Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 September	28 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hype[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Having Miley Cyrus allegedly rip-off one of your songs doesn't make for notability. Other refs are local or advertorial. There is a Draft by the same name which has been waiting for review since 5th September. Simply copy and pasting a unreviewed draft into mainspace is not a good way to go - this still belongs in Draft. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are newspaper articles that are tagged as reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alllovejordyc (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustained coverage for the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG upcoming but a case of WP:TOOSOON at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:05, 5 October 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. Not everyone agrees with the sources Cunard has presented, but there's not enough agreement that they do or don't show we can write a reasonable article on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veem[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. It has survived two previous AfD's where it was compared against the GNG. The last AfD ended in no consensus in 2017. Regardless I just don't see the depth of reliable independent coverage needed to show notability. The references are mostly crypto-currency tabloids, with a few passing mentions in reputable sources talking about Bitcoin, Ripple and the blockchain. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most cites are press release reprints, a lot of the cites are reporting speculative claims that haven't happened yet (and didn't happen), and what remains is too sparse for WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previus AfD discussions were under Align Commerce and can be seen here and here. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You will need to make sure to search for results for "Align Commerce" since that is the company's previous name. In the previous AfDs, I presented sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH such as Ottawa Business Journal and The Wall Street Journal. A quick search now also shows CNBC and CNN. The company is obviously "worthy of notice" as it has been covered internationally to the point it more than meets WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete would need a complete rewrite, so could have been speedied. We could perhaps have a page on this company (per CNMall41) but this is not it. Please get this out of mainspace. WP:GS/Crypto and just plain old WP:ORGCRIT applies here; we need much stronger sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So with the exception of the page in its current form, would you agree its notable? I don't really care to waste time trying to clean it up if others want to delete despite. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed enough to likely pass speedy, but will wait to do any further until time runs out here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. del Castillo, Michael (2018-09-26). "Google And Goldman Back Bitcoin Startup For Small Businesses". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2018-09-26. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Led by banking giant Goldman Sachs, with GV (formally Google Ventures), Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley Bank, Trend Forward Capital, and Pantera Capital also participating, the investment in enterprise-payments startup Veem is primarily a move to accelerate the firm’s exponential growth.
  Central to the investors’ interest in Veem is the built-in stickiness of the model, which has proved to be adept at turning recipients of Veem payments into Veem users. Since the San Francisco-based company raised its first round of venture capital in May 2015, it has grown from a mere 590 customers to more than 80,000 today.
  As the price of bitcoin hovers around $6,500, compared with $300 when Veem raised its first round, the company is helping blaze the trail for next-generation bitcoin startups that give customers access to bitcoin’s speed and traceability without their even knowing it.
  ...
  This latest strategic investment follows on a $24 million Series B raised in March 2017 and brings the total amount raised to $69.3 million. Lead investor Goldman Sachs made the strategic investment via its Principal Strategic Investment Group, which has been increasingly active in the blockchain space. As part of the investment, Goldman Sachs managing director Rana Yared will join Veem as a nonvoting board observer.
  The journalist in this article (as in some of the articles below) interviewed founder Marwan Forzely and includes quotes from him in the article.
2. Shin, Laura (2015-07-11). "Kleiner Perkins Makes First Bitcoin Startup Investment With B2B Payments Provider Align Commerce". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  And yet famed venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins had not joined in the fray — until now. Tuesday, business-to-business payments provider Align Commerce announces that it has closed a $12.5 million series A round of funding led by Kleiner.
  ...
  Launched in spring 2015 and already in 60 countries, Align Commerce enables small businesses to skip the hassle and fees of wire transfers and pay vendors globally using the Bitcoin blockchain and traditional bank wire and treasury management rails at much lower cost.
  Align, in contrast, has a more streamlined email-based system. A vendor sets up an account and invoices the payer, who clicks on a link in the email to enter her bank account information. From her end, it works like a domestic transaction — like paying a local utility bill — and she does not need any SWIFT codes or the bank account information of the payee. Align also offers its customers the ability to track payments, much like a Fedex or UPS tracking system, so both the sender and receiver always know where the payment is in transit.
  ...
  Although the company is in 60 countries, customers in only 24 of those countries can both send and receive payments; customers in all 60 countries can receive payments. The hurdles Align faces in offering both sending and receiving services in all countries can be regulatory and operational. For instance, Align needs to obtain licenses for each country (and in the U.S., some states, such as Florida and Washington require additional licenses). It also may find that in some countries, the partner bank can handle incoming payments but doesn’t have the technology to send outgoing transactions.
3. Levy, Ari (2018-02-18). "There's a lot of blockchain hype, but money-transfer start-up Veem is using it today". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  One exception is a San Francisco-based money transfer business called Veem. Founded in 2014 by Marwan Forzley, who sold his previous start-up to Western Union, Veem is setting out to simplify cross-border wire transfers and payments to vendors and contractors.
  Veem, formerly known as Align Commerce, uses three methods of sending money: Treasury, SWIFT and blockchain.
  ...
  Companies typically use Veem to replace processes that required them to make a trip to the bank and fill out detailed forms. When a customer uses Veem's site to make a payment, Veem's software decides which transfer method to use -- the customer never knows if it's going via blockchain or another method.
  ...
  Veem, which raised $24 million last year from investors including National Australia Bank Ventures and GV (formerly Google Ventures), serves businesses ranging from surfboard maker Global Surf Industries and software company Checkster to Bulat Kitchen, which makes knives.
4. Shieber, Jonathan (2015-11-17). "Align Commerce Raises $12.5 Million To Simplify Cross Border Payments For Business Using Blockchain". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Align Commerce, a new startup from an old hand in the payment and transaction market, has raised $12.5 million in new financing to use blockchain technology to create a new cross-border payment technology for small and medium-sized businesses.
