pieces of local coverage can be shown, which is also not the case.)
And no, there also are not "a variety of things we can, do and should cover that are not captured appropriately by the strictures of GNG" — there's simply never any such thing as a person who can't be sourced over GNG but is somehow still notable and important enough that we need to keep an encyclopedia article anyway. It is entirely possible for a person to pass GNG, but have a poorly written article which doesn't properly demonstrate the GNG pass because Wikipedians tend to really suck at putting in the necessary amount of work to make many articles good — but it is not possible for a person to fail GNG, but somehow still be so important that we waive GNG and keep the article anyway. Articles about people are always vulnerable to advertorial promotionalism by the subject or their friends and family, or attack editing by their enemies — so the rule is not that as long as a person can be nominally verified as having a technical pass of an SNG, then they get to keep an article on here even if no substantive reliable source coverage about them can actually be cited at all to support it. Reliable source coverage is precisely what we depend upon in order to keep our articles neutral and accurate at all, so people can never be exempted from having to have any of it just because the article says they did X, Y or Z. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't completely follow the above, in part because I don't know what an "SNG" is. There is a part of WP:NMUSIC which says Musicians ... may be notable if they ... [have] won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. This says nothing about "presumed notable" or "is notable" so according to WP:NRV this topic is not notable because there are no sources with any substantial information. Thus the article should be deleted as outlined in WP:FAILN. I note also that WP:SUBNOT says this: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. In my opinion this is conclusive policy based reasoning to delete. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to brickwall the discussion any more than it already has been, but the whole point of notability is to establish a threshold for inclusion; below this bar (wherever we set it), not notable, and above it, notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. We should want to provide comprehensive coverage of notable topics, which we can do, here, with verifiable evidence from reliable sources. (I provided one, but everyone here is presuming no other sources exist, as if the Canadian press just doesn't cover the Juno awards.) Being nominated for Canada's highest musical award undoubtedly passes that threshold per WP:MUSIC; if we choose not to cover the matter because of worries that the article might end up non-neutral or inaccurate or "good" (however we define it), I think we do so to our own demerit, and in contravention of our own guidelines. If the article will be short to keep it neutral and verifiable, so be it; a little information on a notable topic is better than no information at all. Chubbles (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. I read the part of WP:NMUSIC which says that articles not meeting the GNG should be deleted. I voted accordingly. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:02, 16 September 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. Tone 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ples Gilmore[edit]

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

Coverage is routine sports reporting so the GNG is not met. Doesn't have any accomplishments that meet WP:NBOX. A 4-3 professional record isn't close to showing notability. Sandals1 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search didn't turn up what I would call significant independent coverage on him. I found local coverage and routine sports reporting, but I don't believe WP:GNG is met. He definitely doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for boxers as either an amateur or professional. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found no sources establishing notability and I doubt that will change down the road. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a boxer, and the other information in the article is sourced only to primary sources (many of which are not publicly available). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuitenmission[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all sources are German, difficult to establish notability. I suppose if it passed on de.wikipedia.org, I would feel better about an English language counter part but it doesn't appear to be there yet. - Scarpy (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What policy requires English language sources for notability — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources in both English and German before I nominated... The Banner talk 09:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not required to be in English to establish notability. See WP:GNG, where it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America1000 06:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000, that you are supposedly replying to Banner (going by your indention-level), when did Banner state that only English sources are required? ∯WBGconverse 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This appears to be the "Home base" of certain Jesuit missions in other countries. It may well be difficult to find independent sources, but that is not uncommon with organisations: it is a matter of how good their press officers are at getting stories about them into newspapers, which is not a good test of inherent notability. Banner seems intent on persecuting Jesuits. I am not a Catholic, but that does not mean that I do not think that Catholic mission organisations can be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, due to lack of policy based arguments, you come with personal attacks? The Banner talk 18:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peterkingiron, Banner is nominating shitty, poorly sourced articles that are not the quality we expect on Wikipedia. It's clear he has nothing against Jesuits (he actually offered to help JZsj many times), and your personal attack is not AGF. Your insult is very lame behaviour, and the argument you provided is just WP:ILIKEIT and has no basis in policy. Also the idea that on Wikipedia we must respect the religious views of editors is ENTIRELY WRONG. Personal religious views are of zero consequence on wiki. Given that, it's really not possible to persecute anyone here. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article suffers from too much primary sourcing, which is the root of the problem: the org is not notable enough to generate the secondary sourcing required for notability.96.127.244.27 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a significant organisation so there should be German sources offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Atlantic306, Can you kindly abstain from appending regards to the end of whatever sentence you write? Also read WP:MUSTBESOURCES. ∯WBGconverse 11:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparent importance is enough to justify a keep, on the assumptonthat a proper search for German sources will find them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. And add the recent notices of their activities here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you did clearly not understand the meaning of "significant coverage" although you said only yesterday that you did understand it and would take in on board. The Banner talk 18:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why not send the same judgment of yours to the three previous "keep"s, with which I was following in support. Jzsj (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not do this, why not do that. Everything to brush aside that fact that you said to understand and adhere to the notability guidelines and policies, only to ignore them hardly a day later... The Banner talk 18:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no notability policy; there are notability guidelines; the nature of guidelines is that the are a guide to what we usually do, not a fixed rule we must always follow. The actual policy which is at the base of the guidelines is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and nobody here is proposing to keep all religious missions and social service agencies regardless. The reason we have AfD is because there is a need for article-by-article consideration by the community about how to interpret both the policy, and its dependent guidelines. The community as a whole make the rules here in general discussions, and the interested portion of the community in any given case determines how they apply to individual cases. Arguing that we must follow rules is appropriate in a formal organization operating in a top-down manner, which is the exact opposite of the fundamental basis for the existence--and the success-- of Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WBG asked me to take a look at what sourcing I can find but the problem is that many sources use this name and Jesuit missions interchangeably and I lack the time to do a more in-depth search. The organization is probably notable enough but at the very least, a merge to Society of Jesus#Social and development institutions might be considered. Regards SoWhy 19:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Society of Jesus#Social and development institutions per SoWhy, merging any independently-sourced content (of which, as far as I can see, there is at the moment none). It's been suggested that there must be sources and it's just a matter of finding them, and that may be right; but until and unless someone does that and produces those sources, this page cannot meet the notability requirements of WP:NCORP.
Since this organisation is in Nürnberg, I searched for "JesuitenMission, Nürnberg"; I got 5 hits on GNews, of which one (the Süddeutsche Zeitung) which I can't access might have some actual coverage; and 13 hits on GBooks, of which the first eight appear to be passing mentions (several of them relating to a Paraguayan book on Domenico Zipoli), and the last five or so false positives. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Majority consensus is to keep, but recent votes favor Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Redirect? Delete? Consensus is not evident here. Final re-list...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, recreating the page iff significant coverage is found. Since article history is preserved by a redirect, this should not be an obstacle to those that would want to improve the the article. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' per DGG and WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Redirect, Userify or send to AfC I see we are nearly all struggling with German sourcing and the obvious problem that many of the sources clearly are not quality WP:RS, but left with the question if there might be two that are. This is not the first AfD I did not want to vote on because of the struggle of translating the entirely foreign sourcing--when most does NOT appear to be secondary. I spent forever working on the AfD on a bus line in India (Latur Transport), where all the sourcing was in a multitude of Indian languages. There seems to be an increasing burden on us at AfD to deal with these translation issues. If an editor wants to use entirely foreign sourcing for notability like this, I think it would be reasonable for us to put more of the burden on the editor/creator of the article to prove to us the sourcing is good. This is, after all, an English encyclopedia primarily edited by English language editors. At the same time, I completely acknowledge that an article in Der Spiegel or Le Monde is just as good as an article in NYT for establishing WP:GNG. I'm curious what others think about this issue and foreign sources and how we might deal with it. Maybe we need an overall discussion about this challenge somewhere. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 19 September 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. Tone 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Krok[edit]

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

Individual not notable enough in the public eye for wikipedia article Player765 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Individual has been written about in multiple national media outlets, in South Africa and Australia. OP, do you have a conflict of interest? Only two edits to your account, both related to nominating this article for deletion. Greenman (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a coatrack to talk about his taxation issues, essentially one event. With the one exception of the article about his father/family were he is only given minor mentions everything is about that tax case. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single event. N is not inherited. Nothing special here at all that I can see. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 15 September 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 the subject does not meet English Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for an article. North America1000 00:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquinVlogs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; non-notable YouTuber with no readily identifiable independent WP:RS coverage. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has 1.3 million youtube subs, which means he likely has substantial converge for WP:GNG. The thing that's confusing to me that he's getting an English Wikipedia article before one at Tagalog Wikipedia article, as that's what most of his content seems to be in. - Scarpy (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: In response to your comment, most online Philippine media publications are either wholly in English or primarily in English (with only some Tagalog websites, usually Facebook or Entertainment pages and the like). As such, when looking for coverage about Philippine-related subjects, English sources are perfectly acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 01:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to YouTuber having a subscriber base slightly over the 1 million mark. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indepth coverage from reliable sources. All I can find are short mentions, not indepth articles about him. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having over a million subscribers is nothing that significant nowadays. He is ranked 5,300 in subscriber rank and 19,995 in video view rank according to Social Blade - [4], there are thousands of people who are ranked higher but don't have an article on them. Sourcing would be the key here to establish notability. Also his channel name is Cong TV rather than CongTV. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus is evident... Re-listing once again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Number of views/subs alone don't signify notability and other than these this person has no significant coverage in any reliable sources.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Reliable sources found also no significant coverage on subject. ShunDream (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject fails GNG and all biography-related tests. Also, this article is highly promotional. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Number of views does not meet criteria for inclusion. No coverage in RS sources.MLKLewis (talk) 00:11, 16 September 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. There is consensus, albeit a weak one, for keeping this. The demonstration of coverage in reliable sources has not been adequately refuted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Vega[edit]

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

Author of several children's books, but received very little coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. Bradv 03:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Her books, including "Click Here", seem to have won a lot of awards. There are more than four thousand library holdings of her books: [5]. There is a biography of her in volume 174 of "Something About The Author": [6] [7]. There is some coverage in GNews (303 Magazine). There are book reviews in School Library Journal [8] (review of "Access Denied") [9] (review of "Click Here") etc. And there is other coverage in GBooks and elsewhere, such as [10] [11] [12] [13]. James500 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be an argument in favour of keeping an article on the book, but none of that establishes the notability of the author. Either way, can you please add some sources to one or both of the articles while you're working on this? I'll happily withdraw the nomination if we can find sources, but I couldn't. Bradv 00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of that establishes the notability of the author. We have her biography, reviews and coverage of more than one of her books, awards for more than one of her books (eg "Facts of Life #31" seems to have won, in particular, the Colorado Book Award in 2009, and the Colorado Top Hand Award), a high level of library holdings for her several books generally. It is not as if the coverage was entirely about that one book or that book was the only popular one. And we generally regard an authors' output as being part of the same topic, since notable authors are by definition notable for their works of authorship. James500 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV of her or her books in reliable SECONDARY sources. We need to show that either she has attracted INDEPTH coverage, or that one or more of her books has gotten enough attention to carry her past WP:AUTHOR She does have a number of books out with real publishing houses, but I'm fialing to find SECONDARY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject's books have been reviewed by both Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly. At least two of her titles have won awards. I cleaned up the article some and added content and reliable sources. Newspaper and magazine coverage satisfy WP:GNG. Subject easily passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think she meets WP:AUTHOR as I can't find additional coverage and the links already there are (1) university faculty page, primary source; (2) short review which says nothing about the author; (3) a review which is a deadlink for me; (4) short article about Vega which looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage; (5) has one sentence on Vega; (6) short reviews of her books in a trade publication; (7) list of library award winners in which she was an Honor winner - looks like it means a runner-up, but I am not sure; (8) her book listed on the shortlist for another award. These might be helpful if we were looking for notability of her books, but they are not WP:SIGCOV of her - in fact I've rarely seen so little coverage of a writer. Tacyarg (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional coverage has been linked to above. ROUTINE only applies to events: Denise Vega is a person, not an event. The reviews are not short. AUTHOR makes it very clear that book reviews and similar sources count towards the notability of an author. Even if they didn't, all that would be achieved by that kind of objection is a page move to something like "Bibliography of Denise Vega". This would seem to be a waste of time because a notable author is by definition notable for their books. The level of coverage is actually good for a writer: many notable books, including a lot of bestsellers, get no reviews at all. James500 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looks like it's a little WP:TOOSOON and for lack WP:SIGCOV. Reviews in Pub Weekly and Kirkus are inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR. One of her books was reviewed in the education sectioon of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. that 's real, so is the regional Colorado Book Awards in category: young adult fiction. In addition there are a couple of articles in local media that cover her as one of a nyumber of local authors. It's not quite enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, as an FYI, Publishers Weekly is renowned as "the bible of the book business" and an independent international news magazine about the literary world. Opining that PW and Kirkus - also a respected book review publication - is "inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR" does not compute. While the Seattle PI review is "real," so are PW and Kirkus Reviews. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the thing about PW is that it runs a snippet review of pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting. Yes, it's a functional way to scan upcoming releases. I certainly take it seriously when PW profiles a book or author, or discusses a book in one of their what's-gonna-be-hot-this-season, or in a group article on up-and-coming-teen-novelists, or similar. But to get a MILL snippet review in PW doesn't mean much more than: this book is being published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Public relations folks practically beg PW to write reviews; PW does not review everything a traditional publisher promotes. All those reviews - for every book they publish? - certainly would overflow in the publication. And that would be news to publishers and authors. The subject's books have been published by Hatchette and Penguin Random House, two of the "big 5" traditional publishing houses - a big deal, unless you also believe it is easy to be published by the top publishers in the industry. Also, the WorldCat catalog shows that the subject's book Click Here alone has 644 copies in public libraries. Before I improved on the subject's article and decided on "Keep," I searched for reviews, news coverage of the subject and books, and WorldCat and found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't misquote me, I wrote "pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP:HEY, I searched a little harder and found more, we have the old problem here of a much too common name, too many people named Denise Vega in the worls, and adding words like "click" or "book" doesn't help much. Article needs cleanyup, tightening, Still, I think she scrapes by.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory: I found a 2017 review from the School Library Journal, a monthly literary magazine with reviews by librarians. I added it to the article. I too had to search a bit harder to find it, as her name appears to get confused with Vegas. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:36, 16 September 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 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Fine Art[edit]