  Founded by Marwan Forzley, a former executive at Western Union, Align Commerce is using the blockchain technology and Bitcoin as an alternative way to transfer money among small and medium-sized businesses in the same way that other companies have leveraged the technology for peer-to-peer money transfers or payments to individual contractors.
  ...
  The Align Commerce founder has been working on the company since May 2014, when he left Western Union. The company launched its private beta in October of that year and opened the payment system in April 2015.
5. Lunden, Ingrid (2017-03-08). "Veem, formerly Align Commerce, gets $24M from GV, others for its Venmo for SMBs". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Align Commerce, which today is rebranding to Veem, is today announcing that it has raised a $24 million round led by strategic investor National Australia Bank (NAB) Ventures, with participation also from GV (Google Ventures), Softbank’s SBI Investment Co., Ltd., Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers and Silicon Valley Bank.
  Veem plans to use the funds expand into more countries and add new products. The startup is currently active in 60 countries (you can see the full list of where money can be sent and received here), and makes revenues on a flat $15 receiving fee (it’s free to send); and foreign exchange rates.
  ...
  The specific focus for Veem — which was founded by Marwan Forzley, a former executive at Western Union — is SMBs across international borders, an interesting one for a couple of reasons.
  For one, it taps into a gap in the market: small and medium enterprises have largely lost out compared to consumers and large enterprises when it comes to tech innovations, particularly in the financial world — too specific in their business needs to use consumer services; too small to be able to afford services built for larger companies.
6. Miller, Ron (2017-11-28). "Veem opens up global payments platform to developers with new API". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  If you’ve ever tried to do business across borders, you know how painful it can be to send a wire transfer, wait for the payment to clear the bank and pay a set of fees along the way. Veem is a startup trying to simplify all of that for SMBs by providing a platform to ease the international transfer of funds between businesses. Today, it announced it was opening up that capability to developers in the form of an API.
  ...
  The company does not charge developers for connecting to Veem, making it an attractive option for programmers. Instead, it continues to make money off of the exchange rate fees.
  Veem launched in 2014 and has raised over $44 million.
7. Chernova, Yuliya (2015-11-17). "Kleiner Perkins Makes First Bitcoin-Related Deal With Align Commerce". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Align Commerce Corp.’s use of bitcoin is invisible and almost irrelevant to its business customers. And that’s how the startup wants to keep it.
  The San Francisco company, which is announcing today that it has raised a $12.5 million Series A round led by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, is one of an emerging class of bitcoin-based companies that rely on the digital currency behind the scenes. It’s being used as a tool to provide an improved financial service--in Align’s case that’s cross-border payments for small businesses.
  That’s different from the earlier crop of startups that attracted venture capital...
  Align’s customers, by contrast, pay each other using government-issued currency and do not directly deal with bitcoin. Align takes the payor’s currency, exchanges it into bitcoin, and then exchanges the bitcoin to the payee’s currency. In this way, the startup avoids the cumbersome bank wire transfer process, said Marwan Forzley, chief executive and founder, who launched the company after several years as general manager at Western Union.
  This is Kleiner's first deal in the bitcoin sector. ...
8. Sali, David (2016-03-02). "Stars aligned for banking industry shakeup, fintech titan says". Ottawa Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Mr. Forzley’s company, San Francisco-based Align Commerce, made headlines in November when it landed $12.5 million in series-A funding in a round led by renowned venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.
  A business-to-business payments provider that sends cash via the Bitcoin blockchain – the distributed database technology that keeps track of all transactions using the digital currency – Align has already expanded its service to 60 countries since its launch last April.
9. Magistretti, Bérénice (2017-03-08). "Veem raises $24 million to simplify global payments". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Veem announced today that it has closed a $24 million funding round. The startup offers small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) around the world an easy solution for sending and receiving money. More than 95 percent of all businesses across the world — some 20 million — are SMBs, which represents an enormous potential market.
  ...
  Formerly known as Align Commerce, the startup changed its name to Veem as a snappier alternative, Forzley said. “Next time, just Veem it,” he wrote. But it sounds an awful lot like Venmo, the digital wallet that lets you make and share payments with friends. However, Veem distinguishes itself by providing its services to businesses, not individuals.
  ...
  Yet it was a bank that funded Veem — National Bank of Australia led today’s round (Veem has several Australian customers), with new investors GV (formerly Google Ventures) and SBI Investment joining. Existing investors Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Silicon Valley Bank also participated. This brings the total raised to date to just over $40 million.
10. Finberg, Ron (2015-02-22). "How Align Commerce Is Using the Blockchain and Bitcoins to Power a Cross-Currency Payments Company". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Moving up the ladder to service businesses, one firm that is proving to achieve cost efficiency for cross-border payments using the blockchain is Align Commerce. Speaking to Marwan Forzley, CEO of Align Commerce, he explained to Digital Currency Magnates that “payments on a domestic level are relatively efficient. The friction occurs when you use different currencies and FX costs get involved.” He added that most B2B payments are facilitated through bank-to-bank transfers via Swift. But while such a system works, there is a lack of transparency in pricing, with bank customers rarely having an idea of the price of the currency conversions in relation to the real market. Also an issue is the time involved with Swift bank transfers which can take up to a week to get processed which leads to pricing risks if currency levels change dramatically.
  To provide a solution, Align Commerce offers two services to business customers: cross currency invoicing and a cross currency payment gateway for eCommerce companies. The foundation of each service is the ability to allow companies to collect payments from their customer’s currency of choice while receiving it in their local currency.
11. McLean, Asha (2017-03-08). "NAB Ventures backs blockchain startup in $24m round". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  The National Australia Bank (NAB) has announced that its venture capital fund, NAB Ventures, has led foreign exchange startup Veem's $24 million Series B investment round.
  In addition to NAB, Veem -- formerly Align Commerce -- received funding from Google Ventures, American VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Silicon Valley Bank, and Japanese fund SBI Investment Co. Ltd.
  The San Francisco-based startup uses blockchain technology to perform cross-border business-to-business payments that are settled and sent in respective local currencies.
12. "Money remittance game changer raises new funding, renamed Veem". The Philippine Star. 2017-04-22. Retrieved 2018-09-30 – via PressReader.
  The article notes:
  