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

Non-notable business, does not satisfy WP:NCORP. It's relatively hard for a commercial art gallery to become notable by our standards, but a few major ones do manage it; this is not one of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please search variations of keywords. For eg. HOFA London, HOFA Gallery. One will find ample sources in Google News. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two crypto trade rags, which do not help toward N per WP:ORGCRIT. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the third source, i.e. the interview, has been analysed in my comment as Ref 17. In fact, the other two blogs have also been already discussed below. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of references; I have dropped a few into the article and expanded it a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333, the two refs you dropped here were"
this brief listing in a "thing to do in London in July"
a cryptoblog, which made it the third such ref cited. All three fail ORGCRIT under trade rags, and we are generally shunning refs like these pursuant to to the crypto general sanctions which in turn arose from all the promotional pressure and hype around cryptocurrencies. There are currently none used in this page.
Would you please consider your !vote? This does not meet WP:NCORP as updated back in March. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, all of the sources mentioned above have also been discussed by me in my comment below. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to comment here after cleaning up the article, but the page creator is indulging in unexplained reverts, which has halted my editing there. I've partially cleaned up the page from redundant sources without removing any content from the page – see this revision & my comments at the article's talk page. Once they stop their disruption, I will clean it up further. BTW, now I am logging out for today, as I've already spent hours waiting for their response. Anyway, both the page creator & the AfD's participants are welcome to discuss my edits at the article's talk page. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not for cleanup. Read WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:DEADLINE. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with these essays, but read my comment again to understand its context. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I just went through this carefully. The page as it stands now is like this. There were two sources that were simply publishing the same press release. There was an artist's website, and the website of another gallery that didn't actually mention HOFA. Two bad crypto blogs. The Forbes piece was a Forbes contributor blog (so not useful for N) and on top of that, was entirely derivative of the Evening Standard piece with no additional useful information. What is left, is an interview with an artist exhibiting there (not useful for N), a "here's what to do in London" brief listing, which is not useful for N, and a brief blurb about Ilhwa Kim’s Sensory Portrait show opening, which is also not useful for N. The Evening Standard piece is useful. That is one source. We really should delete, as the promotional pressure with all the bad sourcing is very, very clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Although Jytdog has already cleaned up the article properly, just for the clarity of the participants, I am choosing this old revision, which contains all of the 17 citations, so that they won't feel that any source was overlooked. My analysis shows that even if we include the Forbes source, there is nothing more than trivial coverage here.
I will start my analysis with the most in-depth sources of the article:
The main focus of this source lies on cryptocurrency, although it does have few independent bits about the gallery:
"A Mayfair art gallery claims to be the first to put up its entire collection for purchase with cryptocurrency...(HOFA), which sells high-end fine art...Gallery prices start at about £4,000 but rise to about £250,000 for pieces by Italian sculptor Stefano Bombardieri. The collection includes works by French sculptor Richard Orlinski and American Hunt Slonem...The exhibition will start in London at the beginning of October..
Note that this source is cited twice in the revision chosen by me, i.e. this & the Ref 11 are one and the same.
This one is a puffery piece, and reads like a press release. In fact, according to the article's talk page discussion, it is one. Anyway, this is what it mentions:
Following the success of their first gallery in London, they have since opened a gallery in the stunning location of Psarou Beach in Mykonos, a third gallery in Mayfair and have now taken their brand to the US, with a gallery in the plush setting of West Hollywood...To mark the opening of the new Mayfair gallery, a summer exhibition titled ‘The Edit’ will be taking place from 4 July – 8 August 2018....Headline artists include Romina Ressia, Tian, Robert Standish and Marco Grassi.
Rest of the article just gives details of the artists, which are irrelevant here.
This news article was published two days after the LES source, and it basically repeats the same info covered in the LES, and repeats a line of the Luxe Life source. The main focus of the source again lies on cryptocurrency, and it includes HOFA spokesperson's comments, so this one isn't independent. Anyway, here's the only details which are different from the LES source:
...inspirational works by the likes of Zhuang Hong Yi...HOFA first noticed a demand for Bitcoin payments last year and decided to approach the digital money platform Uphold to offer a wider range of payment, and capitalize on the demand.
Now before analysing the next batch of refs, I am quoting from the note 3 of the WP:N:
It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
  • Now I will list the sources which are mere copies of the above three sources, i.e. LES, Forbes, & Luxe Life sources. To start with, these copies don't count toward notability, as is clear by the WP:N quote. Anyway, once the original news regarding cryptocurrency transaction was published in LES & Forbes sources on 7 August 2018 & 9 August 2018 respectively, it was copied & published by the multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites on 9 August 2018. Most of these sources don't have editorial oversight & they republished the same news without attribution. So, let alone counting toward notability, they seem to be in violation of the WP:COPYVIOEL:
This is a word-for-word copy of the Luxe Life source.
This is merely a listing of the The Edit exhibition, on which the Luxe Life source is focusing – this source basically summaries the Luxe Life source in two lines.
This a copy of LES source.
This a copy of the LES source (with attribution) – the source is providing the link to the LES article at the end under the description of "Read more here."
This source is a user-generated content, as I've explained in my comment to Sam. In any case, it is a mere copy of the Forbes source – it just lists the price range in dollars instead of pounds.
It is another yet another cryptocurrency blog with no editorial oversight, and it is a repeat of LES.
The remaining is the refbombing of artists' interviews & personal websites, which either mention the HOFA in passing or don't mention it at all:
This is HOFA's website, which isn't serving any purpose, and it obviously doesn't count towards notability.
  • Refs regarding the artist Zhuang Hong Yi:
This is an interview of the artist Zhuang Hong Yi about his solo show Radiance, which was hosted by HOFA. The interview is focusing on the work of the artist, although it does contains statements of both the artist & the HOFA's co-founder regarding their partnership. This interview might've been useful to add some info in the artist's WP article, but they don't have one. As far as HOFA is concerned, the only useful bit is that the artist worked for them. So this is a non-independent source, which doesn't count towards notability.
This is another interview of Zhuang regarding his aforementioned solo show Radiance. And this is the only mention of the gallery: “Radiance” runs until March 24 at the House of Fine Art (HOFA) gallery in London’s St. James district, before moving to a separate HOFA gallery in Mayfair from March 26 to April 8
Like the previous interview, it just proves that the artist worked for them.
  • Refs regarding the artist Ilhwa-Kims:
This short article is about a South Korean artist Ilhwa Kim's solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only thing it mentions about the gallery is: "Hosted by HOFA Gallery in London". In fact, that seems like the only time this artist got coverage, and obviously they don't have a WP article.
This interview is also about the artist's aforementioned solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only mention that HOFA gets is the following: The Sensory Portrait exhibition at HOFA in London runs until April 17th
  • Refs regarding the artist Marco Grassi:
This is the link of the artist's personal website, which doesn't even mention the HOFA. Why was it cited in the article?
This one lists his work, but there is no mention of the HOFA in it. Again, why was it cited in the article?
So, all in all, there is around 6-7 lines of semi-independent coverage, and it doesn't go beyond trivial mentions, thereby the subject is nowhere close to meeting the high standards of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG.
PS: Participants are free to comment on my analysis, although I won't be able to spend more time here today. So I will reply to the comments tomorrow. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC) added a ref which I missed earlier & made some other tweaks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, for whatever reason, participants are bringing the copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. Please also note that they count as one source – see my comment above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:James500 please review WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGCRIT - that guideline received a major upgrade in March. As far as I can tell there is one independent source with substantial discussion of this organization, and that does not pass NCORP much less GNG. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog, after analysing the sources twice, I agree that LES is the only independent source. But even its focus lies on discussing the "bitcoin trend", and it is giving coverage to all the relevant galleries, thereby allotting just around four encyclopedic lines to the subject. So, even that source is nowhere close to being in-depth. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. James500, Sam Sailor, I wonder if you are aware that WP:GNG leads to the same paragraph as WP:SIGCOV? The first sentence there is "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". So perhaps, instead of merely stating "meets/satisfies GNG", you could provide evidence of where you found that significant coverage, why you think the detailed analysis of the sources provided here by NitinMlk is incorrect, and how you think that the sources you've found might satisfy WP:NCORP? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to argue when the subject obviously satisfies WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ORG is irrelevant. An art gallery is a building wherein paintings are kept. The relevant SNG is NGEO. Deletion would also violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because Maddox Street (which has a large number of listed buildings: [17]) has an article. This gallery is actually number 58. It has a fairly impressive history: [18] [19]. I should also point out that GNG has nothing to do with any SNG, and that includes ORG. James500 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is a business. It sells art. It is not a building. WP:NCORP is the appropriate N guideline here. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, an art gallery is a building. An organisation is a group of people. You cannot hang paintings on a group of people. You have to have walls. Therefore building. For this to be an organisation, you would in practice have to show that it refers to a group of people who own more than one art gallery. Otherwise "HOFA" is just a name for the building where the paintings are displayed. James500 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my. I see your confusion. OK, I fixed the content. It is clear from all the sources that HOFA is an art dealer. Art dealers need art galleries to show their wares; "art gallery" is frequently used as a shorthand to refer to the dealer -- to the business. Just oh my. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a gallery like the National Gallery or MOMA. It's a shop that sells artwork. Such shopkeepers call their shops "galleries" and themselves "dealers". Search for "58 Maddox St London W1S 1AY" to see a streetview of the doorway on a Mayfair street of shops including one other gallery. It seems to have been a dress shop when Google Streetview last went by. 92.19.30.162 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are trying to vouch for it's notability in terms of NGEO? Are you emulating Col. Davidson? ∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP is NOT the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is why you had used a A7 tag for requesting speedy deletion?[20] Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing to do with the policy-based rationale provided by them here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first, second, and third refs are low quality cryptocurrency blogs/trade rags, which we do not use. The last is a press release that duplicates a press release already used in the article as discussed on the talk page [[25]].. None of those are useful for N. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS = RS. Even if you think they covered something that you personally find unimportant. Rzvas (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rzvas, please note that the first two sources provided by you are mere copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. In fact, the third source provided by you mentions the HOFA & gives a link to the main article at the Read more label, and that main article is already analysed by me as Ref 7 above, which is again copy of the LES source. And the fourth source provided by you was already discussed in my above comment in the form of Ref 5. Please also note that they count as one source – see my analysis of the sources above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC) added a bit which I missed earlier. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS are indeed RS, and refs that are not RS are not RS. I have described why all four sources you brought are not RS for consideration of notability of an organization per WP:ORGCRIT - you should read that. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rzvas, I guess you can hear something salient, in Jytdog's analysis, shall you try enough.......∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article and avoided make a vote but after having seen a number of established editors able to find reliable sources for the establishing WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, I have no doubt now that the article should be absolutely kept. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I saw you mention over the ANI thread that you aimed for an auto-patrol flag, please be aware that we have a disdain for hat-collecting Wikipedia is not a MMORPG and that these type of creations won't lead to the flag.∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. www.theartcollector.org is a blog that offers Advertorial/promotional editorial as part of their opportunities for brand exposure, and is not remotely an independent, reliable source. milemag.com publishes press releases, Luxury London "positions premium brands in front of high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals through absorbing multi-channel content, revolutionary data profiling technology and tailored invitation-only events" in other words: neither independent nor reliable. The piece in Glass Magazine barely mentions the gallery, so does not provide significant coverage. Vexations (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more than just three sources. Look at the history of the article. You won't see if it is possible anytime soon for others to add the content without engaging in edit warring with the same editors who are badgering this AfD. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excelse, I've looked at the article's history, and chose the revision which contained all the sources that were ever cited there. And analysed them in detail. So you won't find any new source there. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Except the sources provided by users above, Standard.co.uk (London Evening Standard) also provides significant coverage per WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have certainly failed to bring a new source.LES has been noted in Nitin's analysis.∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Fails NCORP. The sole claim to notability (which has got almost zero significant-traction outside the realm of crypto-blogs) is an-one-event-notability, at any case. Nitin's and Jytdog's reasoning has been excellent. And, I'm pretty amazed that multiple people seem to be blissfully unaware of ORGCRIT.∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's excellent analyses of the promotional and unreliable sources in use. From what I can tell from what's left, the gallery has a claim of significance for apparently being the first art gallery to accept payments of cryptocurrency, however there do not appear to be any reliable publications noting this achievement, strongly suggesting that it is not one which would establish notability. And without notability, this business fails our inclusion guidelines. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Before even commenting here, I had already searched about the HOFA, and was unable to find any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. But I am someone who believes in discussion. So I posted my analysis of every source of the article in the hope of getting others' views. But rather than providing any new material for discussion or any policy-based arguments, they have just provided the copies of LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency promoting blogs/websites. These blogs/sites aren't even counted for notability, per WP:ORGCRIT. In any case, they add nothing new. Every thing else has already been explained in my analysis above. And I also note the thorough policy-based analysis of Jytdog. We can waste more time here, but that won't make any difference. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James500 who laid out correct understanding of the subject. Subject warrants stand alone article because of the significant coverage in multiple sources the article shows. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sdmarathe James500 did nothing of the sort? WHERE is the significant coverage in multiple sources? Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's just the one reliable independent source as discussed above, so the subject clearly does not meet any of the applicable notability criteria. NitinMlk's and Jytdog's analyses of the sources are exhaustive and I agree with them entirely. WP:ORGCRIT are much stricter than it used to be (thankfully) and this just doesn't come close to meeting them. --bonadea contributions talk 07:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a business article and therefore must satisfy WP:NCORP not WP:GNG, an error many keep voters are making, and the only article that comes close isn't focused on the organisation itself. Cheers to Jytdog for their hard work. SportingFlyer talk 07:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete votes are citing WP:ORGCRIT which has been already satisfied by multiple sources.[26][27] These sources have significantly discussed the subject and are independent. Kraose (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The first is le Mile which is a press release, identical to the one also published by Luxe which had also been used as a ref. (really -- compare them. The same words.) It is not independent. The second is the evening Standard which is OK. There is one independent source that has substantial discussion of HOFA. One. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I am convinced by Jytdog and Nitin's analyses that the sourcing isn't sufficient. Reyk YO! 14:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost no in-depth coverage exists aside for brief mentioning in some garbage blogs. Really saddens me that some people consider all those obvious WP:UGC as "reliable sources"... The "Mile Magazine" source is just a brief PR. Only usable WP:RS with passable depth is an article from "The Standard", but that's it. All in all this is just a non-notable art dealer.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a majority of !voters are tending towards delete, there is a significant minority with policy-based arguments towards keep. Re-listing this discussion to gain clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count 11 keep votes, and the only policy based argument I see is that the subject meets WP:GNG which has been shown to be an erroneous reading of the sources. None of the sources (except one) do in fact satisfy the GNG. Vexations (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, there are 7 of them in total. Anyway, once the actual analysis of the sources started, there are 14 delete !votes. And as far as sources are concerned, everything was already discussed in detail before the relisting. In fact, all the keep !votes were already refuted by the policy-based arguments before the AfD was relisted. If somehow there was an iota of doubt left, then it was cleared by the subsequent delete !votes. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No real sources -- I mean, the Evening Standard story is not really about the gallery, it's about their accepting-bitcoin publicity stunt, and would be no more than a reliable source for THAT topic, not a mark of notability. And the less said about User:James500's frankly ridiculous "it's a building not a business" claim, the better, especially since it's not even a building by his logic, it's a tenant occupying PART of a building. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's analyses of the sources, and also per Bonadea above. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not meet GNG, and the analysis by Jytdog and NitinMlk above of the sources is thorough and convincing. -- Begoon 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All of the above discussion is incapable of reaching a cogent decision on the evaluation of the contemporary art gallery under consideration. We might as well just leave it as "Keep" for the time being. I am not taking any position on whether it should be "kept" or not. My concern is with these unhinged discussions. And we might as well not destroy something because it could be a long time until someone recreates it—if it is notable. We are essentially reinventing the wheel in each of these deletion discussions pertaining to contemporary art galleries and we are doing an extremely poor job of reinventing that wheel. I would suggest that notability guidelines for contemporary art galleries are distant cousins of other notability guidelines. I think we should draw up notability guidelines particularly tailored to contemporary art galleries and then revisit this AfD. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've actually read the entire discussion above, then you would know that a consensus to delete has already been reached. And we aren't "reinventing the wheel"; rather, we are just following the standard notability policies & guidelines. I respect your interest in this area, but this isn't the place to 'tailor' notability guidelines. BTW, if you somehow end up tailoring the notability guidelines, then you can request for refund of the above article. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that we are "just following the standard notability policies & guidelines" which are exceptionally poorly suited to evaluating the notability of contemporary art galleries. But carry on. Don't let me stop us from deleting articles on contemporary art galleries willy-nilly. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, but you should raise these concerns at the talk page of WP:NCORP or any other relevant notability page. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus of clueful votes is not ambiguous. The relevant guideline is WP:CORP and the keep votes have ignored WP:ORGCRIT, which we updated in March after a big whomping RfC. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "willy-nilly" was a bit harsh because I think you are trying in good faith to apply the existing policies to which you refer. Unfortunately contemporary art galleries—not necessarily this one—derive notability in part from the attention their exhibitions receive in reliably-sourced art reviews. While this at present is rejected as a manifestation of WP:INHERIT it should be one of the factors that contribute to notability for contemporary art galleries. We are in fact very concerned with reviews of exhibitions when we evaluate notability. Reviews focus 99% of the time on the artwork and the artist and not on the art gallery. But those reviews have the potential to support notability for the art gallery. Aside from reviews of art exhibitions there is relatively little that can be said about art galleries. Consequently in many cases—not necessarily this one—articles on art galleries are deleted when they easily meet notability requirements. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you added two sources in these diffs -- one was a Reuters video piece, and the other was a reproduction of the same Reuters video at WaPo website. This is one source, not two, and this is very typical reference padding. As you note, the video is about the artist and gives a passing mention to the gallery. Although you might wish it so, the one source does nothing to help add to the notability of the gallery. If you want to create some cutout in NCORP please feel free but that is very unlikely to gain consensus. (There are art dealers who do meet the NCORP criteria; this one is not.) Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this Reuters video (& its reupload) has already been discussed by me as Ref 14 in my above analysis of the sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. We're not going to throw away the opinions of two dozen AfD participants who have reached consensus on a discussion just because you want a new guideline. The fact that such an unequivocal consensus has arisen based on existing guidelines proves that a new one is not needed. Reyk YO! 15:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the rationale laid out by Jytdog. StrikerforceTalk 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • note, ref added by User:Timtempleton here is a blog by a Forbes contributor and just another crypto-hype ref, like the three cryptoblogs we already have removed. Doesn't contribute to N per WP:ORGCRIT. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Forbes sources was also discussed by me as Ref 1 in my above analysis. In fact, you've also discussed this particular source here earlier. I don't know why the users are adding the same sources which have already been discussed multiple times in this AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of anything that says articles under discussion for deletion can't be improved with relevant info from sourcing. The Forbes writer is an experienced fintech writer with BBC experience - seems pretty legit to me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I guess there is no problem with adding cryptocurrency details, as you did with this edit. But that source doesn't count towards notability, per WP:ORGCRIT. Please also read the above discussion for more relevant details. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:timtempleton, Forbes contributor blogs are treated different from content by Forbes staff. They are specifically mentioned in WP:ORGCRIT, and have been discussed at RSN here and here. Perhaps OK for sourcing content as an RSOPINION, but not relevant to N. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the fact that the gallery takes cryptocurrency is somewhat unique, but not earthshattering. The source I added points this out. I'm basing my weak keep vote on the notable artists who exhibited at the gallery, and their pending expansion into the US, making it their third location. It might be a bit WP:TOOSOON to get significant US coverage, but I'll keep an eye out with a Google alert. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • see above about the ref you added. Your argument is basically WP:INHERITED which is a classic invalid !keep argument. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered that, and in most cases you're right, but I'm willing to look at a gallery or concert hall as being notable for the performances and exhibitions inside, despite the WP:INHERITED argument. That's why I went with weak rather than full on. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, you don't have wp:inherited here. And another correction is in order—the notability of artists who exhibited at the gallery is irrelevant. In fact entirely unknown and un-notable artists would confer more notability on the gallery than prominent and decidedly notable artists—if there are published in reliable sources, reviews of art exhibitions of that artist's work, mounted in the gallery's space or under the auspices of the gallery but in other spaces. We are seeking an evaluation of notability for a gallery of contemporary art. Therefore we want to be mindful of what an art gallery specializing in contemporary art does—it discovers artists. This varies by degree but that element of discovery is what a contemporary art gallery does. A review of an art exhibition, especially of a relatively unknown artist, with little track record of success, has the potential to confer notability on the art gallery, to some degree. This WP:INHERIT charge grows out of a misunderstanding of what a gallery does. We see this time and time again (De Clercq, Maddox) in gallery after gallery with deletion being the result in cases of entirely notable art galleries of contemporary art. The inane argument is that "the notability of the shoes on sale in a shoe store do not confer notability on the shoe store." This is ass-backwards. Shoe stores don't discover shoes. Nike, Puma, or Brooks might discover shoes, but the shoe store in no sense discovers the shoes. More importantly no one ever argued that the notability of an artist, in the instance that the artist is notable, confers notability on the art gallery. So that would be a straw man argument. All that is called for is common sense and a little bit of familiarity with the sort of entity at the heart of an article for deletion, in this case a gallery of contemporary art. Countless artists want to be represented by an art gallery. An art gallery risks its money on the bet that they can spot the next artist whose work can be worth very high prices. This is the case whether the artist is entirely unknown or of only moderate success. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:20, 22 September 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. Tone 08:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song)[edit]

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

No references, no content, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article survived a previous AfD simply because nobody voted, so let's get some votes this time. The nominator is correct on how there is no evidence of notability for this song, and all sources found are the typical streaming and retail sites. Also note that there is no article for its parent album, and given the state of the band's article I wonder if there is anything more to say about their notability as well (though that is a different matter). This song should not get its own article simply because it exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looked for chart entries and can't find any, can't find any signficant coverage either, therefore fails WP:NSONG. I don't see any point in redirecting either, given that there are many song with such title, it'll only clutter thing up. Hzh (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NSONG. This track was never a single – it was created as a stand-alone article by an editor who seemed intent on creating articles for everything remotely related to Emmelie de Forest, who happens to be the guest singer on this track. The group are notable (their two albums have been minor chart hits in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, which I will try and add to the Fahrenhaidt article now), but this song is not, and given that it was only an album track from a not particularly well known group, and with a title that has been used for many other songs, a redirect doesn't seem worthwhile, as it's hard to imagine anyone searching for an article for this particular song. Richard3120 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richard3120. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:57, 17 September 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) Kpgjhpjm 01:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L Tower[edit]

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

Is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Only one independent WP:RS talk about it. That's not enough. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a before. The results were about as unimpressive as the WP:RS at the time of filing. Google search on "L Tower". The new RS is a little better, but seems more interested in the crane on the building than the building itself.
There are no guidelines I am aware of that tall buildings have individual wikipedia articles. That fact seems to be lost on the editors who have created so many articles from the List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto that have terrible WP:RS. If you want those articles to survive, I suggest adding real WP:RS to them.
That said, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article and find much better WP:RS. If other editors agree that the new WP:RS is good enough for notability, I might change my vote. But the article must reflect what is in the WP:RS, not some puff piece for the building, and for better or worse the crane appears to be one of the most notable things about the building based on the RS I reviewed. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The finding of "unimpressive" sources contradicts the opening "Only one independent WP:RS talk about it" sentence. Sorry I'm not buying WP:BEFORE was preformed. The sources later found go much more in-depth with some adding the crane aspect as only a component of their coverage, especially the CBC News one.[33] --Oakshade (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only one in the article. Anyway, based on your good work on sourcing and the feedback from Bearcat, I'm changing to keep. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A building of this height in Toronto is notable. Satisfies GNG. I am happy with the sources provided by Oakshade, and the others available: [34] [35] [36] etc. James500 (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: Please cite some policy or guideline that gives notability to buildings of a certain height. I know of none and would oppose such a guideline as contrary to our general WP:GNG rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:IAR. It allows us to make exceptions to guidelines. Some of the exceptions to GNG have been codified into SNGs, such as GEOLAND, others have yet to be codified. James500 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Buildings are not handed an automatic free notability pass, in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing, just because they happen to surpass a certain arbitrary height — so the building's height is irrelevant to whether it should be kept or not. The clincher here is Oakshade's efforts to improve the sourcing, not anything inherent to the building, and I can attest that additional sources also exist to improve it further: why, for instance, does this article say nothing about the crane, citing sources like this and this and this and this? This is definitely notable, but it's the improved sources that clinch its notability and not just its height per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. All the coverage about the crane doesn't really feel that "deep" and noteworthy, but does count and with the other sources I think it barely crosses the GNG threshold. MB 02:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Buildings should be handed an automatic free notability pass, if they happen to surpass a certain arbitrary height, at least because that means they can be an item in a list of tallest buildings, and at worst their article can be redirected to that item. Apparently, per other editors, there are adequate sources for this to meet wp:GNG though. --Doncram (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.S. This is one of the tallest buildings in the nation, i.e. it is included in List of tallest buildings in Canada, and it is more than 200 meters tall. I think the minimum cutoff for automatic notability of any building should be 100 meters. --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat and Oakshade; enough sources have been provided. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I'll also note that the condo board running the tower was involved in arguably the largest condo fraud scheme in Canadian history. [37] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:33, 18 September 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. There's substantial disagreement here over the quality of the sources, and where they fall on the incidental-to-substantial spectrum. There's good arguments on both sides, so going largely with the weight of numbers on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rock Ventures[edit]

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

Delete Investment firm, no indications of notability, references don't appear to exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Nature reference fails ORGIND as it relies exclusively on interview/statements from founders and contains no original research/opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages alternative. HighKing++ 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I made this page, and think the company probably meets WP:GNG. That said, there are only a limited number of high-quality sources covering these folks though, so I'm ready to admit that this falls into a notability "grey zone" and I thank the nom for questioning the notability. I've beefed up the references a little bit. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources in the article, especially the Fortune, Boston Globe and Nature articles, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP-like, resulting in promotional article such as:
  • "Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock creates companies itself by attracting the world’s leading experts to sign on"! Etc.
Just a directory listing on a venture fund going about its business. Nothing stands out about it, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage in the reliable sources is indcidental , not substantial. The Nature article mentions it in a general article about the overall field; the Globe includes it in a long list of similar firms. None of theis is substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: This is simply wrong. The Nature article is primarily about Third Rock Ventures, not the broader field, and the Globe article contains no such "list of similar firms". You may have a different understanding of what constitutes "incidental" and "substantial" coverage, but your second sentence misrepresents the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG and Arms & Hearts: - Concur with Hearts. The Fortune and Forbes articles are entirely about Third Rock. I'm not saying those are the best sources, but the coverage definitely isn't incidental. NickCT (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wrong about Nature--but upon reading it again it appears to be PR--even though it appears in a source where would would not expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: - What makes it PR? NickCT (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, It is dedicated to presenting the material as the company would wish it presented.
But I gather most people here see this differently; I would withdraw this afd as hopeless, but I cannot, because there's another delete opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: - Well, I wouldn't disagree with you that the coverage in the article seems positive (perhaps in a way that PR might be positive). But I'm not sure it necessarily follows that it's a PR piece. The author and source don't seem to be connected to the company and I'd think we usually consider Nature to be pretty high quality RS.... Anyways, as always, appreciate hearing your thoughts. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the increasing use of promotional interviews as journalism has left be in doubt about the actual reliability of even the best sources. Nature is still reliable for science, but it may not be so for profiles and miscellaneous editorial matter--which are not peer-reviewed and never have been. I've found similar promotional material on people and companies in the NYT, and Washington Post, but in the feature sections, not the actual news. I said many years ago in a RSN discussion that "no source is reliable for every purpose," but I did not realize how bad it was going to get. I still hope that WP at least through its crowd-souring method of review --rather than editorial discretion-- can at least keep itself free from such material, but to do that, we will need to revise our standards to look at the actual material, rather than just where it comes from. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: - Appreciate what you're getting at and absolutely agree that we should avoid sources whose intent is promotion.
Also agree that Nature may not be reliable for editorial matter. That said, it also may be reliable, right? It's possible Nature's "News" section has the same editorial standards the NYT does. Given that we know Nature is reliable in other places, shouldn't we grant them the benefit of the doubt?
I don't want to belabor the point, but just because an article presents a positive image of a place and is mostly interview based, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable.
We're getting a little hung up on the Nature piece.... There's also the Globe, Fortune and Forbes.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Globe nor the Fortune references are Intellectually Independent. As per ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Those articles rely on interviews with the founders and there is nothing in any of those articles that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes reference fails since the author, Luke Timmerman, is a "contributor" and not a Forbes journalist and is not subject to editorial controls. HighKing++ 10:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: - You seem to be looking at articles which have quotes from folks at Third Rock, then you assume that all the facts in those articles are based on quotes from the folks at Third Rock, and thus the articles aren't "unaffiliated from the subject". I'm a little confused how you're making this logical leap. Just because a news piece quotes someone, doesn't mean that the entire piece is somehow tainted. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: Having read the articles, I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Globe article refers to a company announcement and uses statements like "The firm said" along with a posed photo of the cofounders. The fortune article is even worse and meets all the criteria of an infomercial (posed photo, history of company, motivation of founders, problem encountered, problems overcome, success!) and uses unashamedly promotional language throughout. I don't think anyone would seriously believe these are both intellectually independent pieces? HighKing++ 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.... So looking at the following Fortune excerpt;
When Foundation finally launched in 2010, Third Rock backed it with $25 million. Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins later kicked in too. The total, $40 million, far exceeded the typical $5 million to $8 million Series A biotech round.
Your feeling is the source did nothing to independently investigate/analyze it? They just took that factoid for straight from the mouths of the Third Rock folks? What's your basis for saying that? Do you think that that's how journalism works in general? NickCT (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: Sure, if you want to remove everything from the article that isn't clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, I'm sure a couple of sentences might be left. But not a lot and not enough and mostly comments about topics other than about Third Rock and since the vast majority of this article is clearly attributable to sources affiliated with the subject, my opinion is that is fails to be intellectually independent. Also, that sentence you've chosen is more of a comment on Foundation than on Third Rock. And sadly, yeah, that's the way a lot of business journalism appears to work in general these days - most journalists are afraid of voicing their own opinions and simply build "stories" around interviews and quotations which end up parroting the company lines. HighKing++ 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So is it fair to say when you said "I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" you meant, "can only identify very little"? Not trying to be a stickler here, and again, I do appreciate some of your points about the "quality" of business journalism, but find consensus is not helped by exaggeration. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you'd miss the implied context nor did I think it needed to be explained that I couldn't identify any opinion/analysis/etc germane to the company for the purposes of helping establish the notability of the company. Hope that makes it clearer. HighKing++ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fair enough. So how about;
Third Rock won’t disclose its returns. But according to the website of one of its investors, Calpers, its 2007 fund has generated an internal rate of return of 25.7%. That puts it well into the top performance quartile, according to alternative-investment tracker Preqin.
That looks like the source did independent verification. Looks like the factoid speaks to the notability of the company. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no point in trying for precision. Any source at all can be objected to, and that's one of the weakness of our use of GNG as the sole or principal criterion. For most sources, I could argue in either direction. Frankly, I think almost everyone makes consciously or unconsciously a global judgement of notability , based on some combination of what the think the encyclopedia should cover and what they think of the particular subject of the article, and then argues to come to whatever conclusion they think should be best. To take an example other than this, I think we should be very expansive for political parties and religious sects, and I argue accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm ... I just look at the sources. That said, I have on occasion come across an organization that may be very specialist, with mentions in specialist publications that when added up and taken together, leave me inclined to !vote Keep even though an argument exists to disqualify each individual source. Doesn't happen often I'll admit. HighKing++ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is right. Everyone does make some personal judgement about notability. The only question is whether you're able to admit this to yourself.
I'm pretty happy to admit that my judgement on this could easily be biased by the fact that I'm involved in the biotech sector. Obviously a biotech VC firm is going to seem more notable to me than it might to other people.
That said, we should just be focusing on the sources. I'm a little surprised, b/c at this point the article has 6+ mainstream, high quality RS that provide direct coverage. You've got to grant that there have been a lot of AfD discussions where articles survived with a lot less.
I could probably find another dozen sources that provide mentions (e.g. of the kind that say "Third Rockventures funded Company X"), but somehow I don't think that's going help with some of the intransigence here. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, because those types of references would fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There's definitely some intransigence here by people who want to ignore policy/guidelines and instead just "have an opinion". HighKing++ 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence. Convincing.
Listen, as DGG said, if you're going to be really critical, I'll grant you that you could probably discount all these references. That said, the article now has considerably more references (from what are usually considered high-quality sources) than most articles which have survived AfD. You're holding this subject to a different bar. And yes, I get your point about the quality of business journalism and churnalism, so maybe a higher bar is appropriate. But not that high.... NickCT (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not holding it to a different bar. Check my !voting on other AfDs and you'll see I'm applying the same bar everywhere, which are the standards of notability written in the NCORP guidelines. All it takes is for two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'll happily change my !vote. Yourself and DGG are essentially admitting that you're not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP and are !voting to Keep regardless. Fair enough, that's your perogative, but DGG has argued in the past that he doesn't agree with (the application of?) some of the guidelines and you've admitted that applying the guidelines could probably result in the same analysis as mine. Happily, a closer will look at the application of guidelines and the arguments put forward, etc, but from my experience, in practice, the closer will apply whatever the consensus is regardless. Not quite a counting of !votes but close enough as dammit. This is likely to close as a "No Consensus" unless others join in and I'll accept whatever the result is. We're all simply trying to make the encyclopedia better. HighKing++ 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm "not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP". I think I simply have a different interpretation of the standards written in NCORP. You've got to admit that if we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" overly strictly, we could probably discount virtually any source... You've also got to admit that we're examining references which would generally be considered acceptable outside the realm of NCORP.
Anyways, as indicated by my initial "weak" vote, I realize there's reasonable scope for disagreement here... NickCT (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. If we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *correctly* and in the spirit of how to apply the guidelines, then we end up discounting most sources. Not because they're not reliable, but because 99% of business journalism is spam and crap, promotion and churnalism. I'm laughing because as we're having this debate, Ceyockey below added a fantastic book reference which, in my opinion, is intellectually independent and meets the criteria. So that's one good reference. One more and I'll change my !vote. HighKing++ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you've got me really confused. The book reference seems like a "simple listing" to me. If anything, I'd call that reference less good than the news articles, b/c it appears to be more of a "trivial mention" than indepth coverage. Regardless, if it makes you happy..... it can't be that bad... NickCT (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is intellectually independent and discusses their business model is some depth. Ticks the box for me. A "simple listing" is when someone produces a "top 10" list or produces a "directory of VC companies". HighKing++ 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fair enough. It's a little more than a simple listing. But it's also only single paragraph..... NickCT (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep changed to Keep on the basis of the present version. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given DGG's change of !vote, consensus is still not evident on whether to keep or delete this article; giving this last re-list a try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: meh, it's still a "delete" for me. The article is much reduced in length, but still features the claim that I complained about in my iVote:
Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock claims to take a more active role in creating companies by bringing together experts in a field.[6]
Who cares what the company claims about itself? It's now a routine, directory listing; no value to the project. I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH being met here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: - With all due respect, it sounds like you're taking issue with a single sentence. Your criticism of that sentence may be fair, but it's hardly a rationale for deleting the entire article. NickCT (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficiently notable, I believe—There is material beyond that which has been added from news sources. Case in point, I've added a 'business model' section which much of the content is sourced from a 2015 book edited by Satish Nambisan. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, good work. The book reference is also good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines state that we need a minimum two good references. HighKing++ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well thought out arguments in this discussion for keep-- I agree that the bar needs to be high... "but not too high". Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 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. Sufficient reference found, consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-Comm Electronics[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I can't find anything other than passing mentions or business as usual primary documents/press releases. Through perhaps this could help ([38]), if anyone could get full version and check whether there's substantial third-party coverage? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't think of any reasonable policy based argument to keep this. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Urlocker, Michael (1995-03-15). "Satellite success eludes Tee-Comm". Financial Post.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company.