  Veem recently disclosed receiving $24 Million in new funding. The sum of investments from National Australia Bank, GV (formerly known as Google Ventures), Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, SBI Investments Co Ltd, and Silicon Valley Bank will be allotted for expansion into more countries and addition of new products.
  The money remittance company formerly known as Align Commerce processes several hundreds of millions of cross border businesses including OFW payments in over 60 countries. Veem has offices in three continents. Founded by Filipino techpreneur Aldo Carrascoso in 2014, the reliable and real time system of sending and receiving payments via email is designed to replace the complex and costly telegraphic transfers, wire systems and SWIFT, by bypassing the banks, or the middlemen. It uses a combination of proprietary multirail payment systems and the blockchain, described as one of the fastest growing areas for tech investment.
  The money remittance company formerly known as Align Commerce processes several hundreds of millions of cross border businesses including OFW payments in over 60 countries. Veem has offices in three continents. Founded by Filipino techpreneur Aldo Carrascoso in 2014, the reliable and real time system of sending and receiving payments via email is designed to replace the complex and costly telegraphic transfers, wire systems and SWIFT, by bypassing the banks, or the middlemen. It uses a combination of proprietary multirail payment systems and the blockchain, described as one of the fastest growing areas for tech investment.
13. Lucas, Daxim L. (2016-12-05). "Silicon Valley-based Filipino entrepreneur pushes alternative to Swift system". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  More importantly, the system being offered by US-based—and Filipino-controlled—Align Commerce can deliver real-time payments that will be credited immediately to any payee’s account in 66 countries by sidestepping conventional services like the Swift payment structure.
  ...
  Launched in early 2014, Align Commerce is seen as one of the hottest financial tech startups, after it was announced late last year that the company received a $12-million funding lead from Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers (KPCB), Silicon Valley Bank and Recruit Strategic Partners.
  Align’s reliable and real-time system of sending and receiving payments via email is designed to replace the complex and costly telegraphic transfers, wire systems and Swift, by bypassing banks or middlemen. It uses a combination of proprietary multirail payment systems and blockchain technology, described as one of the fastest-growing areas for tech investment.
14. Abadilla, Emmie V. (2016-10-31). "Filipino start-up makes it big in Silicon Valley". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  A Filipino start-up, Align Commerce, made it big in Silicon Valley, delivering a technology that makes global payments easier, faster and cheaper.
  In late 2015, the company received a $12-million funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers (KPCB), Silicon Valley Bank and Recruit Strategic Partners and after two years of operation, it has expanded its presence in 60 countries.
  ...
  Align’s real-time system of sending and receiving payments via email replaces complex, costly telegraphic transfers, wire systems and SWIFT by bypassing the banks and other middlemen, using proprietary multi-rail payment systems and the “blockchain” – one of the fastest-growing areas for tech investment.
15. de Guzman, Nicai (2016-09-10). "Filipinos making it big in the global tech scene". Entrepreneur Philippines. Summit Media. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Have you always had problems sending and receiving payments from abroad? Aldo Carrascoso found a solution to that. He is the co-founder and COO of San Francisco-based payment service provider, Align Commerce, which enables businesses to quickly and securely send and receive payments in local currency. The company was founded in 2014 and has its headquarters in San Francisco.
16. Pangilinan, Anthony (2017-10-12). "The Boardroom: Align Commerce". CNN Philippines. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  This is a 20-minute video report about Align Commerce.
  The article notes:
  