      ...

      Current subscriber levels are a fair accomplishment, but far lower than the 130,000 subscribers the company had predicted, says a Bay Street analyst.

      But with Tee-Comm trading at ranges of between 95 and 120 times estimated 1994 earnings, clearly a lot of investors are behaving as if the company's success has already been achieved.

      Earnings forecasts for 1995 range between no-growth at 8 cents, which Grossner predicts, and a sharp rise to 23 cents a share, forecast by Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc., a small Wall Street brokerage.

      ...

      Of course, predicting the future is a tough game. But one should always keep an eye on current performance. Says one Bay Street analyst: "Sooner or later somebody is going to say, 'At $9, they have to earn 50 cents a share'."

    2. Anderson, Mark (1994-09-02). "CRTC gives Tee-Comm shares a beam of hope". Financial Post.

      The article notes:

      Executives at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. have been grinning like Cheshire cats since federal regulators ruled Tuesday to exempt direct-to-home (DTH) satelite television from detailed regulation - provided it is delivered via Canadian satelites.

      ...

      The ruling effectively shuts U.S. DTH leader Hughes DirecTv Inc. out of the Canadian market: Hughes uses U.S. "deathstar" satellites to deliver its 150 channels of pay-per-view movie and sports programming.

      ...

      Tee-Comm's stock (TEN/TSE) got a boost from the CRTC's ruling. Shares that closed at $2.85 Monday, the day before the ruling, closed yesteday at $3.45.

      ...

      Milton Ont.-based Tee-Comm is one of North America's largest manufacturers and distributors of home-satellite systems, the "big dish" systems popular in rural neighborhoods where cable television service isn't offered.

      Tee-Comm has 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.

    3. Dalglish, Brenda (1995-12-26). "Retail buyers show faith in Tee-Comm's technology". Financial Post.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has had a very good year on the stock market, but a more disappointing one in the laboratory. The stock price of the Milton, Ont., electronics equipment manufacturer more than tripled during the year as investors rushed to get in on the direct-to-home satellite television service that Tee-Comm is helping to develop. But Tee-Comm missed several promised launch dates in the fall, as it worked to resolve problems with the new technology.

      Tee-Comm, which has been manufacturing satellite antennas and receiving dishes since 1983, is developing the receiving dish and set-top receiver box and some of the other associated technology necessary to create a DTH network.

      The article also interviews two analysts:

      Analysts say buyers are almost entirely retail investors rather than institutions, largely because of the speculative nature of the technology involved. They say enthusiasm for the stock got out of control and the shares were due for a correction even before the company said last week its new launch date is expected toward the end of the first quarter of 1996.

      "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date," said one analyst who commented on the condition he was not identified.

      "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States," said another analyst. "I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."

      However, both analysts agreed the fact that Tee-Comm has missed some short-term deadlines is not a fundamental disaster as long as its technology pans out.

    4. Ingram, Matthew (1995-09-26). "Tee-Comm Electronics flying high Interest in Ontario-based satellite-TV company growing in the United States". The Globe and Mail.

      The article notes:

      Over the past few months, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s stock has been flying as high as the satellites it plans to use for its direct-to-home television service - as visions of the "cable of the future" dance in investors' heads.

      Interest has been growing south of the border in particular, where players on the Nasdaq Stock Market are more accustomed to paying high multiples for relatively unproven technology stocks.

      ...

      Larry Woods - a professional investor who runs the Niagara Hedge Fund based in Stoney Creek, Ont. - says he is a long-time fan of Tee-Comm, although he doesn't currently hold any of the stock.

      "It's a phenomenal Canadian success story," he says. "It's become one of the leading companies in North America when it comes to this technology. Now they have American broadcast capability, and they're one of the only companies I know with an MPEG-2 set-top box. They've got it all."

    5. Dummett, Ben (1997-05-23). "Tee-Comm's Bank Places Firm In Receivership; Board Resigns". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm Electronics Inc., hurt by price wars in the U.S. satellite-television industry, said its bank put it into receivership and demanded repayment of the firm's credit line.

      Tee-Comm, an operator of satellite television services, also said its board resigned, including the company's founder, Al Bahnman. Mr. Bahnman remains president and chief executive officer.

      ...

      Tee-Comm's rivals were able to subsidize their products, because they had access to "deep pockets" that Tee-Comm lacked, said Philip Benson, industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. in Toronto. DirecTV is owned by Hughes Electronics Corp., a division of General Motors Corp. PrimeStar is owned by a group of cable operators including Tele-Communications Inc. and Time Warner Inc.

      ...

      Tee-Comm has been looking for a strategic partner for the past couple of years without success because it entered the U.S. market behind its rivals, Mr. Benson said.

    6. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-22). "Satellite TV company hits a black hole Bank reviewing Tee-Comm's credit facility". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm shares, which had a 52-week high of $16.10, have been hammered lately.

      They closed yesterday at 68 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange, down 21 cents.

      Can Tee-Comm be saved?

      "Let's put it this way, I shook my head last weekend when I saw my neighbor at the cottage with a new AlphaStar dish," said Philip Benson, an industry analyst with MMI Group Inc.

    7. Brehl, Robert (1996-08-16). "Tee-Comm ready to offer satellite TV". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Yesterday, tiny Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. made it clear it has had it with phone giant BCE Inc. and other partners in grounded satellite company ExpressVu Inc.

      ExpressVu and BCE are not exactly enamored with Tee-Comm, either.

      Now Tee-Comm is going it alone - promising to be the "first" to launch a Canadian direct-to-home satellite service called AlphaStar Canada.

    8. "Tee-Comm Unit in Town of Tonawanda Files for Bankruptcy". The Buffalo News. 1997-06-03. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      A second unit of satellite television company Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has filed for bankruptcy court protection from its creditors.

      Tee-Comm Distribution Inc., 250 Cooper Ave., Town of Tonawanda, listed assets of $10 million and liabilities of approximately $105 million, according to papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Friday

      A week ago, another unit of Tee-Comm Electronics, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. of Stamford, Conn., filed for Chapter 11 protection.

      ...

      Tee-Comm Electronics, based in Montreal, has 50,000 subscribers in the United States and 6,000 in Canada.

    9. Brehl, Robert (1996-06-19). "TV-dish imports spark tussle Tee-Comm denies dealers' charges". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
    10. Rubin, Sandra (1994-06-02). "Tee-Comm takes on giants with TV dish". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Milton-based Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has a message for a newly formed consortium of Canadian communications giants who have a plan to beam scores of TV channels to tiny home satellite dishes.

      Tee-Comm wants in -- but not at any cost, the company's management said yesterday.

      ...

      Tee-Comm, Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems, is negotiating with the consortium.

    11. Brehl, Robert (1996-05-31). "Tee-Comm slaps a lid on ExpressVu spending". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. will not let the problem-plagued ExpressVu Inc. drag the company down, Tee-Comm's chairman says.

      Milton-based Tee-Comm was one of the original investors in the direct-to-home satellite company that just can't seem to get to market.

      Tee-Comm has passed on the last two cash calls at ExpressVu and equity has slipped from 33 per cent to 22 per cent. Tee-Comm will spend no more on ExpressVu but will focus on the U.S. satellite service called AlphaStar, of which Tee-Comm owns 97 per cent, chairman Al Bahnman told the annual meeting.

    12. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-09). "Tee-Comm takes beating One-time darling of Bay Street drops to 85 cents". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Canada's only operational direct-to-home satellite TV company was hammered on the stock market yesterday, losing almost 60 per cent of its value.

      Once the darling of Bay Street, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. fell to 85 cents yesterday, down $1.20 on extremely heavy trading of 3.4 million shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

      Tee-Comm, which owns AlphaStar Canada, had a 52-week high of $16.10.

      The company has long been looking for a white knight and yesterday it issued a news release that triggered a wave of selling.

    13. Brehl, Robert (1997-02-15). "Local entrant holds own in TV dish race Tee-Comm brings product to U.S. market". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm has had problems, management and shareholders acknowledge. Its launch of AlphaStar was delayed over and over for about a year until it finally got going in the fall.

      Many observers, including the president of rival ExpressVu and some financial analysts, wonder if AlphaStar has the money to keep going much longer. Tee-Comm has reportedly been close many times to finding partners with deep pockets, but still no official announcement.

      AlphaStar's dish is not nearly as nifty as the popular DirecTV and EchoStar dishes from the United States. It is a lot smaller than those old eight-foot dishes out in the country or obtrusively atop urban sports bars.

    14. Masters, Ian G. (1998-01-01). "Plenty of surprises in store for '98". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      The sourest note in all this is that one of the pioneering companies in consumer satellite distribution was not able to survive. AlphaStar had the distinction of being the first Canadian service in operation, but its parent company - Tee-Comm Electronics - went broke just as the other services were launching. Tee-Comm had been a member of the original ExpressVu consortium, but had dropped out as its partners dithered, and set up its own service.

      It didn't have the financial depth of the giant phone and cable companies behind the other services, however, and it foundered.

    15. Futch, Michael (1997-08-31). "More Americans Turn to Dishes". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      At this time, AlphaStar -- with about 58,000 subscribers -- is not a serious option. Its parent company is Tee-Comm Electronics. The Canadian company has its troubles, having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy several months ago. It is proceeding through bankruptcy and the sale of its assets.

      Earlier this month, AlphaStar subscribers stopped receiving the service signal.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tee-Comm Electronics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As Cunard well knows, the test is *not* "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which confuses more editors into thinking that the sources simply have to be unconnected with the company, but rather (as explained in detail in WP:ORGIND) must be both functionally and intellectually independent. Many of his deceptively selective quotations above omit the parts that show the reference fails intellectual independence. I randomly selected two references above (5 and 9) and both exclusively rely on connected sources. Most of the other references appear to be incidental and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a very few occasions when Cunard references something that meets the criteria for establishing notability but Cunard has ignored calls for him in the past to 1) Stop posting his references in this manner 2) Read NCORP, especially ORGIND. Since he can't be bothered, I don't see why others should take his efforts seriously either. I'm of the opinion that none of the individual references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some more sources:
    1. Acheson, Keith; Maule, Christopher John (2001). Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08789-1. Retrieved 2018-09-18.

      The book notes:

      1995: DirecTV protests to FCC Tee-Comm's application to provide a DTH service, AlphaStar, in the United States.

      ...

      1996: Tee-Comm leaves ExpressVu Inc. and licenses AlphaStar in Canada.

      ...

      1997: AlphaStar, Star Choice, ExpressVu initiate licensed service.

      ...

      1997: AlphaStar goes out of business.

      ...

      Like TRIO, Newsworld, and MuchMusic, Tee-Comm went continental and launched its AlphaStar service in the United States on July 1, 1996. Tee-Comm then applied for and received a license to launch its service in Canada.21 The CRTC allowed AlphaStar to deliver its Canadian services using American satellites until it could arrange to obtain space on Canadian satellites. By the end of May 1997, AlphaStar was out of business and Tee-Comm was in receivership. At the time of its bankruptcy, there were an estimated 7,000 subscribers in Canada and 60,000 in the United States.22

      Footnotes

      21. CRTC Decision 97–87, Ottawa, February 27, 1997.

      22. Globe and Mail, August 7, 1997, B1, B6.

      The article notes:

      The CRTC's treatment of satellite carriage in the DTH dispute generated a response in the American regulatory arena. Tee-Comm had contracted with AT&T for satellite services to deliver its AlphaStar service in the United States. DirecTV requested the American broadcasting regulator, the FCC, to deny AlphaStar the right to provide the DTH service. The request was based on two arguments. One was that delivering a DTH signal using a Canadian uplink was illegal. The second was couched in terms of "fundamental fairness." DirecTV maintained that allowing AlphaStar to operate in the United States if DirecTV could not provide a service in Canada was unfair. Tee-Comm and AT&T responded to both allegations. They claimed that all uplinking services could and would, if necessary, originate in the United States.32 With regard to the fairness issue, they told the FCC that "procedures in Canada are changing and may permit the market entry that DirecTV is seeking."33 When the Canadian directives to the CRTC established rules for licensing consistent with Power DirecTV's business plan, DirecTV withdrew its petition and the FCC dismissed it without prejudice.

      ...

      Footnotes

      31. CRTC Decisions 93–235, and 93–236, Ottawa, June 25, 1993.

      32. See "DirecTV attempts to block AlphaStar U.S. DTH bid at FCC," Satellite News. May 22, 1995.

    2. Nohria, Nitin (1998). The Portable MBA Desk Reference: An Essential Business Companion. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-24530-8. Retrieved 2018-09-18.

      The book discusses "demand lending" and gives Tee-Comm as an example. The book notes:

      Tee-Comm Electronics, Inc., a satellite television company in Milton, Ontario, fell into receivership when the Bank of Montreal called for immediate payment of a loan worth more than $34 million. After reaching a high on the Toronto Stock Exchange of $18.75, shares of Tee-Comm fell to $0.68 in May 1997 (Dalglish 1997).

      [Reference]

      Daglish, Brenda. 1997. Tee-Comm slides into receivership. Financial Post (Toronto), 23 May, 1.

    3. Waal, Peter (1997). "Tee-Comm's fall to earth is met with controversy and threats". Canadian Business. Retrieved 2018-09-18.

      The article notes:

      File this under the heading "Investment Protection." On May 23, 1997, at about 8 p.m., two men in suits showed up unannounced at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s offices in Milton, Ont. Tee- Comm, a Canadian direct-to- home (DTH) digital satellite-TV company, had recently gone into receivership.

      Claiming to represent "a significant Winnipeg investor," the men told Tee-Comm president and CEO Al Bahnman that the investor was extremely upset about having lost his money and that he wanted it back. Believing the two men were simply naïve, Bahman laughed off their request and …

      …

      In May, Bank of Montreal forced the former Bay Street darling—which one had a market capitalization of $500 million and attracted high-profile board members, including, briefly, Perrin Beatty—into receivership and its US subsidiary, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. into Chapter 11 (the US bankruptcy protection clause). That left many investors, especially Nesbitt Burns Inc., which had a sizable holding in Tee-Comm stock out of luck.

      ...

      Clive Hobson, Tee-Comm's former investor relations manager, says the company also received threatening calls from irate DTH dealers and customers and that Tee-Comm's Miami office was threatened a couple of times by investors from Puerto Rico.

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources I provided above? Here is a summary of the information from the sources (sometimes closely paraphrased):
    1. In 1994, Tee-Comm was Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems.
    2. In 1994, Tee-Comm had 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.
    3. Tee-Comm was a publicly traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange and at one point had a market capitalization of $500 million.
    4. Tee-Comm attracted high-profile board members including Perrin Beatty.
    5. When the company went bankrupt, BMO Nesbitt Burns held a significant portion of the shares.
    6. Harvard Business Professor Nitin Nohria included Tee-Comm as an example of "demand lending" in his 1998 book The Portable MBA Desk Reference.
    7. The analysts Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc. and Philip Benson of MMI Group Inc. followed the company in the 1990s. There likely are numerous other analysts who have followed the company and written analyst reports about it because sources like Financial Post say, "Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company." Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability. It is difficult to obtain such analyst reports today because Tee-Comm went bankrupt 21 years ago.
    8. A 1995 Financial Post article interviews two analysts about Tee-Comm. One analyst says, "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date". The second analyst says, "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States. I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."
    9. The Toronto Star interviewed Philip Benson, an industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. about whether Tee-Comm could be saved from bankruptcy. Benson said, "Let's put it this way, I shook my head last weekend when I saw my neighbor at the cottage with a new AlphaStar dish."
    I think there is enough information here to demonstrate the company's significance. I think the sources have provided enough independent analysis of the company (from the analysts' critical comments, for example). What do you think?

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are delete !votes, this AFD can't be closed on that basis alone. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent sources by Cunard, who found numerous, significant pieces in major Canadian newspapers with national distribution. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Piotrus:, @Patar knight:, perhaps you or someone else could point me to any reference that meets the criteria for Intellectual Independence, specifically Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The best example I can find is the book "Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes" mentioned above but oddly enough, I cannot find the parts quoted - but even so there's enough in the book to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A minimum of two references are required. If you guys have found another, let me know and I'll change my current Delete !vote and the nom can be withdrawn. HighKing++ 14:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dispute the proposed deletion because this is a company that is the heritage of the first direct digital to home satellite TV service. KJRehberg (talk) 18:17, 18 September 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 merge to Eurodance. As has been suggested in the discussion, the title is quite useless as a search term, so my suggestion would be that the page be tagged for non-controversial deletion per this AfD once the merge has been performed. Vanamonde (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up (music)[edit]

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

Music genre article is a recent creation of editor now blocked re WP:RS issues. Sibling article is also in AfD. On point, this article's four existing citations are not RS. Searches do not seem to demonstrate the nominal topic will meet GNG's bar of "significant coverage." Someone with more category expertise may be able to locate sufficient coverage, but I did not. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is whether Eurodance is the correct merger target – it's only mentioned in two of the seven sources you cite, and at least one of those sources is non-RS. One of the other sources calls it a derivative of hardstyle (and so does this German source [46]), and yet another of the above sources says it's a slowed-down version of happy hardcore. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or plain delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above comments but maybe don't Redirect. A pretty useless search term but the content appears to be verifiable. Redditaddict69 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Or delete? A final shout-out
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the refs offered above support the claim it is a variation of eurodance unambiguously. Szzuk (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, consider this style is most popular in Germany (so experts will likely be German and don't frequent English wiki), having a merged version under eurodance will allow more editors to stumble upon/work on the article. HKO2006 (talk) 13:58, 20 September 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. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Nguyen (basketball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS, not drafted, only played in the VBA. Passing mentions only in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. JC7V-constructive zone 04:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only signficant coverage I found was this article at AseanSports.com, which I am not familiar with but will give benefit of the doubt that it is reliable. Does not meet SNG WP:NHOOPS either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a few sources to the article to at least source the statements there. It is possible there are some sources in the Vietnamese speaking media, a super short search turned these up [47] [48]. I might take a better look at it tonight. — Dammit_steve (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but my usual caveat is that unless we are fluent in the foreign language or familiar with the publisher's country, many on English Wikipedia too readily assume that any hit on Google is a reliable source, whereas we'd be more able to filter promotional, non-reliable, or non-independent sources written in English from countries which we are more familiar. For sports, it's all too common that non-notable bios are created because a writer mistakenly believes that any pro player in the world is inherently notable and deserves an article.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offence taken on my part. In AFD discussions like these where I'm unfamiliar with the league and the country media I usually stay neutral and just post possible reliable sources to help others decide. Dammit_steve (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google translate makes these sources pretty easy to assess. To me they seem fair - I would certainly want significantly more to pass GNG, but more than a passing mention. Sort of moves the bar in the right direction but doesn't demonstrate enough. Just as importantly, both sources are from the same publisher, so we only have one not terribly impressive source here.Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely doesn't meet the notability criteria for basketball players. As best I can tell, WP:GNG is not met, either. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NHOOPS is not met, but that's not as thorough a guideline as some of the other NSPORTS guidelines. I think there's enough coverage in Vietnamese to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in Vietanemse aren't impressive as stated by Rlendog and they don't show that he passes NSPorts or WP:GNG. He fails WP:NHOOPs as you state too. Plus nearly all basketball players from that league don't have articles. JC7V-constructive zone 20:20, 17 September 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. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Boxing Association (1984)[edit]

National Boxing Association (1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable fringe boxing organisation in a sea of many who try to seek legitimacy. A recent primary contributor has, interestingly, tried to remove all mentions of the original NBA, which—as most boxing aficionados should know—became the WBA. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independent coverage showing either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP is satisfied. Minor boxing organization apparently hoping to capitalize on using the former name of the WBA. Notability isn't inherited from having a few well-known fighters as its champions--Boxrec lists it as a minor organization and its titles don't even appear in the individuals' list of fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 16 September 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 Withdrawn. The result was for the article to be kept and I hereby consider my nomination to withdrawn. (non-admin closure)
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thaworn Farm F.C.[edit]

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

Copying my nomination comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roi Et 2018 F.C.:

A fifth-tier amateur football club, references in the article are to seemingly unreliable sources, with one of them being a Facebook link and none of them being inline. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG and—although it's an essay—WP:FOOTYN#Club notability.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC); 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Paul_012; I'm willing to trust that the news report says what he says it says, and that other sourcing exists, even if it isn't online. Once notable is always notable, even if they don't see any coverage from the internet age. The only problem is that we don't really have sources that we can use to cite an article, so even if notable, its difficult to justify a standalone article that can't be sourced. Delete Per nom. Can't find anything better in searches. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject's notability established in the 1980s. The Facebook link listed in the article is a recording of a Channel 3 programme with 4 minutes covering the club, describing them as one of the more famous teams of the era. Since their peak was over thirty years ago, most of the coverage they received would be in offline sources, which very likely exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This team doesn't pass. I think all amateur football club in the word don't pass. This team famous thai football team before modern computer born. If SshibumXZ can't listen Thai language, You may not chaotic.Aquaelfin (talk) 9:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Paul 012. The TV programme in the reference show lots of pictures of team on old magazines covers, photos from newspaper. So offline coverage was indeed plenty in that era. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above, likely notable. GiantSnowman 14:26, 13 September 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. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roi Et 2018 F.C.[edit]

Roi Et 2018 F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fifth-tier amateur football club, references in the article are to seemingly unreliable sources, with one of them being a Facebook link and none of them being inline. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG and—although it's an essay—WP:FOOTYN#Club notability.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC); edited 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 12 September 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) Kpgjhpjm 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Powell[edit]

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

It would seem every reference is to a blog or publication by the subject, or from his alma mater. The only notable information are the notable (if any) awards won, which would be listed in the articles on THOSE awards. Every winner of every award, whether that award be notable or not, does not automatically merit their own article. Therefore, this page simply doesn't appear to meet the criteria for Notable, at this time. It requires SIGNIFICANT coverage of the subject themselves over a period of time in RS UNRELATED to the subject. Perhaps more there are stand alone articles on Mr. Powell and his career that could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD22:4E0:C812:4F8F:797B:FD30 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of the nomination at this time. --Finngall talk 19:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Awards won by a subject, and write-ups pertaining to them, are indeed a valid criterion for notability. Awards are indeed among the things that make something notable. The idea that such material is appropriate only for an article on those awards, but not in articles on those who've won them, sounds rather specious. A write up on Comics Beat is also another valid citation, which isn't a blog, and Heidi MacDonald is a recognized industry journalist. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the discography section can probably go, as his recording career is non-notable. But as a cartoonist, Mr. Powell definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE: the awards he has won are verifiable, and there are features on Mr. Powell in The Arkansas Times [49], The Washington Post [50] The Herald-Times [51], an article about the graphic novel March from NPR [52], and reviews of his work in The A.V. Club and Paste, among others. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nightscream and Richard3120. James500 (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the guy won an Eisner award, which is the most prestigious award the comic industry has. I suggest the nominator review criteria 4c of WP:ARTIST. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In agreement with the other Keep votes above. The article needs to concentrate on his successful comics career, with much less material (maybe none at all) on his minor musical accomplishments, but his notability is easily demonstrated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As a musician he is a non-entity and I recommend it is not significant enough to merit mention in the leade. His was amateur, non-notable involvement. It deserves about as much mention in the leade as does his 10-year career working with adult disabilities patients. But the Ignatz and Eisner awards clearly meet notability requirement for graphic artist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:31, 13 September 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. Tone 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slimcase[edit]

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

Promotional biography written by WP:SPA, moved to Draft and moved back by the same SPA. Spam. No secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 12 September 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. Tone 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toukon Retsuden (TV series)[edit]

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

not notable; possibly COI; AfD discussion from 2005 shows delete decision, but it's still here. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject was mentioned in passing in a 2005 Boston Globe article [53] but that seems to be it for reliable sources. Old episodes on YouTube and links on wrestling forums don't count toward notability, so subject fails WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It easily fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, the article has no reliable sources at all (except it's website which doesn't establish any notability). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armegon (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (upcoming film)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines and in particular future film guidelines. Films that have not been released are only notable if production itself is notable. The events listed here are pre-production events.

This draft was in AFC and was declined, but has been moved to article space bypassing AFC.

Different editors take different interpretations of the future film guidelines. The first is that films that are in production are notable if the start of production is documented. The second is that the guideline means exactly what it says, and films in production are notable only if production itself is notable. I suggest that we re-establish that the guideline actually means what it says. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, first, the start of production on Joker is documented. Second, the production itself is notable. It is a film centered around a popular supervillain character who commonly populates the Batman-universe. Thirdly, the article is well sourced, well written and this user believes ready for the mainspace. TheMovieGuy
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article says that filming was set to start on September 10. It's the 12th... has filming started? If it has, then I'd vote keep per WP:NFILM. (not watching, please {{ping}}) JOEBRO64 20:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But only because principle photography has just started. No official statement yet, but the director says it has. [54][55] And the production is very well reported on thus clearly notable. A film like this is widely anticipated beyond what is normal and does not fit the guideline well. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Principal photography has begun. No idea why you're debating its notability either since it is clear from sources that the film is notable. JustaFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not quite sure what counts as production, but it seems like the production section passes WP:GNG right now. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article clearly notable, well-written and well-sourcedMatt14451 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. At worst, this would be moved to draftspace, not deleted. The nomination seems rather pointy. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep production has begun, a notable film. Vmars22 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfy both condition. Principal photography has begun [56] and production itself is notable (independent coverage from multiple WP:RS).--Let There Be Sunshine 08:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFF since filming has begun on this. Deletion or merging would be more appropriate if the film was stuck in development or pre-production with no certainty of being made. Of course, the start of filming does not directly mean a work will be made, but it crosses a threshold of being much, much more likely for that to happen. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this discussion be closed now? There has been a consensus to keep the article and the film has already commenced filming. There's no need to keep this discussion active anymore. Armegon (talk) 18:02, 17 September 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 15:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desportivo de Cova Figueira[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football club per WP:FOOTYN. Never participated in national championship, has played in the Fogo island premier division (currently second division) for a few years, but never won. Markussep Talk 09:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Markussep Talk 09:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand, what has changed from the keep that was decided in the previous discussion? They competed in their National Championship as per this source that was given in the discussion. NZFC(talk)(cont) 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised about that conclusion, because the cited reference does not say that they competed in the national competition. According to the source you quote, they competed in the Fogo Opening Tournament, the Fogo Regional Championship and the Fogo Regional Cup, and won neither of those. I checked the participants of the Cape Verde Championships since 1996, and they were not in them. Markussep Talk 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did the nominator review the previous consensus? Source provided above to qualify WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Contrary to what was stated in the previous AfD, Desportivo never played in the national competition. They did not win the Fogo Island League (which would have given them access to the national championship), they won the Fogo Second Division competition a few times (which gave them promotion to the Fogo Premier Division). Markussep Talk 13:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really still don't see a problem, as far as I can see if they have played in the national cup competition in Cape Verde playing four games, loosing three and drawing one. This is obviously a grey area because all the football is amateur level but I am inclined to stay with keep. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When did they play in the national cup competition? I couldn't find that. Markussep Talk 15:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and previous AFD discussion. GiantSnowman 11:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. I'm a weak delete on WP:GNG grounds since couple articles have been written on the club but they all appear to be from the same press release, I don't read Portuguese anyways so giving a slight benefit of the doubt, and other sources might be available. I cannot find any verification on rsssf.com the club ever played in the national competition or in the national cup. Was originally kept on a mistaken assumption between the island's first and second division. If kept, needs a massive cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 11:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching pulls up a couple of marginal sources, but not enough to meet the GNG. The WP:FOOTYN essay should not be used as a reason for keeping or deleting a team article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the practice of keeping articles about clubs that have played in national championships is not a bad one in general, applying it blindly is unwise, in my opinion. We are arguing here to keep a page based entirely on an unknown website documenting the fact that this club played once in the national competition of a country of half a million people. The city leagues of most metros have a larger population to draw from. This threshold is absurdly low, and we need to ignore it in this (and similar) cases. Vanamonde (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RSSSF is a reliable website for historical football research. The biggest problem here is rather the team never actually played in the national competition - just their island's competition - and WP:GNG is borderline at best. SportingFlyer talk 06:34, 22 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Srinivas[edit]

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

The article is full of BLP violations, which I've partially removed. I'm not seeing evidence that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG, or at least not seeing any reliable sources that prove that any evidence that they do meet these is true. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SkyGazer 512, in all fairness,whilst the article was poorly sourced, there were no immediate red-flags from a BLP perspective.Our policy states that Contentious material about living persons might be removed without any discussion.You removed a lot of un-sourced promo-content (and it is right, enough:-)) but BLP is too strong a reason to be exploited as a cause.Best, ∯WBGconverse 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: There was some potentially controversial unsourced BLP info in the article left, at the time of my nomination. I just removed more of it now, though, but the section about the songs he sang is still unsourced.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 12:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked a revision predating your removals, and there's nothing useful. One of the citations went to a non-working page; this isn't a problem for something old, where there's been time for linkrot, but this is only a few days old, so it's highly unlikely that there was reliable content there. Another citation went to the front page of a Telugu website, which is basically just an introductory portal with no text about anything other than the website: it's highly unlikely that there's anything about this person there. Most of the rest of the citations went to English pages with no reference to this person, or a mere passing mention with nothing really about him. And finally, one page had a little content, but it's just a celebrity gossip website, not something that can be trusted one bit. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 18 September 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. Tone 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avlok Kohli[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. One source only mentions him in passing, the other doesn't mention his name at all. The only additional sources I could find via Google news aren't much better. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails all tests for notability. I as well was not able to find any redeeming sources online. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 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. Tone 08:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deviser Platform[edit]

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

Not seeing the level or depth of coverage needed to pass WP:NSOFTWARE, let alone WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON also needs to be considered, as the software launched in August 2018. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xterm[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My concern was that this software is not notable and has only "how-to" mentions in tech website articles. Other mentions don't strike me as significant and some are not independent. wumbolo ^^^ 14:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was the standard X terminal in the early days of X windows and was ubiquitous to the point it became a generic name for any X terminal application, e.g., "Open up an xterm and...". A simple WP:BEFORE search shows many GScholar and GBook hits, especially from the 90s, of which some exemplars are noted above. Easily passes notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of RS to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously!!!. scope_creep (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – ubiquitous software, with actual books written about it. WP:SNOW Bradv 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Ridiculous nomination, This is a very popular piece of software. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 13 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everwin Pneumatic[edit]

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

An advert. A highly detailed advert, but still an advert. Despite namedropping of its competition, no real sign of notability. Calton | Talk 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: Immediately received careful revision and removal of all contents that may be considered subjective and biased after the article was given the notice of a proposal for deletion. As of now, the article seems neutral and objective enough to be a purely academic article. As a result, I strongly oppose against the idea of deletion. W22593889 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: W22593889 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

*KEEP: I say this page at its present state is formatted correctly from a neutral point of view and is of a notable subject, it should stay on Wikipedia. I don't see signs of this article being an advert and through a google search, the subject is indeed notable in it's sector. Andywayno (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Andywayno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NORG, =WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above arguments fail to show in any way how the company meets WP:NCORP. The article is currently sourced to the company website and other non-independent/non-reliable sources; unable to find anything in the way of sourcing Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is an archived article from the official website of Stanley Black and Decker an "non-independent/non-reliable source"? I should think that having a close relationship with a Fortune 500 company of the United States should make the topic of this article notable enough. W22593889 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a press release from a company buying shares in this company: it unambiguously fails, being non-independent (involved party) and a non-reliable source (press release). --Calton | Talk 07:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This page is well-formatted, neutral and while the subject isn't a household name, it is notable in its sector. Wikipedia is about sharing true information from a neutral point of view for users who wish to learn more regarding field of the subject and; this page does just that. If notability of the subject and reliability of cited sources are determined by individuals who have insufficient knowledge regarding the subject, it would be extremely difficult to spread truthful but less-known information from users who are willing to share. 210.242.86.75 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — 210.242.86.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.[reply]

  • It's odd to use adjectives like "well-formatted" and "neutral" -- the exact terms used by User:Andywayno above, in fact -- to describe an article. Tell me, what does formatting have to do with notability standards? --Calton | Talk 06:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*"well-formatted" and "neutral" have little to do with notability standards, its simple shows that the article displays truthful and genuine information about the subject; information the page creators strive to share with readers who wish to learn about the said subject. Now please tell me User:Calton, what knowledge do you have of the pneumatic tool industry that makes you such an expert to judge a subject's notability in this particular sector?

210.242.86.75 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Striking comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have some comments from more experienced editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCORP. SpinningSpark 17:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The company has no signficant coverage in any reliable sources (not counting brief mentioning in personal blogs or PR releases). And the whole article is an obvious promotional advert, especially seeing how desperate someone is to keep this article by creating a bunch of sock accounts for voting "Keep" in this nomination. I'd vote "Delete" just based on that fact alone, even if the company would have an in-depth coverage in WSJ, NY Times, CNN, Fox and dozens of other publications.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 18:31, 16 September 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. GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 15:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheReportOfTheWeek[edit]

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

Nearly all the supporting refs are his own videos and interviews of him clearly intended to promote his market share. I can see nothing here which is both reliable and independent and which asserts any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sourcing seems to overly focus on self-sourcing, which should be reduced heavily. I'm going to list what I can find. if you say there's no independent sourcing, then you didn't look very hard, as CNN Money's coverage is right there in the Refs.

Source #1 is solid. Source #2, I don't know. Is NYMag a RS? Source 3-6 deal with his death Hoax, where he is not the main focus of the news, but he is reported on. I would say that Reviewbrah is either notable, or just on the cusp of being notable. With the amount of subs he has, he will likely get more news coverage soon. So if this page is deleted, in 6 months or a year he might have enough coverage to pass GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - reference 1 is an interview - does not meet WP:RS, ref 2 is an interview (perhaps the same interview re-hashed?), the next three are all about the criminal deception after the Manchester bombing in which his photo was posted by others(?) and he had to deny that he was there. Do you get notability by not being somewhere and then denying you were there ? This would be the most vacuuous type of notability it would be possible to imagine. If Wikipedia is prepared to stoop that low then it ceases to be an trust-worthy encyclopaedia IMHO.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Interviews not being RS. The word "Interview" does not appear on WP:RS at all, so I'm not sure where you're basing that on. I would also describe it as more of a CNN profile, which includes interview portions. I can imagine a scenario wheresomeone gives interviews for major news networks every day for decades, but you would classify him as not notable since it was interviews. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the subject says in an interview is a primary source and thus limited in what it should be used for (the subject can't really be a neutral source of information about himself), but they absolutely contribute to notability. The whole idea of notability is about deferring to outside organizations' judgments about who/what is worthy of note. A full-length interview in a mainstream publication shows that. They're also rarely all primary, with introductory text and additional information/context/analysis by the interviewer/editor. That's not to say I'm !voting keep here. I'm not sure. I do agree that the coverage of the bombing-related hoaxes have more to do with that subject than this one, so don't give them much weight, but the CNN Money and NY Magazine sources are decent. Just did a search to find more without much luck save for short things like this on Mashable and this on Daily Dot. There are also sources in other languages that I'm unfamiliar with so don't know how much weight to give them: Tillate, Lenta.ru... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Lenta.ru is a pretty well-read online Russian newspaper, the content there is not an interview, it is indeed talking about him. So source and provenance both okay here. talk to !dave 12:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I won't give a Keep or Delete judgement, but I will bring up this. "reference 1 is an interview - does not meet WP:RS." I'm seeing this type of comment so many times on AFD discussions. I'll let this summarize how I feel about this (redacted copyrighted YouTube link). editorEهեইдအ😎 20:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be the police here, but we can't use links to YouTube videos that are copyright violations. talk to !dave 12:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me guess. It's also a copyright violations to link to other news sources because they're copyrighted.... Yeah, I'm pretty sure the non-free media guidelines don't go that far to include just links. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EditorE: Not correct. Most of the news websites we link to own the copyright to their content. This content is not a violation of copyright, since they own it, and we have not sourced to a page that plagiarised the original content. The video you had linked was a copyright violation, another person had taken that clip from a film, where some other legal entity owns the copyright to the film. If that clip was uploaded by the copyright holders of the film, then there would be no issue. Fair use doesn't come into play here since we are not hosting that content on our servers, but linking to it. See WP:YT and this for a case study. talk to !dave 09:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and this little gem: "interviews of him clearly intended to promote his market share." Some of them are from reliable sources, and how do you know for sure that they're to "promote his market share?" The argument that "nearly all the supporting refs are his own videos" could be valid if there were no third-person sources cited, but the claim about the interviews just being promotional material is just a subjective statement that has no basis in the actual, objective determining of a subject's notability that's based on the amount of verifiable, independent sources a subject has received, and I got some bad news, those include.... interviews. I've seen people on here doing this crap, and it's getting nonsensical. I'm not commenting or attacking any person, I'm just stating something that's negatively affecting how decisions are made in these discussions. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the best sources we have are interviews, and those are problematic. I don't know why WP:RS doesn't mention them - the issue was discussed in the past many times ([58]). While Wikipedia:Interviews is classified as an essay, it represents to my knowledge the best consensus on what interviews are - and just as common sense suggests, they are primary sources, unless there's editorial commentary, which is very sparse in the sources provided. Overall, I don't see the subject as one who has received significant, independent, and reliable coverage: he has received passing mentions, and got to publish his own views about himself and some issues in forms of interviews in some reliable outlets - but that fails the independent requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things: One, got some bad news for you. Source reliability determination isn't based on "common sense." Second, "While Wikipedia:Interviews is classified as an essay." Yes, it's just a stupid essay, that's not a guideline. You can't use that. Refer to what I said about subjectivity in the top comment. Moral of the story: this is an invalid argument you have made. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Harizotoh9's first two sources both satisfy WP:GNG, as does the Forbes source cited in the article, at least in my opinion, so I am in disagreement with people who think the GNG is not satisfied. Also, I have looked at the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, which is not actually official Wikipedia policy but an essay regarding notability for YouTubers but it does give helpful guidance to deletion discussions involving people primarily known for their YouTube videos. According to it, WP:ENT is something that is generally considered to need to be satisfied regarding YouTube personalities, even though nobody has brought up WP:ENT before. I think having 1.1 million subscribers just barely fulfills the 2nd criterion of WP:ENT, “Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following”. Earlier I thought that number was rather low in 2018 and I would have set the bar for “large fan base” at between 2 million and 5 million subscribers, but I looked up at the statistics again after seeing EditorE’s reply, such as the numbers at List of most-subscribed YouTube channels among other things, and decided to move the arbitrary cutoff point for “large fan base” down to be EXACTLY 1 million, so with 1.1 million subscribers, this channel meets that criterion. I suppose maybe we ought to try and come to some kind of consensus regarding what exact number of YouTube subscribers constitutes a “large fan base” per WP:ENT, since no number is specified in that policy. I would suggest standardizing it at exactly 1 million subscribers in the case of YouTube personalities, after considering the reply EditorE made below which led me to reconsider my original vote, which was to Delete on the basis of 1.1 million not being a high enough number. Yetisyny (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC), edited Yetisyny (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I do not think WP:ENT is quite satisfied here." One question.... HOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW??????????? The people in this discussion are lying to you when they're saying the interview sources are primary sources. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Yetisyny: FYI When someone has responded to a talk page comment, best practice is to redact rather than just edit your original. It removes the context for the discussion. See WP:REDACT. For those seeking context, here is the diff of the refactoring. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for letting me know about that best practice, I am sorry about it. If I left in a delete vote and crossed it out with strikethrough and then added a keep vote, I thought that might be confusing for people about where I stand. I was editing my comment because I no longer agreed with what I originally wrote but I see your point about other people wanting to know the context of a discussion if there was a reply. Anyway I think EditorE will be happy about convincing me to change my mind about the exact number of YouTube subscribers needed to satisfy WP:ENT, but I guess people who want to know what happened here and what EditorE was originally responding to, well I THINK I gave an honest account of that in my edited comment. Your diff of the refactoring is also helpful too, though. Good job, by the way, noticing this, you are really on top of things, I will try to take your advice to heart in the future the next time I want to edit a comment, if there have been replies to it. I just looked up how to do strikethrough, seems like I got it figured out and working. Thanks, looks like I am all set to NOT make the same mistake again. Yetisyny (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure this was a honest mistake, but you misread my comment. I didn't say it meet WP:ENT based on the amount of subscribers. I'm not taking subscriber amount into consideration. I was arguing that you didn't give enough evidence to prove the article failed WP:ENT, given that it's been proven in this debate (see the links on the top of this discussion) the subject has been covered in reliable sources, although some independent-source-interview-=-primary-source conspiracy theorists would disagree *cough* *cough* Piotrus *cough* *cough*. BTW, if whoever closes this nomination determines Delete based on said Piotrus, you deserved to lose your administrator position on the site. editorEهեইдအ😎 15:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles from Forbes, CNN and Lenta.ru aren't just plain interviews (especially the Lenta.ru, and yes, I do understand what's written there without the need to use translation tools), they also point out the fact of subject's notability due to the amount of dedicated followers/viewers this person has or the overall interest he generated (both on his YT channel and on Reddit), as well as other facts (such as his notably unique dressing style), all of which aren't based on what the person told in an interview. So those articles are still WP:RS. The appearance of this person on TV show (Tosh.O) also adds to the notability. All in all I believe this person does meet WP:GNG and the article is worth keeping.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:51, 12 September 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. Tone 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetRight[edit]

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

Two-sentences reviews can never count as "significant coverage". The lengthier reviews provided are from unreliable websites, since they aren't actual reviews but are fake "reviews" with download buttons. The CNET article is perhaps the least dishonest source with significant coverage, but that's just one source, and GNG requires multiple sources. wumbolo ^^^ 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, computer magazines had cover disks (tapes, CDs) since the 80s, hosting freely downloadable software is only next step. Do you have any proof Heise Medien is paid by authors for hosting and advertizing their software? That would be quite big news in Germany, ct is considered most reliable among the German magazines. Pavlor (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be paid to have a conflict of interest. But we may discuss this at WP:RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources here, and no change from the previous two AfD Keeps - the last one being less than a year old, makes me question the relisting timing. Widefox; talk 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's possibly worthy generally to attempt to hold to higher sourcing standards than previous, but a well chosen group listing or merge-to-list for small bits of software/extensions and working with rather than against consensus and editors may achieve something. Widefox; talk 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seemed to be on top of resumable downloads etc quite early on and referencing appears adequate. Shame the PC Pro is a dead link.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by Newslinger and Pavlor. I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when a source counts as "independent" is overly strict. In my view, an established computer news site does not cease to be an independent source just because it makes the software being reviewed available for download (or, back in the day, as a cover CD or floppy). SJK (talk) 06:03, 19 September 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. Tone 09:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Sini[edit]

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

Not notable. This very promotional article only serves to promote the startups/companies he joined/co-founded to give them credibility from someone who is described with so much puffery in the lead section. wumbolo ^^^ 13:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Article is entirely made up of primary sources and is a resume more than anything. Nothing of value. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edited article to include active role in startup community, notable investments, and public speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbaackle (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would note that you, Dbaackle, are one in a series of suspicious SPAs that have edited this article, always in a promotional manner. Should you really be voting here? Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article was created by an SPA and is clearly promotional in character. The only coverage in reliable secondary sources basically just takes note of hirings and firings. That doesn't count towards notability. This article fails GNG and all relevant tests for biographies. It is also a horrible mess. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - created as part of a promotional spam cluster in 2008, and not brought to clear notability in the intervening time. It's been this bad for ten years; no prospects of improvement - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 14 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition Law Institute[edit]

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

No idea as to how this passes either our general notability guideline or the subject-specific guideline, either. ∯WBGconverse 13:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose deletion on the grounds that articles about universities are always notable, regardless of where they happen to be in the world, unless one wishes to argue that certain countries aren't notable enough for inclusion within encyclopedic content, which I might add is a racist proposition, in my opinion. 71.91.178.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete – Though there are five sources (most appear to be independent), the sources don't seem to be entirely notable or sufficient for WP:GNG. I'd support a merge to the creatorfounder of the corporation given that at least some (obviously not all) information is verifiable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Redditaddict69, umm......
    The first source fails WP:NEWSORG, claims to feature sponsored interviews and allows user to submit content.
    Every possible manner in which a source can be branded as unreliable.
    The second source is a book published by themselves.
    Yeah, they've got a press.
    Third fits the definition of link-spam.
    Probably, the one who was paid to create this had a side-job of being the SEO-guy of Stulity.com.who knows?!
    Fourth one is an interview of a topper of a state-judicial-service exam in a quasi reliable source.
    She took classes from our concerned subject.That's it, in entirety with not an iota of contribution to any notability.
    Fifth one mentions the director of the institute to have organised a lecture in a private university.
    Also, merging the information to the creator of the page which is an user-account will be a bit troublesome:-) For the record, you probably meant the founder of the institute who is simultaneously up for it's trial by fire.
    Best, ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did mean founder of this. And I guess I didn't check the sources thorough enough. Definitely a strong Delete now. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Fiore (actor)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Although there have been some appearances in some fairly well-known TV shows, most of the roles appear to have been minor characters and not meeting item 1 of NACTOR. Same goes for career as a producer. I tried WP:BEFORE, and I also tried asking for feedback at WT:FILMBIO#John Fiore (actor) where someone suggested AfD. I have no doubt that Fiore is an actor, but I'm just not sure if there's enough WP:SIGCOV of him in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion, a redirect to an article like List of The Sopranos characters#Gigi Cestone or List of Law & Order characters#27th Precinct Support Detectives might be possible since they appear to be his most notable roles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Boy, this one is tough, and definitely merits a thorough AfD discussion – I'll be curious to see what other comments say (as my mind is open on this one)... Fiore actually gets a fair number of mentions in Variety, and a couple of them might be considered more than simply incidental. In addition, Teblick found these three sources on the subject – [60], [61], [62] – now, two of those might be considered "local coverage" (Fiore is from the Boston-area), but they're not nothing. However, when I look for other coverage in places like THR, LA Times (all the "hits" here seem to be for a conductor, also with the name "John Fiore"...), Entertainment Weekly or Deadline Hollywood, I'm not finding enough that I feel this gets "pushed over the top". In addition, I don't feel like Fiore technically meets WP:NACTOR – his Law & Order and Sopranos roles were "recurring", not "main cast", and it looks like the only film Fiore actually headlined was the small indie film Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits. So, this essentially comes down to – Does Fiore meet WP:BASIC anyway, without meeting WP:NACTOR?! This question is probably a judgement call, and on my end I feel like the subject falls just a little short. YMMV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks anything that is even close to indepth reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The most comprehensive "delete" argument is a "weak delete" - more opinions needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination pretty much tells us everything, firstly congrats for a very detailed one that describes every single reason why this article is just not a keeper. He did appear in some very notable shows like Person of Interest for example, but his role in all of them are minor, that much that it just does not establish the needed notability. So he already fails WP:NACTOR. Looking at the sources IJBall posted, I just do not think they are enough to show that he is notable of any kind in those regards as well. And as per nom and even the article itself, it also fails in WP:BIO. All around, strong delete for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CURL[edit]