  Financial startup Align Commerce paved the way to a more convenient and reliable platform for sending and receiving payments worldwide just by e-mail, eliminating tedious forms and extra charges. Launched this bank wire replacement service in 2014, Align Commerce is helping SMBs worldwide enjoy efficient and effective payment transactions.
  Find out how Aldo Carrascoso started and maintained the startup on this episode of The Boardroom.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Veem to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veem (formerly named Align Commerce) has received significant coverage in reliable sources in four countries:
1. Canada: Ottawa Business Journal
2. Philippines: CNN Philippines, Summit Media's Entrepreneur Philippines, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star
3. Israel: Finance Magnates
4. United States: CNBC, Forbes, TechCrunch, The Wall Street Journal, VentureBeat, and ZDNet.
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these are funding rounds, which aren't typically considered relevant to WP:NCORP, but others are good - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cunard has turned up some sources that sway it for me - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just culled all the dubious sources and done a rewrite from the Forbes Staff and CNBC sources. Short but I think notable enough to have been multiply noted - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, not a single reference by Cunard meets the criteria for references to establish notability. Either the references rely on company announcements o they rely on interviews with founders or investors or other related sources, none of which meets the threshold of "intellectually independence" as set out in WP:ORGIND. It states 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 sougree with Highking. rce unaffiliated to the subject. Each reference mentioned by Cunard attributes the information directly from the company or from interviews or announcements and therefore fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. There are a small number of other references where the company is given a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, also part of NCORP. Cunard's assertion that there are "sufficient reliable sources" does not take into account that there are additional criteria for references to meet the criteria for notability. If any of the Keep !voters above CNMall41/David Gerard/Cunard can point me to a minimum of two references that meet the criteria for notability, I'll happily review them and change my !vote if they are good. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Highking. All the refs seem to be influced by PR,and the most they prove is that the company hasa good publicist. Cyrtocurrency related companies usually do ely of publicists for their importance , as there is usually nothing useful to say that is specific. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide detailed independent analysis of the subject.
The Forbes article about Google and Goldman Sachs providing financial backing for Veem notes: "Central to the investors’ interest in Veem is the built-in stickiness of the model, which has proved to be adept at turning recipients of Veem payments into Veem users. Since the San Francisco-based company raised its first round of venture capital in May 2015, it has grown from a mere 590 customers to more than 80,000 today."
The CNBC article notes: "Aside from cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum, there aren't many real-world applications of blockchain, a distributed ledger that allows data to be cryptographically tracked and secured. One exception is a San Francisco-based money transfer business called Veem."
CNN Philippines provides commentary, noting "Financial startup Align Commerce paved the way to a more convenient and reliable platform for sending and receiving payments worldwide just by e-mail, eliminating tedious forms and extra charges."
The Wall Street Journal article notes: "It's being used as a tool to provide an improved financial service--in Align's case that’s cross-border payments for small businesses. That’s different from the earlier crop of startups that attracted venture capital, such as Coinbase Inc., and BitPay Inc., many of which have been trying to enable consumers to buy bitcoin ... Align’s customers, by contrast, pay each other using government-issued currency and do not directly deal with bitcoin.
A company that has received analysis and significant coverage from these very reputable publishers clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:20, 6 October 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) 07:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire (Infected Mushroom song)[edit]