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

Gains only passing mentions, routine coverage and how-to mentions in sources and literature. PROD declined seven years ago. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful little utility and widespreadly known by *nix peoples and sometimes comes up in testing etc. The book Web Security Testing Cookbook by Brian Hope, Paco Hope, Ben Walther isbn: has a whole chapter 7 Automating specific Tasks with cURL which after the seemingly appropriate epigraph What do we live for, if it not to make life difficult for each other? — George Eliot then goes on to explore curl the utility. Most books with Curl in the title will refer to the programming language.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with a merge to a page on Linux utilities also reasonable. [63] and [64] are non-trivial mentions, but there's little to say about this beyond the man page contents. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an IBM source, and reviews like Techworld so at least scrapes WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup, although sources are scarce. Widefox; talk 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hundreds of books at Safari Books Online appear to have chapters on cURL. The ones that compare wget and cURL might be useful [65]. Just commenting for now as I haven't had a chance to dig deeper into the possible sources from that search to evaluate if any count for GNG yet. PaleAqua (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known utility amongst web developers, article receives hundreds of views daily but significantly fewer on weekends indicating workplace/commercial use, and as mentioned above features in many books including some well-known book series - adding "ftp" to book query yields [66]. SD5 22:35, 19 September 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. Tone 09:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Pandey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 12 September 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. per WP:SNOW. and WP:HEY sources added into the article to establish the notability. (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Ponomaryova (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer, page is completely unreferenced and no indication of coverage anywhere on the internet aNode (discuss) 06:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In reviewing her album with Bill Laswell, Sergey Kuryokhin, etc., Thom Jurek described the subject as "a legend in Eastern Europe for her four-octave range, her ability to improvise modally and tonally with any instrument on the planet, and her near inexhaustible energy".[67] AllyD (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one can describe her like that, but it doesn't save the fact that she has very little coverage online thus showing that she's not notable, plus the whole article is unreferenced breaking WP:BLP policies. aNode (discuss) 12:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree about the lack in referencing of the original article translated from the Russian equivalent (and would also caution about some of the External Links offered, as they are triggering malware warnings). The Russian source article also lacks coverage of the subject's musical activities during the 80s and 90s which brought her wider attention. I have added some material on that, as well as flagging the need for BLP sources on the earlier biography. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage online if you look for the usual spelling of her name: Valentina Ponomareva. The article should be moved to this spelling, rather than the present more literal transliteration. Note also that the Russian article cites plenty of sources. --Deskford (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This may be the first AfD of an article of whose subject I have one LP in her own name, another anthology featuring her, and possibly also an anthology CD somewhere. Not in itself a reason to keep, but these are all from the phases of her activities which were omitted from the focus on her earlier institutional career in the original translated-Russian article, but which have now been appended to the text, and referenced. I haven't been able to find my copy of a further print item which could add further, but I think there is now enough to demonstrate the subject's WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deskford and AllyD see WP:MUSTBESOURCES it will really help this AfD if you can add the link of the strong sources you are talking about. claiming Strong sources exist isn't a satisfactory argument to make. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify on sources, in my "keep" opinion I was relying on the articles I had referenced into the article (Efim Barban, Jon Corbett, Ben Watson) and linked previously in the discussion (Thom Jurek). AllyD (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllyD please accept my apology, I failed to notice that you have commented twice on this AfD. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the sources in. Does she have any charting singles though? aNode (discuss) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keep comments are weak and based on WP:MUSTBESOURCES
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DBigXrayᗙ 12:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Russian-language version of the article is a bit messy, but gives a number of reliable sources. Agree with 'keep' votes above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 12 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Nicole Duhaney[edit]

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

I do not believe that this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as Google brings up very little about her. She is basically an entrepreneur who has founded a company and decided that being included in Wikipedia is a useful advertising tool. I really like this quote from her website "As a Registered Nurse, Lactation Counselor, and Breastfeeding Mother, I know how difficult it can be to find a baby that a breastfed baby likes" (the emphasis is mine, she meant "bottle"). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. References are republished press releases ([68]), primary sources ([69] - a crowdfunding effort with $0 raised), or blog posts that are likely undisclosed advertising ([70]). They're also about a company that wouldn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH and not the person behind it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a promotional article, notability not satisfied, refs are local, press release, weak or 404. Szzuk (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely promotional. StrikerforceTalk 15:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought "ah haaa! Here's one for Women in Red", then checked out the sources and was crestfallen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:31, 21 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Masafirah[edit]

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

Not sourced, not verified, not notable. Points to area of modern housing in Hamham village. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious, and likely completely inaccurate, uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Softlavender underestimates the size of the article by 266-2/3%, but an uncited eleven-word article like this has no basis for existence. It could be a hoax (not likely, as it was created by a longtime admin whose sanctions were seemingly totally unrelated to verifiability) and we wouldn't have a clue; anyone could make up a vaguely Arabic-sounding name and create a substub with "PLACENAME is the name of a village in insert-emirate-name-here". We virtually always keep verifiable pages about settlements because they virtually always get significant coverage in some manner, but this means that if there's no evidence of significant coverage, we should be more ready to delete them. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 18 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mahamm[edit]

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

Not sourced, not cited, not notable. Pin points nowhere in particular. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely dubious uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another permastub unreferenced for more than a decade. I can not verify this exists at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. As it stands now, delete per WP:DEL7. Sam Sailor 20:03, 20 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensor Tower[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All the last long tranche of refs are mentions by various organisations "we use their data" "this was downloaded from us.." type statements . The earlier refs all appear to be press releases or re-hashed press releases. I can't see anything both independent and reliable here. Was originally a rejected draft so the author simply moved it to main-space without review once the ten edit barrier was reached. Would have been much better to have stayed at Draft and improved it. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yup, a whole lotta mentions and press releases don't make WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks to me like native advertising. There now is a "media mentions" section, but it is only a list of outlets that once reported one way or another, and appears to be a carbon copy of the "SENSOR TOWER DATA IS REGULARLY CITED BY" on the company's website. Lordtobi (✉) 19:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I created a neutral page for Sensor Tower on Wikipedia because we're known as a research firm that is cited by many sources on Wikipedia and in the media. Some are from press releases, but many are not and that is because we're used as a source of app intelligence and information. We've been in business since 2013 and my inclusion of the media sources were used to show that we're frequently cited as a data source. If it's better to remove these, then I'm happy to do that. I'm aware that as an employee of the company, I have a COI, which I've noted in my talk section. I'll review the rest of the guidelines again to make sure that my relationship to the company is transparent. I'm not looking to pitch our company here on Wikipedia, but since it is a source of information, I wanted to give Sensor Tower a profile where users and those interested can review basic information on who we are, when we were founded, our founders, some history on how were we started, funding, and the names of our products - in a neutral way. This company information may be used to understand if we're a trusted source of information. Happy to edit or change anything that sounds otherwise. In the meantime, I'll continue to look for more information and sources to add to the profile that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I also researched some other articles that have cited Sensor Tower as a source on wikipedia and in the body of the text. Below are a sample of other companies or wikipedia users/editors who have cited Sensor Tower in their own articles. Sensor Tower is a source of information, like any market research firm, so it would be useful for other users to get background on who the company is, making it a notable source.

Wikipedia articles who mention Sensor Tower in the body of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_video_gaming, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Run

Wikipedia pages where Sensor Tower is cited as a source of information: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Touch_Games, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JibJab, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secrets_to_App_Success_on_Google_Play, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_store_optimization, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Emblem_Heroes, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivia_Crack, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveTulokset.com, https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quizkampen, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Evolution, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_Stars, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Bird_Run, https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_Express, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_video_game_franchises, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Evolution_Soccer_2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Tom_and_Friends, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Bronfman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Dokkan_Battle JuliaC298 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Julia[reply]

  • You really need third-party coverage to establish notability in the eyes of Wikipedia for purposes of having a stand-alone article. Just adding self-citing press releases and passing mentions in other articles doesn't really count. Nobody here is arguing against its inclusion in articles, so this argument is off-topic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter @Lordtobi @Velella @—AE (talk @CAPTAIN RAJU @Dissident93: Posting a reply here in case it's easier to reference. I'm looking into the best way to communicate to editors on Wikipedia - talk page or on the page in question, thanks! ----Hi Dissident93, Thank you for your comment on the Sensor Tower page. The company has a lot of media sources that mention and cite us. We have a few 3rd party articles, but rather than news outlets writing about us, they usually use our platform as a source of data, we may not have the amount traditional 3rd party sources you're referring to. One of our competitors, App Annie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Annie), has a wikipedia page, as well as Similar Web (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimilarWeb). I'm trying to understand how our page is different from theirs and why ours is marked for deletion. Can you give us feedback on that? I've focused on keep our page neutral because it would be valuable for users to see who we are when cited as a marketing intelligence platform. I appreciate your help. JuliaC298 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Additional: We're looking at similar companies on Wikipedia, the standards set by the Wikipedia company, and doing our due diligence to ensure that the Sensor Tower page is represented in a neutral way. We are also looking to understand and to be treated fairly according to other similar companies whose Wikipedia company articles, like App Annie and SimilarWeb, which have been up longer than ours and not flagged for deletion. Previous editors mentioned there should be more content on our page when it was first set live, which I've added, with more context, and relevancy. We're not looking to be a storefront, only a place where a Wikipedia user who sees Sensor Tower referenced as a research firm, can look us up and understand who we are and the data provided for app data.JuliaC298 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As stated on my talk page, I think those two pages you brought up could (maybe should) go to AfD as well, as I don't really see them having any real notability. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 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. North America1000 00:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Copeman[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 20:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 19:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When the search on Google ends up with a doctor named Michael Copeman instead of an actor...well. Analyzing the articles that came in the article: The first is just a biography site of his that does not establish notability, the second came up as malicious site in my browser, the third and fourth are not even focused on the said actor and the fifth has absolutely nothing to do with him but the reboot of a movie. So it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khashfah[edit]

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

Unsourced, uncited, unverified. Pin points to a wadi bed near Wadi Shaam. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsensical inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is a funny one (lots of funny little geo-articles listed on 12sept :), poor old gmaps doesn't show any settlement near where the article states, there is a hotsprings with the name but that is way over in Oman, there is an "Al Khashfah" in mapcarta but that is in Jordan, so this is a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another permastub unreferenced for more than a decade. I can not verify this exists at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. As it stands now, delete per WP:DEL7. - added by Sam Sailor. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 21 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jaddah[edit]

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

Not sourced, verified. Pin points to scrub area inland of Galilah. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:29, 12 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hulaylah[edit]

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

Not sourced, verified, not notable. Pin points to unnamed area near Rams. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inaccurate uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another permastub unreferenced for more than a decade. I can not verify this exists at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. As it stands now, delete per WP:DEL7. Sam Sailor 19:52, 20 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hayr[edit]

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

Not sourced, not cited, not verified. Pin points to industrial compound in hinterland of Ghalilah. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hayl[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. There is an Al Hayl in Fujeirah, but this pin points to a sparsely populated area on the edge of RAK city. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Al Hayl appears to be a notable place in Fujairah as it's in government sources but no article for it exists - should I just go ahead and "move the point"? SportingFlyer talk 06:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Agree. There's a nice fort there, BTW, if we're talking 'that' Hayl. BTW, this Hayl is in a different emirate to that claimed in the article AND on the other side of the country. With hindsight, I'm slapping my head but it's a bit like Paris, France being written up as Paris, Texas... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator, can I even do this? Added cites to the 'real' Al Hayl and changed the relevant infoboxes. If someone wants to move the pin (ahem SportingFlyer), then we have a cited, accurate wee stub. Yay for us. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cite book added and coords corrected. Meets GEOLAND. It is not located the same place as the fort, Alex. Courtesy ping (Alexandermcnabb—Lugnuts—Softlavender—SportingFlyer). Sam Sailor 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sam It's up the wadi a wee bit... Must try and get over there in the next few weeks and take a snap! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yays. High fives. Stuff. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 22 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghashban[edit]

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

No source, no verification. Pin points to wadi near village of Al Jeer (school also named, in Arabic, Al Jeer School). Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:26, 12 September 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) Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X.Org Server[edit]

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

Not notable. Only passing mentions and unreliable sources. Lengthier mentions are only in manuals. wumbolo ^^^ 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge in article on Xorg foundation: Notable and main fork of well known software. At the thing this split forked from xfree86 to the new X.org there were numerous articles describing the transition and the reason for the fork. I would suggest merging the X.Org Foundation into this article as the foundation is mostly notable for this software. PaleAqua (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated all articles you mentioned for deletion. wumbolo ^^^ 16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, commented on other AfD. Would it have made sense to bundled the AFDs? PaleAqua (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to keep per discussion on other AfD. PaleAqua (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the main implementation of the X Window System, and one of the most important pieces of Unix and Linux OSes graphic subsystem. Yes, it's a very poorly written article, but that's not a valid cause for deletion. And by the way, the primary source is the preferred source (sometimes the only valid source) for a lot of cases such as a software announcement. --JavierCantero (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't misrepresent my comments. Nowhere did I write that my deletion rationale was that the article was poorly written. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was saying that the article is not notable with regards to WP:GNG, and the available sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Primary source is not the preferred source, and it is never enough to keep an article because of primary sources, and even secondary sources describing a software announcement when it is routine or speculation. wumbolo ^^^ 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that because you clearly have no idea about what are you trying to delete, and I blame the quality of the article for it. Anyway, some data from the statistcs page:
  • The article has got 499 contributions from 237 different contributors since its creation 14 years ago (18 March 2004‎).
  • No one has disputed its notability for that period of time.
  • There are 662 wikipedia articles linking to this page (internal links). There are also 23 interwiki links (the same subject in other languages).
  • Google reports 91,400 links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.Org_Server (external links)
The data shows that the article is considered relevant inside and outside of wikipedia. What we have here is a lack of reliable sources provided by the article (hence my original statement). --JavierCantero (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought there were reliable sources outside the article, I wouldn't've nominated it for deletion. Very little coverage of the server has been provided in this discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a lot of mixed terminology here. Sources keep naming "X Window System" or "X Windows" or "X11 Server" or "X Server" to what nowadays is the piece of software known as the X.Org server, and mixing specification, protocol, architecture and implementation. --JavierCantero (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick references [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] --JavierCantero (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A press release, a forum post and blogs? All of them fall under WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. wumbolo ^^^ 10:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you want doesn't exist, because the books and papers that refer to the X Server predate the birth of X.Org project, and even newer books tend to use the traditional terminology. I have researched a lot today, and the results are very poor [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. By the way, LWN.net, Slashdot and Phoronix are tech news sites, not forums or personal blogs, and they often publish news and articles including the ones related to the X Window System and such. --JavierCantero (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LWN.net, Phoronix are news sites. Slashdot is more a curated aggregator and discussion forum. Slashdot is best treated like trying to use Wikipedia as a source, better to see what sources it uses and check those. Granted back in the day it had a larger news staff and had more original stuff, but mostly interviews and opinion pieces. PaleAqua (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am too old, but I remember the days where Slashdot was mostly a tech news site, before somebody invented the word 'blog'. Anyway, it's the only survivor to that era, and if we are going to try to find secondary sources, there are no many choices left. --JavierCantero (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some (post-2004) papers, but note they do refer to "X server", not "X.Org server":
--JavierCantero (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is rated Mid-importance, C-Class on the Wikiprojects Software/Computing and I'm seriously questioning why this is at AfD. Absolutely inadequate WP:BEFORE in my opinion as my search on Google Books immediately reveals : X Power Tools - Page 40 isbn=0596101953; Ubuntu 8.10 Linux Bible - Page 177 isbn=0470502746; CentOS Bible - Page 69 isbn=0470538333; Fedora 11 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux Bible - Page 83 isbn=0470485043; UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook - Page 1012 isbn=0131480057. Not to mention a wave of other related AfDs, prod and speedy's by the nom. which are causing a wave of disruption. Perhaps article improvements and merges would help but AfD isn't the place or way to go about it and consensus at project level first would have been better as AfD is not the place to improve things. A merge may of may not work but too important to be forced by an AfD in this case.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The third source contains three sentences about the subject. The fourth source is identical to the third source. The first source is at least one page of information, while the second and the fifth are minor mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 09:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – clearly notable and important, per previous comments. Bradv 23:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with books mentioned by Djm-leighpark. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep concur with reasoning of Djm-leighpark, and sources like lwn. Was WP:BEFORE even done? Widefox; talk 15:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: Djm-leighpark's sources consist of two identical sources containing three sentences about the subject, and two sources consisting of almost no information. wumbolo ^^^ 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the feedback above, have you still not done BEFORE? x.org server gets 83,000 Google books, "x.org server" over 700 (that's not including the fact this is the reference implementation of X, so there'll be more under different names etc). Why are you listing several articles at AfD but wide from community norms? Widefox; talk 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search of Google Books shows sufficient number of reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability. SJK (talk) 06:07, 19 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghabam[edit]

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

Not sourced, not notable, not verified. Pin points to mountain area. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus uncited inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anther permastub unreferenced for more than a decade. It it exists, it is not at the location given, and a Google Book search does not immediately return English results that can verify the place. Delete per WP:DEL7. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Sam Sailor 18:42, 20 September 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 15:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghabah[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to a mountain in Northern RAK, no named community here. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced permastub for more than a decade. Judging from Google Maps satellite view there appears to be nothing named Al Ghabah at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Would be very helpful with the Arabic toponyms in these cases. Sam Sailor 18:34, 20 September 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) Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X.Org Foundation[edit]

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

I'm convinced that this fails WP:NCORP, but maybe I'm missing something. wumbolo ^^^ 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from creator welcome to Wikipedia 2004! Not very well cited for notability by 2018 standards, is it ... I'd suggest a merge/redirect to X Window System#The_X.Org_Foundation - i.e., do the redirect and merge whatever's useful and not primary - David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep , was merge into X.Org Server and X Window System#The X.Org_Foundation. No need for separate articles on an organization primarily known for one thing. PaleAqua (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the X.Org Foundation is not only about the X Window System, and certainly is not THE "X Window System" organization (that would be the X Consortium).— Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierCantero (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2018 September 13 (UTC)
    X Consortium was the original group, X.Org took over their mandate with the forking "back" from xfree86. That said Wayland is also notable, switching to keep. PaleAqua (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "X.Org Foundation's (or X.Org for short) purpose is to research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack and the developers and users thereof. This stack includes, but is not limited to, the following projects: DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System."[1] That means the following software packages: Direct Rendering Manager, Direct Rendering Infrastructure, Mesa (computer graphics), Wayland (display server protocol), libinput, Xlib, XCB, X.Org Server and more. The foundation is an umbrella organization for all these key free software projects. Because some organization is a non-profit and not a business, doesn't mean that it's irrelevant. We are talking about millions of lines of code here, and millions of users, more than many software business around the world that you wouldn't dare to try to delete their Wikipedia pages. --JavierCantero (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many organizations, for-profit and non-profit, have millions of users but don't have a Wikipedia article because they fail WP:NCORP. wumbolo ^^^ 10:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we do need the sources. That said, there were a few around the time as I recall ... more recent news is that X.Org lost its nonprofit status for not getting its paperwork in [83], and was considering affiliating with SPI [84] - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that journalists covering some event and being payed for it [85] falls under WP:PRIMARYNEWS. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note independent sources such as Ars Technica have covered the software, fork, etc. Some examples: [86], [87], [88]. And this doesn't include indirect mentions such as [89], [90] and [91]. PaleAqua (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if they covered the software or fork? That doesn't make the corporation notable. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – while the article needs some improvement, the organization definitely meets WP:ORG. Bradv 23:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing is poor, there's RS such as [92] meeting NORG. Widefox; talk 15:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is completely WP:CRYSTAL. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, an article based on claims from it might be - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and to address the nom, "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies". You may want to see WP:BLUDGEON for all these AfDs too. Widefox; talk 22:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A merge is not necessary, although I'm not opposed to it either. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:52, 17 September 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XFree86[edit]

XFree86 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources in this article and the sources in X Window System are insufficient to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other than the RS (or probable RS) mentioned in the article (Linux Magazine, The Register) there many more: InfoWorld (20 March 2000, p. 52; half page article), PC Magazine (August 1997, pp. 311-312), more than 30 pages in a book "Inside Linux" [93](pp. 93-130). Pavlor (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The RS mentioned in the article are very minor mentions. The InfoWorld article was written by a non-journalist with a history of writing fraudulent articles [94]. The PC magazine article is about the X Window System on Linux, and the only reason it is about XFree86 is because that was the current version at the time. That does not indicate any long-term significance of this particular version. wumbolo ^^^ 10:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Discussed by multiple reliable sources, for example Michael Tobler (2001). Inside Linux. Sams Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-7357-0940-9. and Jeffrey Dean (2001). LPI Linux Certification in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". p. 370. ISBN 978-1-56592-748-3.. SJK (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per others. Suspect WP:BEFORE was not given due diligence. Why is this at AfD? Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you didn't read WP:BEFORE since you want to keep this article per circumstantial minor mentions, unreliable sources, passing mentions, and manuals which only mention the software in context of hardware requirements for other software. wumbolo ^^^ 14:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now German language sources. Solid article about licence problems (online version of the May 2004 issue of the German Linux Magazin): [95]; another German article about the state of the project in 2011: [96] (note although pro-linux.de claims to have staff and editorial oversight, it may be close to one man project, so probably weaker for notability purposes); there are also several short news on heise.de. Pavlor (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. Nominator obviously hasnt used Linux or BSD back in the late 1990s early 2000s when it was included in almost every distribution. 2A01:4C8:B:7127:F201:A496:C036:897C (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Strike long-term abuser. wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Extremely notable X Windows implementation was the main one for a while. PaleAqua (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Example of sources directly or indirectly talking about XFree86 that I found just with quick searching: [97] [98] [99] PaleAqua (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep @Wumbolo: I told you to stop with these ridiculous nominations. This is getting out of hand now. Govvy (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF Keep Why was this even nommed? Hell, I've used familiarity with X.Org Server as a litmus test to know if the "IT guy" I was dealing with was worth his paycheck before. And it's served me well in that capacity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this was an essential part of the Linux world for years. There are multiple books written about this, as well as countless magazines and online sources. Bradv 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are entire books on this software [100] [101]. The claim that they only discuss the topic because it was the current version of the X Window Server may be accurate, but that's not a reason to delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources mentioned by Pavlor, SJK, PaleAqua, and Power~enwiki. — Newslinger talk 01:42, 14 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adh Dharbaniyah[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Likely based on an archaic source, the pin points to an urban area in modern Ras Al Khaimah. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsensical inaccurate uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced permastub for more than a decade. Judging from Google Maps satellite view there appears to be nothing named Adh Dharbaniyah (Arabic: العذبة الغربية(spelling?)) at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Currently it's a WP:DEL7 case. Sam Sailor 14:25, 20 September 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 CSD. Copyvio, CSD template added. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Telecommunications Council[edit]

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

Advertisement, fails WP:NCORP » Shadowowl | talk 10:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 12 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary King[edit]

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

Combination of BLP1E (the 1E being the conversion from Satanism to the Catholic Church) and not meeting GNG. BEFORE shows various unreliable sources. Many of the sources in the article are unreliable. The three best of them (in English) are probably lifeNews, catholicnewsworld, and Crusade Magazine - where best is only a relative concept, and are mainly interviews with the subject. These (particularly the LifeNews piece tying Satanism to abortion) received some attention in various blogs and the like. AFAICT he is working on two books, one seems to be unpublished, the other titled Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice published (or self published?) by MCP Books has not received critical attention.Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NBIO and it'd be hard to balance the article using better sources (WP:BLPFRINGE). —PaleoNeonate – 11:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:NBIO and probably WP:NFRINGE as well. Catholic News World appears to be a self-published blog with no apparent editorial oversight or expertise - it probably shouldn't be used a source for anything. The LifeNews piece is an repost of an interview from the "Lepanto Institute", which as far as I can tell is purely self-published as well - its Who We Are section lists only its "Founder and President" Michael Hichborn. That only leaves the piece in Crusade. --tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting more recent Patheos piece, "The Cult of “Before” Stories: A Mega-Review of Zachary King’s Testimony", but you can't build an article out of that. --tronvillain (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAPy stuff that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sufficient in depth coverage by reliable sources. No clearly reliable sources added since it was deproded. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO as subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bradv 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreliable sources, little outside coverage, far-fetched claims of meeting a goddess in person, and no background information on either him or whatever organization he was affiliated with. The average UFO sighting gets more press attention. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's sourced entirely from WP:FRINGE sources and blogs. No indication of WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Uraybi[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified, not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced permastub for more than a decade. According to an English language book source there is a "village of al-Uraybi" near Ras Al Khaimah,[2] but the current coordinates do not confirm the location. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Sam Sailor 20:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://www.x.org/wiki/XorgFoundation/
  2. ^ Kennet, D.; Society for Arabian Studies (1995). The towers of Ras al-Khaimah. BAR international series. Tempus Reparatum. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-86054-778-5. Retrieved 20 September 2018.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 15:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Qigong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT/WP:GNG. Author has used ref fraud for this article, as seen with the CNN source which does not mention Phoenix. » Shadowowl | talk 10:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Sole reliable source cited doesn't mention it at all, others do not appear independent & reliable, and a Google News search either in English or Chinese yields precisely zero additional references. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that this branch of Qigong is notable. It doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE and it lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. It's not specifically mentioned in the CNN source and other sources are not independent. Papaursa (talk) 15:30, 18 September 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 withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 11:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screech Owls[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Did not won the Gemini Awards and is not notable. » Shadowowl | talk 10:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi colleagues! First of all, excuse me, but being new, I am not still practical on Wikipedia and also my English is not good yet. Being the creator of the page, it is clear that I am against the deletion, for the simple reason that the motivation for the deletion makes no sense. In fact, I reported how this TV series HAS ONLY BEEN NOMINATED FOR the "Gemini Award for Best Children's or Youth Program or Series" and NOT THAT IT WON. Secondly: I have quoted the source. "TV.com" seems to be a reliable source, being mentioned in many other pages of Wikipedia. Thirdy: you can visit the Wikipedia page "Gemini Award for Best Children's or Youth Program or Series", to see this information confirmed!(before my intervention, there was the reference to the books, being then the page on the series still non-existent). This page meets all the criteria of Wikipedia, which mine colleagues(I think and I hope) know well, so I see no reason to delete it. I confirm that this page does not contain much information, but I hope that we can contribute to it!YusefAytBuzidComo98 (talk) 11:05, 14 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saraf Furniture[edit]

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

Run of the mill company, sources are press releases, pr sites and advertisements. » Shadowowl | talk 10:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A draft article on this topic by the same new edtor was twice rejected at AfC before this instance was created in mainspace. I removed some of the non-encyclopaedic content but what remains is merely describing a run-of-the-mll firm going about its business, with an unsubstantiated promotional claim to provide "at affordable rates". No evidence of encyclopaedic notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and promotional. WP does not include advertising listings. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a run of the mill company with no evidecne of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:41, 18 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short Circuit (Gujarati film)[edit]

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

Article about upcoming film by paid editor. WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFILM. » Shadowowl | talk 10:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:39, 12 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Kumar Ranjan[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. He is the principal of the probably non-notable Ambition Law Institute, writes books on how to pass legal exams and does some lecturing. He does not seem to have published in any peer-reviewed journals. The article is promotional and most of the sources hardly mention him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:NBIO or any other criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-This's quasi G11-able stuff.And, per nom:-)∯WBGconverse 13:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paxos (company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The first ref makes no mention of the company, the second simply talks about a re-branding and the third talks about what appears to be a de-merger. Nothing of any weight or significance. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON perhaps, current coverage routine announcements and such, no real depth Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, seems WP:TOOSOON. The first reference mentions itBit but the article doesn't mention that Paxos sprouted from itBit (althought the second reference does). I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:39, 19 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walk to Remember[edit]

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

WP:MILL fundraiser event. The sponsoring charity doesn't seem to use this name anymore, although "Walk Ten" seems ongoing. Nothing to indicate this charity's events are unusual in any way. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond promotion of particular instances of this recurring event. Daask (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:46, 12 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carroll (author)[edit]

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

Nothing in article or online that amounts to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is written advertorially, reading more like the kind of "staff" profile a person would have on the self-published website of their own employer than like an encyclopedia article — and the referencing depends entirely on primary sources that cannot support or carry notability, with zero evidence of any proper reliable source coverage about him in real media being shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO created and edited by a series of IP, SPA accounts, but containing no claim to notability and no solid sources, none at all. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 17 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beever[edit]

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

I don't believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. He is the editor of several books on ethics but not the author of any. Nor does he seem to have published any papers in peer-reviewed journals. There is another published researcher, Jonathan E. Beever, but his area of research is biochemistry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assistant professors rarely meet WP:PROF, and I'm not seeing an exception here. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON. As the nominator suggests, edited volumes contribute much less towards academic notability than authored (and reviewed!) books. His Google scholar profile doesn't show anything that would contribute towards WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else in the article that would contribute towards any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substantial secondary sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage. I don't see that WP:NPROF is met, either. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 18 September 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 15:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great is Our Sin (film)[edit]

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

No evidence at all of any notability for this short debut film where filming hasn't even started yet. Fram (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is borderline promotional enough to where I'd say that it could be speedied as spam. I think that the spammy part is a little unintentional since I do see where there looks to be a good faith attempt to stick to NPOV, so I'm not going to speedy it myself. In any case, there's just not anything out there to show where this unmade short film is notable enough for an article yet. I like the idea and I wish the crew well, but it's just too soon at best. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is WP:TOOSOON for an unmade short film, lacking much coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 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. largely self-sourced promo without proper refs or evidence of notability created by the same bunch of SPAs that wrote the spam for his book, obvious sock farm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin D. Fuller[edit]

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

Excessively long promotional article, but none of the sources amount to WP:SIGCOV. Even in his most senior role at Marriott, he "reported directly to the chief operating officer (COO)" - someone who probably does not have an article. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 12 September 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) 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bida, Ras al-Khaimah[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified, pin points to uninhabited scrubland. Article of no notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous uncited inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced permastub for more than a decade. Judging from Google Maps satellite view there appears to be nothing named Bida (Arabic: بدع) at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Sam Sailor 13:20, 20 September 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) 22:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awanat, Ras al-Khaimah[edit]

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

Source unlinked, archaic. Otherwise unsourced, not notable. Settlement doesn't exist. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inaccurate, uncited, unreferenced three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Permastub for more than a decade, referenced to an offline source. There are multiple mentions of an Awanat tribe in the Ras al-Khaimah area in books indexed by Google Books, but I see no mention of a place called Awanat. Judging from Google Maps satellite view there appears to be nothing named Awanat at the location given. No objection to keeping or recreating this, if a stub can be sourced to at least [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Sam Sailor 13:31, 20 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Cellulose[edit]

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

This refers simply to cellulose prepared via a proprietary production process as a food ingredient. The article appears to be written so as to promote this product from the Renmatix company. The sources in the article actually mentioning the product appear to be PR (e.g. FoodNavigator.com, BakingBusiness.com). No indication the product is notable. Pontificalibus 08:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This certainly looks like paid editing. The topic does not appear to be notable to me. As mentioned in the nomination, the references are mostly PR. Those that mention Simple Cellulose are more about the company than about this one product anyway. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks to be a trade name if that. I'm not finding anything notable about the product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I also find no mentions of this product outside of the PR/trade publications cited in the article. Article is promotional in tone, but rewriting would still run up against the lack of independent and reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 18:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would discount sources 2, 3, 4, and 6 entirely, articles from sources like those tend to be puff pastry and basically paid promo pieces. Without those, there is nothing left to this article. shoy (reactions) 14:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and the other editors. A search of "simple cellulose" brings up little third-party sources. In fact, most of the hits defaults to cellulose. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 16 September 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) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip De Carteret, 6th of St Ouen[edit]

Philip De Carteret, 6th of St Ouen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't verify a "Philippe de Carteret" born ca. 1402, nor a "Philippe de Carteret" who did anything notable in 1467, nor the claim that the poem about the Carteret Leap is about this person specifically. The article (which, as was claimed in 2007 already, looks suspiciously like a copy from somewhere else, but no source has been found) is very flowery, but presents very few facts or even clues about the actual subject, making for a rather frustrating read and search for facts. There was an important Carteret family in Jersey, seigneurs de Saint Ouen, but I just can't verify the existence of this one, never mind the claims about his life in this article. Fram (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a similar story can be fund here but it post dates the Wikipedia article so may not represent a copy-vio. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of notability or any relevant historical context. Fails WP:GNG
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have tagged the article for suspected copyvios. The sources of the text in turn cite original sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am currently specializing in Jersey articles and history. I am going to investigate further, both online and in books on Jersey. Please do not make a hasty deletion. The article as written seems unlikely or perhaps legend.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See https://members.societe-jersiaise.org/whitsco/rom3.htm, about "The Famous De Carteret Family ", published by the Société Jersiaise, of which I am a member.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough references or historical evidence to keep or even revise this article. I removed the poem, and did some slight copyediting to remove "you" but the article is still not notable and should be deleted.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 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. Aside from Nyttend, the "delete" votes were vague, but the "keep" votes were not substantial enough to override that either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Shenzhen[edit]

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

We're not a travel guide. Completely unsourced comprehensive list of bus routes including fares and some timetables. WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This list is completely unsourced and would not be suitable for Wikipedia even if it were sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Pick your reason; they're so many. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator two EL's have just been added, although these are primary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NOTBUSGUIDE & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (Amended 12:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep notable as a spinoff from the Shenzhen transportation network. Timetable information needs to be removed. SportingFlyer talk 04:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a spin-off of a network does not mean much unless it is notable on its own. At best, this would mean a redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete", but is now relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 29.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 12 September 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. North America1000 00:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DesiPundit[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct blog. Its only claim to fame was winning a minor award from another non-notable blog. I can find no reliable, independent coverage that would show notability. Reyk YO! 07:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 12 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Holmes[edit]

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

Non-notable director, screenwriter, and producer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON appears to apply. reddogsix (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom StarM 02:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Boochever[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, makes no strong claim to notability, no coverage in reliable sources. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I appreciate the discussion and ability to continue editing the page. I added a few more references and the addition of her induction into the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame (although I forgot to sign in when I made those most recent edits - sorry about that!). She was clearly an important figure in Alaska with her dedication to the arts. She was the founder of a number of theaters, was recognized as Juneau Women of the Year and was included as part of Alaska's Women's Hall of Fame. I would think these awards and her contributions would be enough to keep her included in Wikipedia. Jackson Marcus (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:ARTIST#1 "The person is regarded as an important figure..." as shown by her induction to the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw by nominator signed, Rosguilltalk 19:06, 12 September 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Football Amateur Club de Nice 1920[edit]

Football Amateur Club de Nice 1920 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Greatest claim to notability is round of 64 in the Coupe de France in 1930. Corresponding article on French wiki has a lot more content but no citations to in depth coverage at independent reliable secondary sources signed, Rosguilltalk 05:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Club was professional and played in the second division in the 1933-34 season. Although their results were ultimately annulled and they're historical and from France, a Google image search brings up photos from articles of the period and articles such as this which pretty clearly demonstrate them passing WP:GNG due to coverage of the second league at the time: [102]. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My issue would be with the 2018 club, which appears to be unrelated to the original club. The original club seems to be notable, but the 2018 club is certainly not notable. I would change the name of the article to match the name of the original club. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
European football teams are refounded all the time. It doesn't make any sense to delete this article because the current organisation wouldn't pass a notability guideline, even though it does look like there's a WP:COI going on. What's the original name you would move it to? SportingFlyer talk 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to find reliable sources, but it looks like it should be FAC Nice. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FAC Nice is the short name of the club, I don't see anything wrong with the current name of the page per the detailed French article on the team. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. GiantSnowman 14:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - As what a couple have said earlier in the discussion, they did compete in the second-tier of French Football when they went professional. What I do think it needs, is for it to be expanded to correspond with the team that is in question. This can be easily be done by using the French article as a guide to expanding the article from its stub status to possibly get it to a start at minimum. Animation is developing 01:58, 19 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of thanks[edit]

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

WP:TNT; no content is salvageable and the topic should probably be a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (wikt:thank you card). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Thank you letter has a separate (older) history, and redirects to Letter (message). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some good prose could undoubtedly be written about the history of thank-you notes, none of the prose from this version would survive, and thus I advise starting over. Article has been rewritten. (Came here via a link in the general Wikipedia IRC channel.) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Bradv 04:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Power~enwiki, Enterprisey, and I discussed this on IRC, if that matters. Bradv 04:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and this article comes across as an article on how to write thank you letters. Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. The claim that none of this content would be wanted in our final article seems quite false. For example, the article cites a NYT article The Found Art of Thank-You Notes. Why wouldn't we want to keep this reference and build upon it per our actual policy of WP:PRESERVE? The nomination doesn't explain. Nor does it discuss the numerous books devoted to this topic, such as Writing Thank-You Notes: Finding the Perfect Words. Here's the perfect word for this: "before". Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author(s) didn't even bother to include the article name or a link. Finding out what the ref is is about as much work as finding it from Google. Nothing here really seems worth keeping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citation was adequate to establish the reference. Fleshing it out is more easily done from the existing text than by starting from nothing. I have attended to this detail to demonstrate. Such formatting is routine work for gnomes but AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cut out everything that read like a how-to manual, and I replaced the part where it talked about psychological studies. Basically, "starting over" didn't take very long. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a quick Google search for "history of thank-you letters", and it does look like there is enough to pass WP:GNG after eliminating all the how-to sites and focusing just on reliable sources about historical significance: [103]. I believe that treating the subject in terms of historical significance does make for an encyclopedic subject. (Thank-you letter strikes me as a better pagename than Letter of thanks.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article has been entirely rewritten after it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY), and the topic meets WP:GNG. North America1000 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admin can probably snow-keep close this now; they may want to consider the page name and history issues when they do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When nominated, this was a perfect WP:TNT candidate: worthless content about a notable topic. Since the topic itself is good, and since it's been given a solid rewrite, deleting now would be absurd. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been updated since the start of the afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 19 September 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) 22:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delly Singah Philips[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, award received is not notable, no in depth coverage in reliable sources signed, Rosguilltalk 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The supplied sources don't even show that the subject won the non-notable award, just that she was nominated for it. The subject has received minimal reliable source coverage, not enough to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 12 September 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 Deleted per G5 by GeneralizationsAreBad. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai Nawar Road[edit]

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

Non-notable road. Article does not contain any valid references establishing notability, just a Google maps link and a hashtag search page on a site that returns no results. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Article has now been deleted G5 - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 13 September 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. No prejudice against anyone creating a redirect from scratch. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Henry[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, no coverage beyond mere mention in secondary sources independent of the subject. Note that WP:POLITICIAN does not automatically consider politicians below the province level to be notable. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Redirect to Ontario municipal elections, 2018 Yeah, unfortunately, municipal politicians, unless you are part of the city council in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. would probably not qualify for WP:NPOL. Running into a similar problem with an Edmonton City Council member in draftspace. Bkissin (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not hand an automatic inclusion freebie to every city councillor in every city — as Bkissin correctly notes, city councillors are presumed to pass WP:NPOL #2 only if they serve in internationally prominent global cities on the order of Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal, and outside that narrow range of cities a city councillor is considered notable only if he or she can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage, expanding beyond the purely local and routine level of coverage that every city councillor in every city could always show, to mark him or her out as a special case. This, however, shows nothing of the sort — there are just four footnotes here, of which one is his own primary source profile on a directly affiliated website, and the other three are comprehensive coverage of everybody involved in the municipal elections he's been involved in, not suggesting any reason whatsoever why Jeff Henry could be considered more notable than Melissa Durrell or Scott Wilmer or Angela Vieth or Diane Freeman. This is not how you make a city councillor in a midsize city notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Waterloo City Council, where he is mentioned. Fails WP:NPOL, but can be a redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:35, 18 September 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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mras-Su River[edit]

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

Not notable, Unreffrenced since 2008. Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a river this long passes WP:GEOLAND on its face, but the article does need a source or two. SportingFlyer talk 06:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. I have expanded the article a bit and added a spelling variant. Nominations of major geographical features are always based in error. gidonb (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rivers this long are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 340km long river passes any threshold on notability.--Darwinek (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND and article has been expanded sufficiently. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this river's notability so thank you to everyone who illustrated that, but this article is still un-referenced, it should be a quick fix if there really is sufficient coverage though. Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grapefruit17, per WP:NEXIST articles should not be nominated if references are missing. All that matters is that valid sources are out there. That said, the claim no references in the article is often used in AfDs which works very confusing. In fact, closing volunteers sometimes forget WP:NEXIST as well with the unfortunate result of wrong tallies and hard earned community labor disappearing from WP improperly. The proper response to missing references is WP:SOFIXIT. If that fails, a references or refimprove template can be added above the article. gidonb (talk) 07:33, 14 September 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) 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Beard[edit]

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

He lacks the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and I don't see any other notability standards that he meets.Sandals1 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sandals1 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage of him doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Notability is not inherited from famous boxers he might have worked with. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per nominatorPRehse (talk) 07:40, 12 September 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) 22:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bamar People's Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party founded in 2011; doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No automatic notability from getting candidates. Obviously parties can meet notability without that, but none of the references in article satisfy being both Sig Cov and independent, nor could any elsewhere (having searched under all three search terms). If they competed in two elections, then no obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


sources-

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

The result was delete. No merge at this time due to lack of secondary sources, but I will provide the deleted content if anyone wants to attempt such a thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary School Reform in Prince George's County[edit]

Secondary School Reform in Prince George's County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no basis in published secondary sources (it doesn't cite any), and my understanding is that the Prince George's County Public Schools article is sufficient in containing any secondary source information that pertains to the district. "Secondary School Reform in Prince George's County" should only be a distinct topic *if* multiple published secondary sources talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete with a very selective merge back to the school system's main article. A cross between a content fork and an essay, it's not really clear that the title even describes the content. It's not necessarily an bad article, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources for this article except for the school system's own website. Most of the article is taken up with a listing of all of the high schools, which isn't the stated topic of the article. It's possible this article could be used as a starting point for a currently non-existent article on the school system itself, but that would involve a major rewrite. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 16 September 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 merge to Rossanese A.S.D.. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Rossanese 1909 A.S.D.[edit]

F.C. Rossanese 1909 A.S.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One source, no claims of notability, thereby failing WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Rossanese_A.S.D. as there appear to be two articles covering the same club, which a very quick Google search shows is notable (articles like [104] [105] or a list of articles here: [106]. Note there's not much to be merged, so my vote is functionally a delete and redirect. SportingFlyer talk 06:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's if it's "unjustified" - the two articles date from 2006 and 2009 and the 2009 article is more updated, detailed, and appears to use the club's correct name. I see no reason to not delete the current article, then create a redirect to the other article in this case. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 13 September 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Emad Eldin[edit]

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

This guy created the cover art for one Pink Floyd album cover (The Endless River). All the sources I can find cover the subject only in relation to the album cover - all the notable information can be covered in the Endless River article. See WP:SINGLEEVENT. Popcornduff (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge. Making the album cover art for a single Pink Floyd album does not make you a famous or notable person. If there is any noteworthy information here in this article it should be merged into The Endless River article. This article is not noteworthy enough on its own and all the information in it of any pertinence to Wikipedia could be moved to The Endless River. Agreed with the nominator regarding WP:BLP1E. It is Pink Floyd who is famous and notable, and to a lesser extent each of their albums, not Ahmed Emad Eldin. Yetisyny (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he's only done one notable thing: Design an album cover for Pink Floyd. Fails all our tests as coverage is about a single event.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pink Floyd's The Endless River sold 2.5 million copies in 2014 - the scale of sales and the historical importance of the album elevates the cast of characters involved in constructing to a different level of notability. This is not an album cover for an ordinary band. Emad Eldin was filling the shoes of Storm Thorgerson and worked with Aubrey Powell on this project - a very high profile collaboration in its own right. Adobe has described Emad Eldin as "an acclaimed digital artist and photo manipulator whose work has been displayed all over, from museums to the sleeve of Pink Floyd's 'The Endless River'". He was featured as one of Adobe's top 25 artists under the age of 25 this year. He has made album cover work for other artists including Massar Egbari and Hamza Namira. He has been interviewed a good number of times since that Pink Floyd album cover, including recently by Vice Media, and is featured in his own right in the exhibit Pink Floyd: Their Mortal Remains. Emad Eldin has also produced movie posters for the films "Stray" (2017),"Heavy Rain" (a New York Film Academy production - Emad Eldin received an award for the movie poster)(2018), and "Clash" (2016). One concern I have is that the perception of notability here can be distorted by unintentional ethnocentrism. While a lot of the publicity that has followed Emad Eldin's Pink Floyd album cover originates in the MENA region and Europe it shouldn't diminish the recognition the artist has received, especially since it recognizes his work past that particular project. I would be more than happy to add references to these items to help improve and preserve the article.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of the examples of notability you suggest here - such as the collaboration with Audrey Powell, and the mention by Adobe - apply to the Endless River cover and can be covered in the Endless River article where necessary. I've investigated the films you mention, which appear to have varying degrees of notability, but I can't find any notable sources covering Emad Eldin's work on them. Remember that the vast majority of movie poster designers, even for major films, are not themselves notable enough for Wikipedia pages. If you can find multiple high-quality sources demonstrating notability beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT then great, add them. But I suspect they're not out there. Popcornduff (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pink Floyd sells albums for their music, not their cover art. As well, if the artist were as notable as 1987atomheartbrother makes him out to be, items like the Floyd album cover would be in major musuem collections. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flying bacon not pictured
        • Pink Floyd's album covers have long been the subject of marketing and exhibitions of their own, e.g., Taken by Storm. (These covers have been a significant source of revenue for both the band and the artists). The Endless River cover has been featured at the Victoria & Albert museum and this past July Emad Eldin's work was featured at Sala Dogana in Palazzo Ducale in Genoa, as part of the exhibition "Bad Consumers."--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • News flash: nobody buys empty album covers without the music inside, except for a very, very tiny fringe of society that is really into album covers and promoting the history of album covers. Every city has a half dozen or so people like this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a subjective view. There are many articles on Wikipedia devoted to subjects that have a stronger following in niche markets. Wikipedia is a great resource precisely because it can provide the depth of information for everyone to understand these. BTW, I’m keeping the tone here respectful and professional. An opinion is welcome but shouldn’t be construed as a “news flash.”--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you misinterpret my comment. We keep things because they have a following in niche markets? Above and below you are posting lots of arguments for assigning notability, none of which are within current policy. This is WP:SINGLEVENT. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to The Endless River#Packaging per WP:BLP1E. People like Peter Wang have gotten more than enough coverage for WP:GNG and failed WP:BLP1E, so making an album cover really isn't enough. While this artist seems to have potential for an article in the future, all the coverage is surrounding the album cover. The album cover and the artist's involvement is already covered in the main article. I'll change my opinion if sources for subsequent coverage turn up as promised. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added references and enumerated the film posters and other albums the artist has worked on. The references are in English and Arabic. Over time I can add details about each but thought it was critical to at least enumerate these projects and attach citations with them as quickly as possible given our discussion here. Removed the Facebook account link from External Links. Added subject's proper URL. As I mention here, I can flesh out more details on each posters and other album work over time. I also hope to add information about at least one museum exhibit and one award.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added an additional two references or so, updated some of the language including some corrections. Links relate to exhibition work and movie poster work, an award. I am more than happy to continue fleshing out the narrative a bit more on these items but also find additional references: I find most of it is that the news items are in Europe and the MENA region - no less important than if they were coming from an English speaking country but they don't turn up in English search engines as quickly. Frankly, this is just a function of the market the search engine serves than the actual availability of news. I welcome feedback on additional sources and additional edits, etc. I will delve back into the article as soon as I can in the next 24-48 hours to see what can be improved or what I have missed so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1987atomheartbrother (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1987atomheartbrother, about half of this page is filled with your rebuttals at this point. You might want to read WP:BLUDGEON. it's time to hear from other users.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two comments directly above are not rebuttals: I am respectfully supporting FenixFeather's point, providing continuity to the discourse they presented, which I thought was constructive: I responded to the portion of their note where they address the need for "sources for subsequent coverage" with information on the updates made to the article in that context.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're monopolizing the discussion with the hope that you can WP:BLUDGEON it into being kept. That's very clear. Let others have their say. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG and clearly not a case of WP:BLP1E. Neither the Wikipedia community nor our readership would be served by removing this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEYMANN. This article is dramatically better than it was on September 3, and the additional referenced content makes it clear that BLP1E no longer applies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit reluctantly. I suppose the subject has received enough coverage in the press to sustain an article, but some of the sources are, pardon my language, absolute garbage. "Egyptian Teenager Selected Among Best 25 Visual Artists Worldwide". No, he made a 25-under-25 list of a promotional magazine by a software vendor (Adobe) that sells the digital tools that were used to create the image. He is in no way one of the best visual artists in the world, however subjective that assessment is. To use such utter drivel in an encyclopedia article is a disgrace. --Vexations (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Vexations that recent improvements have made the article pass GNG and BLP1E, with the caveat that the sources aren't the best and are really stretching it. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:15, 18 September 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) 22:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aadhav Kannadasan[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR as all roles are non-starring. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 12 September 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. There are some suggestions to redirect, but also some arguments against. So, I'm not going to include the redirect in the consensus close, but if anybody wants to redirect it on their own, per WP:BOLD, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haldia Development Authority[edit]