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

I am creating this nomination on behalf of an IP editor who posted the following text at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion:

None of the sources in this article are reliable; some of these sources fall under WP:BLOGS. Fails WP:NSONG as a song that never charted. 99.203.30.163 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My participation here is purely to assist the IP editor who thought this article should be taken to AfD; I take no position for or against the deletion itself. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although some of the sources are usable, there are a minimal amount of them, with one being in Russian and one from Twitter. If the article had around 7 to 10 at minimum, it would be fine (as long as those sources are similar to EDM Sauce, Dancing Astronaut or Your EDM, which are usable) but because the song got so little coverage, it doesn’t have enough references to have an article. Micro (Talk) 00:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has three reviews, Russian or any other language sources are acceptable for WP:GNG, so there is enough coverage for a stand alone article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reviews are very short and quite promotional. Not even close to the significant coverage required to justify a standalone article for the single. AIRcorn (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, Just because a review's positive doesn't make it promotional, per se... or do you mean they're fake reviews that aren't actually independent? (bias disclaimer: I like the track and artist) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more a symptom of being a short review that doesn't go into much depth about the song. These (all from different reviews) don't help the tone either:

Without futher ado, I give you Cats on Mushrooms aka Spitfire.

You can experience the journey of “Spitfire” for yourself, available on Spotify and Soundcloud now.

In the meantime, listen to “Spitfire” and download the track below

Re-looking at these reviews many seem to be more about Monstrcat signing them than the band or song itself. AIRcorn (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, those quotations sound to my ear like the good old "we need an article, so let's just post a link to something else with a couple sentences of fluff!" style of journalism, LOL... -_-; —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 03:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a difference between a proper review and a rehash of a news release. These do not constitute significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 03:06, 30 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) Matt14451 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election[edit]

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

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a political party. It is an organization that seeks to influence politics. There is no DSA party or ballot line. The article is largely unsourced. Even if DSA endorsed these candidates (and no sources are present that would say they do), it does not make them DSA candidates. TM 21:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator.) Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. In response to Nom's assertion about lack of soruces, many of the sources in the original version [1] were removed without explanation when the text was turned into a table. Copious sourcing on this sudden upsurge of success for Socialist candidates in an American election exists. But with a topic this easy to validate in a WP:BEFORE search, tagging the page for improvement wold have been more appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IOnlyKnowFiveWords: to explain why, in this [2] edit you removed several candidates and WP:RS citations, with the edit note: "Adding a more comprehensive list of DSA members that've run for office... Only did Senate, House, & Governor candidates for now, though." This is bizarre, given that Democratic Socialists candidates for state legislature, including Julia Salazar have gotten a great deal of coverage, and the fact that the Democratic Socialists are running many candidates for state legislatures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources to support this topic, qua topic, are plentiful. It may not be a "Political Party", but it has WP:SIGCOV here's a sample of the SIGCOV:
Michelle Goldberg opinion New York Times The Millennial Socialists Are Coming 30 June
Associated Press, Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump, and a Maine candidate takes the leap 21 July
Fox News Democratic socialists impact 2018 midterm elections: A look at the national organization 24 July
The Nation : Socialism Is on a Winning Streak 18 May
ABC News : Democratic Socialist surge sparks dissent on left over electoral strategy 6 August. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

google search "Democratic Socialists of America" + candidate = [3] in gNews: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DSA has ENDORSED candidates for office, but they are not running any. They are all running with another designation (like the Democratic Party in most cases). They are an advocacy group with the same designation as Sierra Club. It is wholly inappropriate to say that they are "running candidates" just because they have endorsed certain people for office.--TM 01:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed wording in lede. But, in general, just FIXIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sources provided by E.M. Gregory, WP:LISTN is clearly met, and that's all that matters for the purposes of AfD. The nominator's primary concern, while perhaps a shade pedantic, is nonetheless fair; the appropriate remedy would be a WP:MOVE to something like Candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, 2018, and the discussion we should be having (on the article's talk page) is whether this name or some other alternative better meets the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. FourViolas (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are endorsed by pressure groups in every single election. It is not useful to have a list for the politicians endorsed by each pressure group in each election.--TM 21:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS such as those E.M.G. provides consider the DSA wave to be a discrete phenomenon worthy of specific discussion as a topic; this is not the case for most pressure groups. This is the criterion LISTN asks us to evaluate.