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

There's not enough material for an article: just routine bueaucratic postings and a list of projects. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Government-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi DGG, I am not surprised by the nomination. But please note that this is one of Category:State urban development authorities of India With the State Chief Secretary as its chairman (which implies it is highly empowered and has a notable mandate). Source[1] The local language is Bengali so the WP:SIGCOV that we are looking for will mostly be found in Bengali. I would not claim that this Government company will pass WP:NORG with flying colours but it has enough to merit an article here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did examine the other similar article before making this nomination. To some extent nomination this is at test case, selected because it had particularly scanty content, and most of it was about future planning which may fall under CRYSTAL . I am certainly willingto accept your statemtn that it might be notable in the future, so perhaps the solutions is to draftify if you think there will besufficient additional material afteranother 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting test case. But bottom line: regional government office - has no inherent notability, fails WP:ORG, and no independent references make it fail WP:N. We may have many similar articles, yes. And we should purge all of them. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus and DGG. Not notable. Even the one person who has voted to Keep, DBigXray, says "I would not claim that this Government company will pass WP:NORG with flying colours". Well, it seems unanimous that this article would not pass the notability criteria for organizations "with flying colours", then, at the very least. I would say that it actually fails those notability criteria and thus merits deletion, however, unlike DBigXRay who thinks maybe it can barely squeak by and somehow pass them. Also, having an important person as the chairman does not make an organization notable, many important people are listed as chairmen for a whole bunch of organizations including non-notable ones: no inherited notability is one of Wikipedia's policies for organizations. Yetisyny (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: It is also fine with me if you Redirect and Merge to the Haldia article, like Winged Blades of Godric said he might do down near the bottom, since even if this is not notable enough for its own article, if relevant info about this is put in part of the Haldia article, people would find a redirect that links to that section of the Haldia article useful if looking up info on the Haldia Development Authority. (To readers: Note that the below reply by DBigXray is a response to the first part of my vote, prior to me adding this update, you can also look at the timestamps, I am leaving my original message unaltered so people can see what was said.) Yetisyny (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must remind you that basing your !vote simply on others comments and attacking AfD contributors who you disagree with is not the right way to participate here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, DBigXray, if you took anything I said as an insult, I was simply quoting what you said and trying to take your opinion into account in a respectful way. If it did not come across as respectful I sincerely apologize, I hold others here with the greatest respect including you, and I always try to be civil and assume good faith. I did not mean any offense by anything I said, I was simply trying to take your views and everyone else’s views all into account while also stating my own. You do raise a good point regarding not voting solely based on the comments of others, that WOULD be the wrong thing to do. However, I did indeed look at the WP:NORG criteria and my opinion is one that I arrived at based on a combination of looking at Wikipedia policies regarding the notability of organizations, examining how they apply to this case, and yes, the votes of others did play a PART in my thinking, but I also took what you said into consideration as well and tried to weigh the arguments pro and con and gauge which argument was the better one that more suited the criteria of WP:NORG. But I do take your critique to heart regarding the possibility that I may not be participating here in the right way, you may indeed be correct, I will endeavor to improve myself. Thank you for the advice. I myself try to encourage others to be more civil to each other and assume good faith and avoid any insults, if you look at some of my participation in other discussions where people were less than civil towards each other.
My initial reason for getting involved in these discussions was, these discussions started happening for articles I was involved in editing, and I wanted to learn more about the process and understand it better since I did not understand the concept of notability that well, and felt that only by actively participating in these discussions and having a back-and-forth with interlocutors such as yourself with different points of view would I learn anything. Anyway, thank you for your constructive criticism and I apologize for any offense I accidentally caused by my choice of words, everything I said I meant in the most respectful way possible and I did not intend for it to sound disrespectful or insulting towards you in any way. I do not think that what I wrote sounds insulting, and I certainly did not use any words that I would consider insults, but I suppose phrases and sentences can be interpreted multiple ways. I view you and others who participate in these discussions, whether I agree or disagree with you, as fellow good-faith contributors, and I do not have any higher view of people I agree with or any lower view of people I disagree with. I hope that you understand this. Thank you, every one of these interactions helps educate me more about this process, and I am trying to learn all that I can. Perhaps I should not be voting but only commenting? However, I want to do my part to help make Wikipedia a better place, and I think that when I look at the rules of Wikipedia and try to apply them fairly and work towards consensus in a constructive way, I think I am helping. Maybe I do not always succeed at those goals but I am doing my best. I am sure you are doing your best too, I am sure everyone here is doing their best. Anyway you are mistaken if you think I dislike you, I like everyone here including you. Yetisyny (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In continuation of my above Keep Vote.
  • This government Body had caused a major notable event Nandigram violence "On January 2, 2007, the Haldia Development Authority issued a preliminary notice that it wanted to acquire 14,500 acres over 27 mouzas. On January 3, more than 1,000 people gathered to protest. The government took no heed and went ahead with its plans." [2][3]
  • Haldia Development Authority houses some of the state's leading industrial projects[4]
  • This government body also acts as a municipality in the area.
  1. The attacks come days after Trinamool Midnapore state minister Subhendu Adhikari declared that panchayats under Haldia Development Authority, in which opposition parties draw a blank in the polls, would be given preferential treatment.[5]
  2. The six vessels are MV Banabibi, MV Hazarduari, MV Pathar Panchali, MV Motijheel, MV Jalasrashtra and MV Bhorsagar, and will be operated by North Barrackpore Municipality, Behrampore Municipality, Haldia Development Authority, Haldia Municipality, Rishra Municipality and Naihati Municipality, respectively.[6]
  • the West Bengal State Chief Secretary is its chairman (which implies it is highly empowered and has a notable mandate). Source[1]
  • The Municipalities of India are a victim of WP:BIAS related to Internet. It is so bad that Category:Municipalities lacks India in spite of the population and size. And we can clearly see the reason why.

References

  1. ^ a b Committee, India Parliament Public Accounts (3 September 1978). "Report - Public Accounts Committee". Lok Sabha Secretariat. – via Google Books.
  2. ^ "MP farmers' protest: An echo of what happened in Nandigram a decade ago". 7 June 2017.
  3. ^ Dobhal, Harsh (3 September 2018). "Writings on Human Rights, Law, and Society in India: A Combat Law Anthology : Selections from Combat Law, 2002-2010". Socio Legal Information Cent – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "What 'parivartan'? It's business as usual at Haldia".
  5. ^ "Parties clash while filing poll names - Times of India".
  6. ^ Millenniumpost.in. "Bengal Govt to run six new vessels from today".
  • Comment While I agree regarding WP:BIAS being a real problem, Wikipedia does not have articles for local development authorities where I live in the United States, either. There is just an article for the city I live on the outskirts of and the county I live in, that is all. A municipality is different from a government agency. A municipality is actually a place people live such as a town, city, county, state, province, or nation, whereas, wherever you live, there are typically a whole bunch of different government agencies in charge of different things which have various different authorities. And while all municipalities are notable, not all government agencies are notable, for instance my town has a Department of Transportation which is in charge of the roads where I live, but it does not have a Wikipedia article, nor should it, in fact no local government agencies at all where I live have Wikipedia articles. The only government agencies with jurisdiction where I live that have Wikipedia articles are at the state and federal level, not the local level.
Regarding Category:Municipalities, that category only has subcategories for 43 countries, in a world with over 190 countries, so that is not specific to India. Other countries besides India that are not on that list include Australia, Austria, China, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Syria, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, and countless other important countries, in fact 3/4 of the countries in the world are not on that list. It would require a tremendous amount of effort to list all the municipalities in a country the size of India but you are welcome to create the category and do that if you are willing. The neighboring nation of Nepal DOES have an entry in that category and I sincerely doubt anyone would try to remove it, I for one am glad to have the municipalities of Nepal well-documented and wish that all the over-190 countries of the world had that done for them.
My point is, perhaps your case regarding bias here is a little overstated, although I do agree with you that bias is a major problem on Wikipedia, and when I look at the list of countries that DO get categories listing their municipalities, European and North American countries DO predominate and that definitely IS bias. But, the bias applying to this SPECIFIC article? I do not agree with that, given what I have explained regarding local and county government where I live in the United States not having any Wikipedia articles and not being considered notable. This is a local government agency you are talking about. The American county I live in has roughly the same population as the city of Haldia and none of its local government is notable enough for Wikipedia nor will I try to add any articles regarding my local government here. Yetisyny (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment requesting a relist due to new evidence I have added today for notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haldia-Whilst many more trivial refs with mere name-mentions like DBigXray's can be added (esp. in Bengali language), it doesn't add to independent notability.∯WBGconverse 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Why a redirect vs. outright deletion? If you do not think it is notable enough for its own article as a development authority, why do you want it to exist as a redirect to Haldia? The Haldia article would not have any relevant information on the Haldia Development Authority so it seems like leaving a redirect behind would be a bit misleading to users. If someone types in Haldia Development Authority in the search box and gets redirected to the Haldia article and cannot find any information about that development authority anywhere in the article, I think they would feel like they got misled a bit since the article would not have any information at all about the development authority. This is certainly how I feel whenever I try to look something up on Wikipedia and get redirected to some article that completely lacks any information on what I looked up, which is a common occurrence for me on Wikipedia unfortunately. Also if you are typing in “Haldia Development Authority” in the search box, the first word is “Haldia” and if that is the only thing that shows up, you can just stop there and see that no result exists for Haldia Development Authority. If you see a topic listed when you are typing something in in Wikipedia’s search box, and then get redirected to some article that does not have any information at all on that topic, well, you would probably feel misled, this kind of thing happens to me all the time on Wikipedia when I am looking things up and reading them, and is very frustrating. Yetisyny (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yetisyny, thank you for your perspective and i appreciate that.I will be adding a line or two about HDA at Haldia, shortly.∯WBGconverse 10:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Two of the three references in the existing article are to the HDA's own website. Normally, I'd say a merge or redirect to Haldia would make sense per WP:ATD, but lacking any good references, and with concern about WP:UNDUE, I'd just delete it.
On a technical note, @Yetisyny:, please keep in mind that the user experience you describe (i.e. the behavior when you start typing into a text box) is specific to how the particular client, the one you're using, happens to work. People access wikipedia with a variety of clients on mobile devices. Even on the web, they use different browsers, different skins, and may well have settings and extensions which affect the details you're describing. Not to mention how the content gets reused via mirrors, search engines, etc.
-- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be a lot to digest - if someone could make some concise points, would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the new refs presented in this afd, there is nothing i can see that offers direct coverage/reviews of this organisation. Szzuk (talk) 08:19, 23 September 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. With Zortwort and AllyD's rationale not being opposed, with due respects to the nominator's reasonings, this discussion is being closed as a borderline keep. Interested editors are suggested to spruce up the sources in order to avoid future nominations. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal Hands[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. As always, self-promoting wannabes often try to game the wikirules by claiming greater notability than they really have, so it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band in the door, but the degree to which the claim can be reliably sourced as true. (For example, NMUSIC's touring criterion is not passed by stating that a band toured, it's passed by reliably sourcing that the tour received media coverage.) But half of the sources here are the band's own self-published content about themselves on Bandcamp and their own website, and the other half consists of Blogspot or WordPress blogs -- which means that exactly zero of the footnotes represent reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look in the references, the band has already released three albums and is on a world tour. I was on one of their concerts beginning this year and will visit one again next month. There are multiple references to reviewers, who just which are older I admit and just review their first album. They also were in the lineup of the Haldern Pop festival of 2017. Like GoGo Penguin on the same label then. I am not associated to that band, I like them. If my writing sound advertising because of this, ok I will change my writing style. This band exists since 6 years and each album has received positive reviews by critics. If you delete it you create a dead link more? What is the purpose of this? I will look for more references and remove bandcamp links, but do not delete this page. There are FOUR articles in jazz specific magazines linked alone for reviews of the first album. I took them from the Czech page. I am NOT a self promoting wannabe Bearcat. I only took notice of them this year. I COULDN'T FIND A WIKIPEDIA PAGE ON MAMMAL HANDS IN ENGLISH! So I wrote one. I am German, not even ever was in England. I do not know this guys personally, but I would appreciate it. At least them are not some ignorant fools with biased opinions. Tlwm (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion test for a band is not "I've been to their concert" — it is reliable sourcing, of which you've shown none. The reviews you cited are from blogs, not reliable sources, and no band can ever claim anything that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt them from having to be sourced properly before they qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. they are published by Gondwana Records, which is a label who takes care of 11 artists/groups. THERE IS ALSO NO PAGE FOR THEIR LABEL nor the other artists apart from GoGo Penguin Tlwm (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a record label is not an automatic inclusion freebie for a band, in the absence of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were also on the Montreux Jazz Festival this year. They are not no one.Tlwm (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "played at a festival" is not a notability freebie for a band if the fact is sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself — playing at a festival, even a notable one, counts as a notability claim only to the extent that real media devoted their editorial resources to producing reliable source content about the performance. No matter what notability claim you're making for any band, the test is not the claim, but the extent to which real media did or didn't independently create their own unaffiliated content about the band's achievement of that notability claim. The touring test is passed by music journalists writing reviews of the concert in real newspapers and magazines, not by concert calendars or blogs; the "relased albums" criterion is passed by music journalists writing reviews of the albums in real newspapers and magazines, not by the albums' Bandcamp pages or blogs; and on, and so forth: the notability test is not the claim, it's the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, again, these are real musical journalists and real music magazines:
Phil Barnes (2014-10-18). "Mammal Hands: Animalia". www.allaboutjazz.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25.
Bruce Lindsay (2014-08-30). "Mammal Hands: Animalia". www.allaboutjazz.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25.
"London Jazz News Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.londonjazznews.com (in Englisch). 2014-10-02. Retrieved 2018-08-25.
Ian Mann (2014-10-18). "The Jazz Mann Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.TheJazzMann.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25.
"Review of shadow work" (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-26.
David Rodriguez (2017-10-19). "The Jazz Mann Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.itdjents.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-26.
and I am not finished. I took out the bandcamp links READ THE ARTICLE! Tlwm (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is Jazz and not Beyonce Knowles, yes.Tlwm (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All About Jazz is a website established by Michael Ricci in 1995.