In this context, it means that we should have articles like List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement but not List of politicians endorsed by the Sierra Club. DSA is clearly more like the Tea Party than the Sierra Club, in terms of the extent to which their candidates share platforms and the amount of RS attention their endorsed candidates (as a collective subject) have earned. FourViolas (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see massive list of sources above. XavierItzm (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The article should be renamed Candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, 2018 as there is sufficient RS about the subject. I do think we should have a broader discussion about the degree to which political endorsements are considered encyclopedic, but that is outside the scope of this XfD. --Enos733 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this needs a ridiculous amount of cleanup, but a merge to Democratic Socialists of America#2018 elections isn't reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article was gutted of references and the next editor nominated it. Szzuk (talk) 09:48, 4 October 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 close. This is invalid for AfD, I will explain more on the user's talk page SpinningSpark 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Souris-Red-Rainy Water Resource Region[edit]

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

moved this page to Souris–Red–Rainy Water Resource Region Furicorn (talk) 20:21, 27 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 under criterion A10. This is clearly a fork of the main article, HSL and HSV. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HSL and HSV (version 2)[edit]

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

Same as HSL and HSV. Somebody's attempt to rewrite the article. (S)he should be encouraged to edit the main article. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 27 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game emulators[edit]

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

People come to Wikipedia as a starting point for their quest for information. When they find this article, they see consoles like the Xbox and Dreamcast are not listed, leading them to believe emulators for those consoles do not exist. This article does more harm than good because of that. Simply adding those emulators is not possible due to notability policies.

If Wikipedia can't describe this list well, it better doesn't describe it at all. Letting users search Google to find a list that's usable for them is better than offering them a list that pretends to be something it's not. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nothing resembling a valid reason for deletion given. Just like the list of guitarists or list of social networking websites do not list every person who plays guitar or every social networking website that exists, so this is WP:NOT a directory of every emulator that exists or otherwise an Emulator Wikia. That you don't like it is not a good reason for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of something like list of guitarists one could easily guess that list doesn't contain all the guitarists in the world. For the list of video game emulators that is not so clear. Your average reader (who doesn't know about WP:ETC) expects to find all usable emulators on this list, or at least the best emulators for each platform. By not listing those because of our internal policies, we are misleading the reader. I'm not saying we have to start including non-notable entries, we just have to stop misleading readers. That goal can also be achieved by deletion. As for the article contents, they would actually better fit as a category. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:LISTN. The consensus of multiple Talk page discussions has been to limit entries to subjects that are otherwise notable and have articles, and that's exactly what's done here. Woodroar (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an argument not to add non-notable entries. Adding those non-notable entries is one solution, but clearly one the community can't live with. Another solution is to delete the list altogether. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. I also boldly added a {{Dynamic list}} template and stated that the list was non-exhaustive. That appeared to be the problem the nom stated, so it should be made clear. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partially. It's still nothing but a glorified category. Going over the history, I noticed it was was once useful. It would also appear that some attempts were made to reach a middle ground, but after the edit wars ended, the article got indefinite protection and all that was left was this useless list. LISTN doesn't provide any argument for keeping a list that is just duplicating a category. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WP:NOTDUP covers that. Regardless, you're still yet to provide even one reason for deletion. Please see WP:Deletion policy. It not being good enough, not being what you want it to be, that you don't think it's useful, that you think readers want something different ... none of these are reasons for deletion. They are reasons to make arguments to change the page, which may or may not be taken up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "not being what I want it to be" or "readers want something different". Readers expect something different and as a result of that, they are being misled. If anything you're just highlighting an issue with WP:Deletion policy. It doesn't literally say misleading or confusing pages are against policy, so they are totally okay. Although the catch-all "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" may fit: a list that only serves to confuse readers isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Procedural, no valid deletion rationale given by the nom. Incompleteness in a list is not grounds for deletion. Besides that, the other Keeps are spot on anyway. -- ferret (talk) 00:51, 28 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NUVO (magazine)[edit]

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

Article may not meet general notability guideline, 2 relies on only one source (which is company webpage) and has become major target for promotional spam. groig (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:COMPANY, insufficient independent sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Magazines do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because their own website technically verifies that they exist — they need to be the subject of reliable source coverage in other media outlets to get over the bar. There are certainly statements here that would count as valid notability claims for a magazine if they were sourced properly, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable that sourcing it only to the magazine's own self-published web presence would be enough to make it notable. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 28 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 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rutherford (politician)[edit]

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

Promotionally toned WP:BLP of a political candidate, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced well enough to clinch encyclopedic notability. Serving as chair of the state Public Defenders Commission is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about his work in the role, and being a current candidate for office is not an automatic NPOL pass for a person who doesn't have any other solid claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it in terms of making him notable for either reason.
Four of the eight footnotes are primary sources that cannot support notability at all -- his own party's list of its own candidates, a staff profile on the self-published website of his own law firm, a routine directory entry on the website of the state bar association and a party-affiliated podcast. But the other four that actually represent real media aren't doing very much either: one is a Soundcloud clip of a Q&A interview in which he's talking about his own campaign, one is a transcribed Q&A interview in his alma mater's college alumni magazine, one is a local interest magazine covering him in the context of being internally elected to a not inherently notable role within his own political party's org chart, and one is just the routine "party selects candidate" piece that every candidate in every election always gets in the local media. This is not enough coverage to deem him more notable than most other non-winning candidates, not one source here even tries to turn the Indiana Public Defenders Commission into a valid claim of preexisting notability, and the article is edging far too close to the résumé style that no politician, even an actual officeholder, gets to have on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, thank you for reviewing this article! I get where you're coming from. There are not a ton of published information and it does have a promotional tone when you look at the fact that other non-winning candidates are not present. Could the article be trimmed to include just the viable (basic history and facts that directly pertain to the political landscape in Indiana? Similar to the article on Connie Lawson? Again, thank you for your time and for helping me get better at this process :) NurseEducator (talk) 27 September 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's not a lot of published information about him to base a solid and substantial article on, then why would a Wikipedia article about him be warranted at all? Connie Lawson has actually served in the state legislature and as the incumbent secretary of state, so she's not an equivalent situation to a person who's "notable" only as an as yet unelected candidate for political office — our job is to have articles about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. If he defeats Lawson in November, then he'll get an article because he'll be the actual new holder of that office — but people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a candidate for office does not confer notability, so come back if he wins. Nothing about this CV appears notable, and the minor, routine, local coverage does not pass notability guidelines for politicians. Not sure (politician) is even the correct disambiguator when this is his first run for office and getting more than 5% is unlikely. Reywas92^Talk 07:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG as per Bearcat's rationale and answer to NurseEducator's question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL with no other claim to notability. Has not received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for taking the time to look this over. For future article creation, are any of the sources that have been added since this discussion began reputable or are local sources something I should stay away from in general? Again, thank you all. NurseEducator 10:04, 02 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he wins the election and thereby qualifies for an article, then virtually all of these sources will be fine in it. They're not enough to make him permanently notable just for being a candidate, but that's not the same thing as being inherently unacceptable sourcing in an article about an actual officeholder — it's a question of the context of what the sources are covering the person for. Local sources aren't verboten in an article about a person who objectively passes a notability standard like "holds a notable political office" — they're just not enough all by themselves to make a person notable if you're shooting for "doesn't actually have a hard notability claim but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", which is a different thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 2 October 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. The discussion shows this is a marginal case, but it appears the argument to keep slightly has the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dice[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. While this article has over a thousand revisions, I fail to see any claim of significance at all. Some might consider the Digital Journal articles significant coverage, but I find them rather narrowly focused. I was half-tempted to take the article to AfD a few months ago as I noticed a lack of significant coverage in most of these Twitter personality articles, but most of them were kept if they were nominated for deletion. I have since noticed a trend towards deleting these articles, albeit a good deal of them riddled with BLP violations, except if they were notable in some other way e.g. by passing WP:AUTHOR (and here the subject does not). wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keepI see a fair amount of third party coverage, burt much if it seems pretty trivial. I'll go for weak keep for now but its not by much.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, and books published by reputable publishers indicates notability. It’s small coverage, but coverage in major outlets isn’t exactly the same as your local paper, and there’s enough of it here that we shouldn’t be deleting the article (which would amount to a white wash as Dice hates it because it fairly and accurately portrays him.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For anyone interested, let me post a comprehensive list of links to all the coverage that TonyBallioni is referring to above. The New York Times only has this [5]. The Guardian has [6] [7] [8]. The BBC has [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I'm not sure which books TonyBallioni is referring to. wumbolo ^^^ 19:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mere mentions of a social media personality do not add up to pass WP:GNG. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and does not meet notability guidelines. Significant coverage of the subject is glaringly nonexistent. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the New York Times devoted three paragraphs to the man: that alone gets us pretty close to notability simply based on the weight of the source. The Guardian has covered his antics before, and the BBC citation in the article (not to mention the others cited above) give substantial coverage. The book source is currently source 5:Newton Lee (23 October 2016). Google It: Total Information Awareness. Springer. p. 526, that is just a mention, I'll give it to you, but it is important in context: it is comparing him to Alex Jones, which is a pretty strong indication of the level of notoriety he has risen to. In addition to those sources we have one from the Hollywood Reporter, which certainly gives substantial coverage. This is an article about a notable conspiracy theorist who doesn't like the fact that Wikipedia calls him a conspiracy theorist (hint: sources say he is one). Additionally, the fact that he is quoted so often in major international publications (NYT, Guardian, WaPo, Fortune) is a pretty strong indicator that he is a significant figure on the parts of the internet he inhabits. Deleting this article would be a disservice to our readers who have a right to know unbiased and factual information about this person who is attempting to influence their political views. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting this article would be a disservice to our readers who have a right to know unbiased and factual information about this person who is attempting to influence their political views. We aren't Ballotpedia. wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but we do provide a service to the public in this regard, which is fully in line with WP:5P1. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Writer and commentator who is subject of discussion in multiple reliable sources. Author of multiple books. Sagecandor (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) blocked sock PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni. funplussmart (talk) 20:46, 5 October 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. Article saved through successful application of WP:BOGOF -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fergal Stapleton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG one of a number of possibly paid for articles without references from 2007 Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Unless article can be fixed drastically (e.g. references, establishing notability). Quick google search turned up nothing useful. Redditaddict6 9 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw one source, but it's an interview. The gross promotional nature of the article, the lack of encyclopedic content, and that fact that Wikipedia is not here to host CV's, are all detrimental points.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