— wikipedia
Is this reliable enough?Tlwm (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
London Jazz News is a Blogspot blog, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. All About Jazz has a "member benefits" page which makes it clear that their content is user-generated, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. Itdjents is a WordPress blog, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. And The Jazz Mann just gives me a "You have exceeded the allowed page load frequency" error, not actual content — but the author's name makes it painfully clear that he's self-publishing his own opinions, and not vetting them through the editorial chaim of command that is one of the base requirements for a source to be considered a reliable one. So no, I'm evaluating the sources correctly — you're the one who doesn't understand what's required for a source to actually provide proper support for notability, not me. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is also their first self published album.[1]Tlwm (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define quality of music? By sells? By amount of contended sugar? Wikipedia just keeps track of multi billion stars like Shakira? Then this whole wiki site concept is not worth it's bandwidth or hd space. Make place for porn?Tlwm (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything whatsoever about "quality of music" — that's a subjective criterion which every musician on earth would always claim to pass, and whether they actually did or not would be up to individual taste. It's the sourcing being used to support the article that has to achieve a certain specific minimum standard of quality, not the music that's being written about — our inclusion criteria are based on sources, not on personal opinions about who's better or worse at what they do than who else. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY, Jazz is not featured on MTV, so I can not reference to some kind of academical source - if MTV is a academical source, I diverge. I saw them live, they have very good but not overwhelming reviews, they are not meant as public ads.Tlwm (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hype, it is their third good album in 6 years. They work hard and tour hard. Concerning sell's look at the list of sells at their last album. There is a demand. I hope someone else contributes to the page I begun.Tlwm (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU THINK THEIR MUSIC IS GOOD OR NOT. Our notability criteria are not based on anybody's personal opinions about whether the music that a band makes is good or bad — every musician on earth is going to be thought of as the most talented musician in history by somebody and as the worst or most overrated musician ever by somebody else, because everybody's taste is different. Our notability criteria are based on whether the music that the band makes does or does not get RELIABLE SOURCE COVERAGE IN REAL MEDIA, not on what anybody thinks about whether the music is good or bad. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cited standard review site's. There are no self serving sources. I have cited independent reviewers. I did not wrote this article for advertisement. The cited sources are not biased, they are reviews. I collected simple facts, which I could prove within the Wikipedia itself (music theory) and dates and other stuff like names independently. The description of their style is based upon musical theoretic facts not opinions. That is the reason, why I heavily cited other wikipedia articles. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME? Tlwm (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not reliable sources, and cannot be used to support the wikinotability of anything. What we want from you? RELIABLE SOURCES THAT PROPERLY SUPPORT NOTABILITY. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that jazz is a niche in genere so I can not give an MTV article. Do you understand me? If I would write on my opinion I would completely different. Tlwm (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody fucking asked for any goddamned MTV articles. So no, I don't understand why you keep harping on MTV articles, because nobody asked for any, and MTV doesn't do "articles" anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the passage Some articles will get deleted anyway about small bands. My argument is that you do not get invited to the Montreux Jazz Festival if you are that small. I argue with MTV in irony. Since Jazz as a genre is small and few mainstream represented. They made three albums on Vinyl, CD and download on a record label. GoGo Penguin is now on Blue Note. I think they deserve it. A school band does not play on Festivals. My personal opinion is that this is exactly the purpose of the Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia and contains sooooo much special interest stuff. If you write about festivals you have to write on the bands who play there. Art is subjective, yes.Tlwm (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one single personal opinion of me in that article. I did not wrote an opinion on Amazon.Tlwm (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I scan an article from a Jazz magazine I bought at the main station? What else do you want?Tlwm (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said not one time in that article if I like this band or not. That is not what I write about. I make music myself. I know what repetitive structures in music are. What specific information is it, which you have doubt in? ME? Tlwm (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Lindsay of all about Jazz for example, wrote 695 CD reviews. I have to trust, that he listened to this cd's. What do you have distrust in? Tlwm (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And who is we? Are you talking in third person of yourself?Tlwm (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. The help to find sources on top of the page is nice, but is mainly about American sources. This is the English wikipedia, not American wikipedia. If you want to Americanize the Wikipedia make a specific one. This wikipedia is for all people who can at least read English.Tlwm (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources from British media websites. I don't see why you guys decided to argue so much when a couple of google searches could have easily turned up some sources for you. These guys are obviously not a very well-known band, but considering how many other acts have wikipedia pages without being headline groups, and how those articles have not been deleted, I don't really see the problem here. I think you guys have decided to pick on this article because it's new without bothering to research the subject matter. Zortwort (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And by "you guys" I mean Bearcat, thought there was someone else but it seems he's the only one who has a problem with the article so far. Zortwort (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reason why wikipedia should be a part of a system just to support big acts. That would be an active suppression of not so big acts. Where when not here to write on cultures and sub-cultures? Ever asked yourself why people stop to write articles for wp?Tlwm (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not limited to "big" acts. What we are limited to is acts that can cite real reliable source coverage about them in real media (not blogs), verifying that they meet a notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:Your policys are overwhelmingly burocratic which have exactly that effect. Besides all that critic points could also apply to football for me. So please delete the football article. This is bureaucratic and pedantic Tlwm (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlwm: I noticed you mentioned there being a magazine article about this band, you don't need to scan it to reference it. Reference it somewhere in the article, because being the main subject of a magazine article in a popular magazine is alone a sufficient claim to notability. That said, I also added some references from news outlets which qualify as notable coverage, so it's probably not necessary. Either way the article meets the criteria for notability now, so there's no valid reason to delete it. Zortwort (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zortwort: Thanks a lot. Tlwm (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zortwort and Bearcat: I also added another link to an article from 2016 in the Jazzwise Magazine, which is (according to themselves, I admit) UK's biggest selling Jazz magazine in paper and online. I hope that is enough. Tlwm (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also added wikipedia internal links to fight orphanage. Tlwm (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The were already two different bands form the same label in the wikipedia. Do not bomb them now as well but I am just adding another very good. And the label itself. The wikipedia policys for notability are very questionable. You put the Ninja Tunes label under delete request? I bought music as a teenager in the 90's from them. They are a giant!Tlwm (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Tlwm bought the band's record 25 years ago" is not a criterion for notability in the Wikipedia guidelines. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulCHebert: He's right, though, look at the Ninja Tunes article. They're a hugely notable label, he's just saying that people who aren't informed have tried to delete obviously-notable articles in the past before bothering to research and improve them. His buying their music in the 90s was just a bit of narrative. Nice work improving the readability of Mammal Hands, by the way. It reads a lot less subjective now. Zortwort (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links been removed with the rationale that the band is nowhere near notable enough to go on those lists. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Review of Shadow Work". Retrieved 2018-08-26.
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. The bulk of the sources in the article are from a press release service or blogs. The three legitimate sources consist of two which are local interest – Norwich Evening News and Bristol Live – and do not, in my opinion, provide weight to notability. The third, Jazzwise Magazine, seems to be a good source but, by itself is insufficient to get them over the bar notability wise.
    I see no indication that they have charted or been placed in rotation in a major radio market but I very well could have missed something because I am unfamiliar with the genre. I am willing to reconsider my position if new sources of information is found. If that happens please feel free to ping me. Jbh Talk 00:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can somebody digest the above discussion and help bring about consensus from it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm still unsure exactly what opinion I have here, but I'm leaning towards keep. My perception of the article is admittedly biased by the fact that I've seen hundreds of articles on bands and musicians which are far more trivial, and have far less comprehensive sourcing/ support for notability than this one. I also think that while a single local interest news source doesn't provide weight to notability, several local interest sources from across the UK do (they're obviously not a local band which is being covered, but rather local news is covering them for their notability, is the way I see it.) This in combination with the article in Jazzwise to me provides a sufficient sourcing basis. Beyond that, I also think that Gondwana records qualifies as a more significant indie label, as they've been operating for many years and the other bands under their label more easily pass the criteria for notability than Mammal Hands does, and per WP:NMUSIC recording several albums for a large indie label is also a claim to notability. The combination of these factors along with the fact that while appropriately uncited in the article, there are many listings online for their performances at large venues and festivals, is enough for me to think that this band is sufficiently notable, and that this notability is supported almost well-enough within the article. This is the rationale behind my hesitant keep vote. Zortwort (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to append that Bearcat's original concern about the article reading as promotional has been largely resolved thanks to PaulCHebert's edits, so I think it should purely be a matter of notability at this point. Zortwort (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tonight I added Wikiproject Jazz to the article Talk page, so this AfD should appear on the project alerts page tomorrow. Regarding this case, I haven't considered the sources yet, but one comment for the moment is that AllAboutJazz is a sometimes awkward combination of reprinted promo material and bylined articles. In sourcing jazz articles in the past (for example during the BLP drive some 8 years ago), I have avoided the former but been comfortable in using the latter as reputable sources. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: As well as the substantial bylined reviews by Bruce Lindsay and Phil Barnes at AllAboutJazz, there is a paywalled article in Jazzwise (intro). Less usefully, I'll note brief review coverage of a festival appearance in The Guardian and a namecheck in an interview in The Observer, though neither sufficient to sustain notability in themselves. Similar for a brief review in the Glasgow Herald, among other performance coverage. In terms of radio station coverage, I doubt any jazz musician of the past 2 generations has been playlisted "in rotation" (a rather industry payola-vulnerable criterion anyway, in my opinion), but concert recordings have been featured in The Jazz House on BBC Scotland. I would prefer to see just a bit more, such as an article by a leading journalist in the field such as John Fordham, but I think there is just enough in terms of breadth of coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no sign of clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with reviews in AllAboutJazz and further coverage, as per AllyD's description above. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 16 September 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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primo premio: Mariarosa[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. No encyclopedic content, just a one-sentence lead and a cast list, as well as an external link to IDMB (which, last time I checked, is an unreliable source). Could be considered an advertisement. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I was able to add a plot summary from two Italian film sites (both of which spell it "Maria Rosa"), and a book on Italian directors set it in the context of the director's career. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are reliable sources books coverage and the article on this 1952 film does not seem promotional at all, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 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. Given the consensus moving towards keep by the end, with little opposition from others, this discussion is being closed as a keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Kerrigan[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Sullivan Alioto. Non-notable Boston School Committee chair. Quick search gave nothing useful; fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sources listed don't even appear to be sufficient. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to keep: as demonstrated below, significant coverage in reliable sources exists. MBlaze Lightning 10:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that longstanding paragraph in article about Kerrigan's entry into politics and pre-politics career is sourced to J. Anthony Lukas' book Common Ground, the 1985 book that won the Pulitzer Prize, & the National Book Award, & the National Book Critics Circle Award. This article needs improvement, but WP:SIGCOV exists in powerful abundance. The fact that he was a "mere" member of the School Committee is misleading. He was notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of members of Boston City Council#1970–1979. As this NYT article [107] points out, he was elected to Boston City Council after his school committee stint. In the interest of exploring alternatives to deletion, redirect to the Boston City Council list, with a particular target of 1970-1979 to prevent confusion with the earlier (unrelated) council member John E. Kerrigan. Given the minimal content and sourcing in the article, it probably would have been fine to just WP:ATD-R without AfD, so thanks to nominator for seeking community input. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case others want to evaluate the New York Times coverage of the subject during the 1970s, here is a helpful search: "john j. kerrigan" nytimes Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has received significant coverage - Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Kerrigan pleases liberals except on racial issues". The Boston Globe. Van Dyne, Larry. November 9, 1969.
"Kerrigan re-emerges, pushes popular issues". The Boston Globe. October 24, 1971.
"Kerrigan to study for PhD in education". The Boston Globe. Cohen, Muriel. June 20, 1972.
"Kerrigan deserted by Boston conservatives". The Boston Globe. Robinson, Walter. November 10, 1977.
"Kerrigan takes up residence in Quincy:". The Boston Globe. Robinson, Walter. September 10, 1978.
"Antibusing crusader returns, unhorsed; A changed John Kerrigan seeks elective office". The Boston Globe. Rezendes, Michael. September 7, 1992.
"The New Kerrigan?". The Boston Globe. September 10, 1994.
  • @Hirolovesswords: In the 70s, the Globe was more focused locally (not entirely, however, that news story would not be covered today in the Globe if Kerrigan did those same things). That's as valuable as a minor local source, which, while that does count, it isn't sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This assertion is wildly incorrect. In the 70s The Globe was the leading regional daily, with reporters covering and based in all of the 6 New England States, in addition to Globe journalists in Washington and a considerable number of foreign correspondents. Redditaddict69, Please stop making grand, sweeping, and false assertions about subjects with which you are not familiar and that you have obviously not researched.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of whether a source is "local" or "extralocal", for the purposes of nationalizing the wider notability of school board trustees, is not defined by the geographic range of the publication's readership — it's defined by the geographic location of the content's origination. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Redditaddict69: What is your assessment of the 10 or so NYT stories involving Kerrigan, e.g. [108] or [109]? Bakazaka (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: - The first article has solely passing mentions (e.g. "Kerrigan and his colleagues...", "Kerrigan, a father of two who professes...", "a lawyer who sits as chairman; John J. Kerrigan"). The second is a bit better, but that's one source. Again, this is a discussion to see what others think. One source, especially from the NYT, counts, but one source isn't sufficient. I tend to see that 3-4 major publications is sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read more carefully through the New York Times coverage, changing !vote to keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG. Editors may read the coverage differently. For example, in a "passing mention" from the first article cited above, here is the text immediately following: "The most outspoken committeeman is threeterm member Kerrigan, a father of two who professes to be so concerned about the future of education that he is pursuing a doctorate in education at the University of Massachusetts. He quits the meeting a little early to chat with a visitor. His office is cluttered with curios and he pointedly calls attention to his favorite, a plaster fist molded into an obscene gesture in front of a banquet‐table sign that reads “Reserved for the Press.” But he is relatively subdued and genial for this interview as he props his modish two‐tone high‐heel shoes on the desk. “Those who want to bus kids are out to bus your kids, not theirs,” he says, referring to those “friggin’ liberals in the suburbs” where there are almost no black people. “When they put their kids on the altar of social justice, then I'll put mine there, too.”" Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Absolutely keep. This guy led the school committee opposition to Boston busing desegregation. INDEPTH coverage of his role exists not merely in the media of the era, but in books and scholarly analysis of that era. Nom, an enthusiastic new editor, has got to learn to SLOW DOWN when nominating articles related to topics about which he knows little and do a proper WP:BEFORE. And note that this role gets revisited in more recent news coverage, readily found in searches, such as this WBUR article: 'It Was Like A War Zone': Busing In Boston: "Among those who took his child out of public school was the president of the Boston School Committee, John Kerrigan, an opponent of busing. He said the schools were unsafe." E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did WP:BEFORE searches as detailed as possible and only found passing mentions of his name in minor bus desegregation articles. I do support a Redirect or Merge to any article even remotely related to the Boston Bus Desegregation. I listened to your advice on my talk page, @E.M.Gregory: and read through WP:SIGCOV a thousand times. Kerrigan alone does not meet the requirements. It seems somewhat like WP:BLP1E, too (assuming that one event would mean the one thing he was notable for, though he led multiple protests). See my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Sullivan Alioto for more info. Moreover, I seem to have noticed his role was really minor. Leading those oppositions against Desegregation in he did made little to no efforts, especially due to Boston having lots of support for desegregation. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
omitting the middle initial helps, and using keywords. In this case, googling: john + kerrigan + busing + boston would have given you some idea of how much sourcing/notability exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books with INDEPTH discussion of Kerrigan include:
  • Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s, Ronald P. Formisano, Univ of North Carolina Press, 2012
  • Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families,By J. Anthony Lukas (this book that won the Pulitzer Prize)
  • Desegregation in Boston and Buffalo: The Influence of Local Leaders, Steven J. L. Taylor, SUNY Press, 1998
  • Reforming Boston Schools, 1930-2006: Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation, Joseph M. Cronin, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really concerned about the classification of SIGCOV in articles I don't have access to as the articles I do have access to don't show SIGCOV - the WBUR article, for instance, only mentions his name once. SportingFlyer talk 02:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SportingFlyer. I have access to paywalled news archives, and was gonna offer to copy paste some of the old Boston Globe articles for you. Problem is, they are photo images of newsprint. legible, but not easy to copy-paste. Nevertheless, is there is a specific text, or type of coverage you want to see, I will try to get it for you. Meanwhile,
  • Here is the obit: John Kerrigan, combative foe of school busing, dead at 64: [City Edition] Long, Tom. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]15 Aug 1996: B.1.: " John J. Kerrigan, the former Boston School Committee member whose calculated public belligerence came to symbolize the most unyielding resistance to the court-mandated end to the city's segregated school system, died of cancer yesterday in his home in Quincy. He was 64.
  • Mr. Kerrigan was one of the most prominent page-turners in perhaps the most divisive chapter in Boston's history, and by any standard -- including his own -- a political rogue whose antics were often designed, he admitted, to inflame his opponents.
  • The cocky and caustic Mr. Kerrigan was a member of the School Committee from 1968 to 1976. It was during much of that period, a federal judge concluded after voluminous testimony, that the committee systematically discriminated against black children, relegating them to inferior schools with fewer resources than those it provided for white children.
  • In 1969, when antibusing leader Louise Day Hicks vacated her seat on the committee to become a city councilor, Mr. Kerrigan replaced her as the the city's most vocal, if not most visible, symbol of opposition to a school desegregation plan sought by the state and ordered by the federal court.
  • With his virulent rhetoric and his prominent scapegoats -- including The Boston Globe -- Mr. Kerrigan topped the School Committee ticket in three successive elections, promising voters that they would keep their neighborhood schools.
  • To his opponents, he was a demagogue. But he had the votes. "I'm not worried," he told an interviewer in 1969. "If you've got what the people want, you could rob a bank and still get elected. And I've got what the people want."
  • When he was elevated to the committee chairmanship during his second term, the combative Mr. Kerrigan boldly voiced his repugnance to the state's Racial Imbalance Act. "I am the type of fellow who has a desire for combat," he said.
  • When the state's new commissioner of education, Neil V. Sullivan, who had integrated the schools in Berkeley, Calif., arrived in town, Mr. Kerrigan suggested he "should have gone to Disneyland."
  • In another notorious episode, Mr. Kerrigan went out of his way to mimic a chimpanzee as he described the ABC-TV correspondent Lem Tucker, a black man. "He's one generation from swinging in the trees," said Mr. Kerrigan. "I bet he loves bananas." Years later, in a 1992 Globe interview, Kerrigan remained unapologetic about the slur, saying Tucker incited him by describing him as a redneck.
  • After the Globe reported that Mr. Kerrigan bypassed legal requirements for awarding School Committee contracts for repair work and directed them to his friends, he launched an antimedia campaign. "The maggots of the press" was an epithet that he often used to criticize the media and incite his followers.
  • Mr. Kerrigan's often profane and always pungent denunciation of liberals and the press -- especially the Globe -- made him such a lightning rod that his political tenure seemed to some much longer than it actually was.
  • He spent only a decade in elected office -- eight years on the Boston School Committee and two on the Boston City Council. His campaign for re-election to the council in 1977 was dogged by disclosures in the Globe that he had a "no-show" aide on his payroll. In that election, even voters in the predominantly white wards who had sustained his career deserted him as he lost badly in his bid to retain his seat. He was 45.
  • A year later, he moved to Quincy. By 1992, when he tried without success to make a political comeback by running for the Governor's Council, Mr. Kerrigan, like his allies in their long-running battle against desegregation, claimed that he had been right all along.
  • "We were right," he said in an interview with the Globe. "You mix poor white kids on welfare with poor black kids and you say that's going to be a cure-all? It was absolutely crazy."
  • A colleague from his years on the School Committee, Elvira (Pixie) Palladino, another ardent busing foe, said of him in 1992, "John Kerrigan was one of the first to point out that the busing of school children was going to be an impossible task that would not enhance the quality of education one single bit. And I'd have to say that John has been proven correct on all counts."
  • In 1974, when he tried unsuccessfully to unseat Garrett H. Byrne as Suffolk County district attorney, Mr. Kerrigan labelled himself, "The fighter."
  • There was no doubting that slogan: For Mr. Kerrigan, there was seldom middle ground to be explored. But whether he came across as a bully seeking a brawl or a principled defender of his constituents, depended on whether you supported or opposed the 1974 Boston school desegregation order issued by US District Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr.
  • In the 1992 article, mayoral aide Theodore Landsmark said that Mr. Kerrigan "was thought of as one of the most racist leaders in the antibusing movement and the person most likely to incite antiblack feelings."
  • Mr. Kerrigan was born in the Neponset section of Dorchester. After high school, he took a job as a machine operator in a Dorchester industrial plant, then worked as an orderly at New England Medical Center. At the hospital he met John Collins, then the Suffolk County Register of Probate and a polio victim who would later become mayor of Boston. The future mayor encouraged him to go back to school.
  • Mr. Kerrigan did, graduating from Northeastern University and New England School of Law and earning a doctorate in education at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. He served as secretary to Collins in 1956 and 1957, then as associate corporation counsel for the Collins mayoral administration from 1960 to 1967.
  • In a 1992 interview in the Globe, Mr. Kerrigan said that while he remained convinced of the rightness of his stance on busing, he had mellowed over the years, particularly after undergoing painful treatment for a cancerous tumor on his eustachian tube.
  • He leaves his wife, Helen E. (Alisio); two daughters, Cynthia A. Kerrigan-Donovan and Krista C. Kerrigan, both of Quincy; and a sister, Patricia A. Kearney of Braintree. A funeral Mass will be said at 10 a.m. Saturday in St. Brendan's Church in Dorchester. Burial will be in Cedar Grove Cemetery in Dorchester." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonna have to agree there is significant coverage for this man, even if the highest office he held was city council. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Boston is an internationally prominent global city, which means that it is one of the cities where city councillors are granted a pass of WP:NPOL #2 as long as they're properly sourced, written like encyclopedia articles rather than campaign brochures, and contain more substance than just "John Kerrigan is a person who exists, the end." All three of those things are true here. Serving on the school board wouldn't be enough all by itself, it's true, but he didn't just serve on the school board — he did serve at a level of office that we do accept as notable as long as the article is written properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's consensus, but I want to point out again here's nothing regarding population size in WP:NPOL apart from the fact larger cities are more likely to pass WP:GNG due to a larger number of sources to draw from. SportingFlyer talk 00:39, 16 September 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 Bad Romance (TV series). (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yihwa (character)[edit]

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

No real-world notability whatsoever. None of the citations are to reliable sources, and none of them specifically cover the character in-depth anyway. Subject fails the WP:GNG. Entire article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Previously redirected to Bad Romance (TV series), but twice reverted by article creator. Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 00:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bad Romance (TV series) - redirecting still seems to be the valid option here. If they undo the creation of the redirect, just revert back, and report to an appropriate noticeboard if that becomes necessary. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT does say that AfD is one of those appropriate venues to discuss such disputed cases. At least this should establish stronger consensus. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for reasons stated above. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 12 September 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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me llaman Lolita[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm not well informed enough to make a decision but plenty of articles come up during a google search. Most are about the show itself and in Spanish, but this may establish notability. Redditaddict69 21:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redditaddict69: entering the name in Google results in tons of Wikipedia mirrors, unusable mentions and other unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 22:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this was a well known and popular telenovela in its day in Colombia. It won three awards (including Best Telenovela of the Year) from the Colombian edition of TVyNovelas, the country's major magazine about everything to do with soap operas, but perhaps more importantly, it also won an India Catalina Award – these awards for the best in Colombian television are presented by the organization behind Colombia's major international film festival, the Cartagena Film Festival, and are considered more respectable and prestigious (and the series may have won more awards, had it not been up against Yo soy Betty, la fea, the Colombian telenovela that was remade in the US as the hugely successful Ugly Betty). Me llaman Lolita also gained notoriety and accusations of pedophilia due to its storyline, leading to protests and censorship when it was screened in other Latin American countries. I realize information is going to be hard to come by on the internet about a TV program screened in 1999, but I've added the above information to the article, and hope this convinces editors that the article is worth keeping. Richard3120 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the series was well-remembered enough for the Colombian free morning newspaper Publimetro to publish a "where are they now?" article, in 2016 [110]. I believe all of the above shows that the article satisfies WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not see a reason to delete the article. Well, it's a very popular telenovela in Colombia, it also contains references.--Philip J FryTalk 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Richard3120. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Award winning and controversial telenovela, which generated significant coverage in multiple published sources independent of the program itself. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 17 September 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. Even if the delete arguments were entirely true, deletion would not be justified, since this could always be merged or redirected to the founder's page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malala Fund[edit]

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

Looking closely at all the interviews, passing mentions and insignificant coverage, I am lead to the conclusion that the subject fails WP:NCORP. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I count eight sources from the article focusing largely or substantially on the organisation itself ([111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118]). More than one is about Apple's partnership, but the charity is discussed in a wide variety of contexts. A Google News search shows a bajillion more sources – some more sources on separate topics, from 2018 alone, include: [119][120][121][122][123]. The first couple of pages of a Google Books search also look fruitful at yielding significant coverage. I came here expecting to reluctantly !vote delete based on WP:NOTINHERITED from Yousafzai, but I think the article easily passes WP:NCORP. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources convince me. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For what reason? Independence, depth, reliability? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Depth of coverage of the organization. Most of these only contain one fact, combined with a bunch of quotes and information unrelated to the Fund. wumbolo ^^^ 22:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't agree. Take the first source I mentioned, Verge. Facts contained: Apple partnership; short-term goal of Fund; Gulmakai Network purpose and scope; founding circumstances and purpose of the charity. Or another one, FC. I count at least five paragraphs whose main topic is the Fund itself, which don't contain quotes from Fund-related people. Similar depth is achieved in [124][125][126][127], and another source I found [128]. For books, there's these [129][130] and there's also this [131]. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respond more lengthily tomorrow, but fyi the last link you posted isn't independent (the author worked at Malala Fund, according to his Linkedin profile). wumbolo ^^^ 22:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the relevant link: WP:ROUTINE. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, the founder has received significant news coverage and this has transferred to the organisation she founded. A quick google search excluding wikipedia turned up over 9000 hits. Even if the press isn't always positive, e.g. [132], it has significant coverage. WCMemail 07:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are a passing mention and the page seems to have been created only because it is associated with a notable individual. See  WP:NOTINHERITED. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage from independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Upon review of the article and its sources, I'm satisfied that there's stand-alone notability here under WP:NORG. The alternative would have been to merge the content to Malala's article, but it may be undue there in such detail. Either way, the content would have been retained, hence my iVote. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content is cobbled up from passing mentions to give a resemblance of notability. Does not passes GNG for standalone article. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be both an aspersion on the creator and a violation of WP:RUBBISH. We judge notability on the sources that exist, not the ones in the article, and I've listed several sources above that are in-depth coverage rather than passing mentions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:00, 16 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacpizza[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Perhaps this could be merged to some list of Pizza Hut franchises or such, but there's little value in this article as it stands now, little scope for expansion, and it is essentially a WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while a merger with Pizza Hut is possible, it's not a notable Pizza Hut franchise. And since the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, as well as violating WP:YELLOWPAGES, it seems valid to have this article deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its like reading the Yellow Pages, references fail ORGIND, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 18:28, 16 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the general notability guideline in WP:NOTE. To check for significant coverage, I searched Google for information about Comedy Dynamics, and found that most of the articles were personal interviews with the CEO and founder of the company. Searching the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes yielded nothing of significance, if anything at all. To check reliability, I tried verifying the claim that Comedy Dynamics is the largest independent comedy label, although their website does not explain what largest means (most annual revenue? number of employees? albums released?). No source has made this claim except for the company itself and online opinion contributors who interviewed the CEO (neither reliable, nor secondary). The only reliable reporting about Comedy Dynamics that I found is this article by a journalist for the WSJ who found that Netflix paid Comedy Dynamics to make vinyl releases of its comedy albums, which were sold unannounced in small quantities for the primary purpose of qualifying Netflix shows for the Grammy awards.

There are a couple of points worth mentioning about the article's edits because they shed light on whether they are made by someone independent of the subject. First, there are only two major contributors to this article's content: User:ComedyFan2015 and User:66.215.16.130. These two accounts added and edited 94% of the article's content. I traced the IP address 66.215.16.130 to 2660 W Olive Ave, Burbank, CA 91505, which is the physical address of Comedy Dynamics. Second, the edits made by ComedyFan2015 and 66.215.16.130 were routine updates to the lengthy filmography, discography, and videography sections. Given the difficulty I had in trying to find information about this company, the monthly edits from these two accounts suggest intimate knowledge of the company's business. Third, the routine edits seem to trade off between these two accounts, and the edits the two accounts are making are substantially the same like here and here. It is possible these two accounts are directed by the same person or organization. Fourth, in the past few months a new user account has been editing the article, User:ComedyDynamics. The username suggests an obvious COI. Finally, perhaps unsurprisingly, Users ComedyFan2015, 66.215.16.130, and ComedyDynamics are contributors to the article about the company's CEO Brian Volk-Weiss. The content in the Brian Volk-Weiss article overlaps significantly with the Comedy Dynamics article. The article about Brian Volk-Weiss was authored primarily by User:Echidna1989, who exclusively writes and edits WP articles relating to Comedy Dynamics.

There is no doubt in my mind: Comedy Dynamics meets none of Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I anticipate that there will be pushback from the accounts ComedyFan2015, 66.215.16.130, and/or ComedyDynamics because of their investment in the subject matter. My message to these users would be that this AfD process is about Wikipedia policy, and passes no judgment about the company. The fact that Comedy Dynamics does not belong in a worldwide English-language encyclopedia reflects the scope of the encyclopedia, not the significance of the company in its industry. Thank you for your review. Romhilde (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent analysis by nom, clearly none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notabaility, failing ORGIND mainly. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 11:03, 17 September 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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koharu Sugawara[edit]

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

Cannot read the Japanese sources, but looks like a run-of-the-mill dancer to me. Edwardx (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not every dancer gets as much media attention as Sugawara. There's a lot of it, some of which is about her commercials for big brands (Nike, Shiseido), some about a minor scandalous allegation, and some of it because she is a sort of "It" girl. Here are links to lists of articles about her at Nikkan Sports [133], Modelpress [134] Natalie [135] Oricon [136]. As with any celebrity a lot of the coverage reflects PR work, but it's also worth noting that the article's current formatting masks the difference between appearing on a variety show (which happens to many celebrities), and being the subject of documentary shows like Jōnetsu Tairiku [137] and 7 Rules [138]. Bakazaka (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources and many television appearances, passes WP:GNG as sources do not have to be in English, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has sufficient reliable sources in Japanese. Therefore, it passes WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Media Television[edit]

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

"Virgin Media Television (Ireland)" is the only company called "Virgin Media Television" in existence today. The former Virgin Media Television in the UK, Living TV Group, has no longer been in existence for almost eight years. As for the other two topics, Virgin Media Ireland is specified as Virgin Media Television's owner in the article, and Virgin TV can be specified with a hatnote. JE98 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Because it's no longer named that" isn't a proper AfD rationale. This is causing no stress to the WMF servers, and it's a proper DAB page in every way. Living TV was called this at the start of en.wiki's existence, and the point of DAB pages is to leave crumbs to where pages has been in the past. I would also oppose lobbing on (disambiguation) to the title as adding needless letters to it. Nate • (chatter) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the entries are even called Virgin Media Television except for Virgin Media Television (Ireland). Currently, the dab page fails MOS:DABNOENTRY. If indeed Living TV Group was called that at one point, a hatnote should be enough per WP:ONEOTHER. --Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is another entry: Virgin Media Television (2007–10), which was the WP:primary topic prior to its 13 July 2010 move to Living TV Group. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really a valid entry for two reason. First, that article name does not comply with any naming guideline; and second, the name changed and per WP:NAMECHANGES that's a valid change for an article name change. If there are no other titles using the SAME NAME (and this isn't even mentioning a thing like WP:SMALLDETAILS which would allow the same name with different caps), then there is a clear primary topic (by merit of being the only topic), but even if this were a valid entry then per WP:ONEOTHER there is still no need for a disambiguation page and a hatnote should be enough. --Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what you're saying is that THIS was a fake website and there was never an entity that called itself "Virgin Media Television" in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland is the only country in the world that has ever had a thing called "Virgin Media Television"? wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The hatnote on Virgin TV is painful to read, and really should just be an {{other uses}} to this disambiguation. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me the brand name "Virgin (Media) TV", with or without "Media", whether "Television" or "TV", is very ambiguous and doesn't clearly indicate whether it is a network, channel, or cable service. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the link you presented including the parenthesis is not a valid article title name based on relevant naming convention guidelines. I was also saying, that a past name that isn't even used as the current title for the article, is not a valid argument for blocking the only article using said title as its primary topic. As for what the hatnote says, I really don't care, as I wasn't the one who wrote it, but based on WP:ONEOTHER a hatnote should be enough and it does not merit a disambiguation page. I'll even add, that even if it did warrant one (which again, I don't agree), then the primary topic should still not be it, and it should be "Virgin Media Television (disambiguation)" - basically, anyway you slice this, there are no valid reasons for the current setup. As for your final point, I have no idea what you are referring to, so I can't comment on that. --Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what would be the best name for Virgin Media Television (2007–10)? Virgin Media Television (television programme production arm of Virgin Media)? Living TV Group had a number of wholly owned channels, available in the United Kingdom on Digital terrestrial television, Satellite television and Cable television platforms and in the Republic of Ireland... so were Virgin Media Television (2007–10) programmes offered in Ireland? In which case we need disambiguation to distinguish "Virgin Media Television (Irish TV network)" from "Virgin Media Television (producer of television programmes seen in Ireland)". wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure what the name is, as WP:NCCORP doesn't give information on what to do. Current practice on most articles is just to add the country name so "Virgin Media Television (UK)", however again, why would you need to? It's a redirect, just live it be. Living TV Group's article name is not being debated here so again, there is no issue. And for your secondary question, we don't need to, as we don't go by the country in which that company might work, but where the company is located. Disney is not an Irish company because it might work in Ireland, however, if Disney has a local channel somewhere, that's a different thing, see Disney XD (Dutch TV channel). So if this discussion was about a channel or network operating in Ireland that would be one thing, but this is about a company operating in the UK and has a totally different name. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid dab page with four good entries, with two obvious entries and two that can reasonably be inferred to pass MOS:DABNOENTRY. The question of if there is a primary topic is properly discussed via a WP:RM, not here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a redirect/merge at worst and should be discussed on the talk page not here. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 19 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abbas[edit]

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

Not finding much that is not about the company he is CEO of, DigiSay, which itself seems barely notable. Edwardx (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable executive of a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO on many fronts. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unable to find any indication of notability in the Austrian news media but that's probably a false negative, as it were. AfD probably shouldn't have been listed as "Austria-related"; Abbas doesn't seem to have any ties to Austria other than some time he spent in Vienna during his childhood. Damvile (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a number of people with this same name but this one is not notable. Excelse (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_12&oldid=1142615080"