looking around a bit, I found a very recent article in the Guardian that is quite good. Changing my previous delete !vote to a comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a database search, and he has been reviewed in Artforum and other publications with some consistency (every year or two) going back to 90s. The article might be a WP:TNT though. --Theredproject (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRP, which database do you use for such searches? I wuld like to try that myself.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that overcome the tests for notability and this is clearly a bought and paid for article. It needs to go. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough coverage on the artist, his work and exhibitions - [17][18][19][20][21], his collaboration with Rebecca Warren can be sourced to a few articles - [22][23][24][25], he has exhibited widely, information about his many exhibitions can be found at the Saatchi site - [26]. It should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be fixed. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to sustain an article, for example, https://frieze.com/article/fergal-stapleton. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be rewritten, but more than enough coverage to source a decent article. Curiocurio (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on unincluded coverage Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirup Guhathakurta[edit]

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

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

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

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

Per source searches, this subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. This source provides the equivalent of a short paragraph of information, but not finding much else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding about the page: The topic is about Rabindra Sangeet, a very popular type of song in Bengali composed by Rabindranath Tagore, a Nobel Prize winning poet. Bengali is a language spoken by 90 million people in West Bengal (India) and 160 million (in Bangladesh). Thus, Rabindra Sangeet is a very important genre of music liked by a large number of people. I agree it has limited global appeal because of its language which is not spoken in the other parts of the world. It can be easily understood that Abhirup Guhathakurta who is the subject of the wiki page is well known among his peers. I would be able to add a few more citations or links later on. But, at this point of time, I think the page satisfies the notability requirement and can hardly be a subject for possible deletion. I believe, most of the pages of his peers (mentioned at the end of this page under “Notable singers of Rabindra Sangeet”) would then need to be reviewed for deletion. If a large number of such pages of important singers are need to be deleted, I may only say that a part of the Bengali culture in which Rabindra Sangeet stays within the hearts of many would then have to be derecognized. Seeuhere (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of such Rabindra Shangeet singer is available in Bengali speeking diasphora. I don't understand yet, what made him notable for Encyclopedia. ferdous 14:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nominator.The rant about the systemic bias stuff is nonsense. As Ferdous notes, there'a whole lot of Rabindra Sangeet exponents across West Bengal and Bangladesh (innumerable might suffice well) and there's practically nothing that distinguishes the subject from them. FWIW, performing in remebrance-ceremonies of revered personalities or publishing albums (which has got to do with talent, money, contacts and luck, in equal terms, in current music-industry) do not lend a whiff of encylopedic notability.∯WBG^converse 18:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reply after several changes been made:--

I would like to mention the following points in support of the notability of the singer:

As we may see in Ref#8 that “Indira Gandhi Cultural Centre and the High Commission of India, Dhaka organized a cultural programme featuring Rabindra Sangeet and recitation of Tagore's poems at the main auditorium of Bangladesh National Museum on February 10, [2012]. The event featured renditions of Tagore songs by Abhirup Guhathakurta and Indrani Sen and poetry recitation by Bratati Bandopadhyay of India.”

Hope, recognizability of the singer is very much visible since the choice is made by the High Commission of India at Dhaka (Bangladesh) which selected only two singers of Rabindra Sangeet in its event of which Guhathakurta was one of them. Similarly, there are playback singing by the artiste in two movies. There have been several international tours of which I would rate the one of Dhaka (2012) as a prominent one since it is a Govt. sponsored one with only two singers been chosen and Bangladesh has a rich tradition of Rabindra Sangeet. Additionally, there are many newspaper quotations that would address the issue of notability including that of Ref.# 14 (Artistes enthral with songs of Tagore: The Times of India, Feb 8, 2002). There are a few jointly published albums such as the one with a prominent singer Pramita Mullick.

I refer to the Notability Criteria for musicians and ensembles in Wiki Notability (music), in particular, its item #1, 4 and 6. With the changes been made, I find the wiki-page under deletion discussion does not have any notability issue or deletion issue. I think I have argued in detail against the previous two comments which may not seem to be appropriate or even respectful to the singers of Rabindra Sangeet. Seeuhere (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeuhere, WP:SIGCOV. ∯WBG^converse 08:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: After new refs been added:--

The page of the subject is added with further references. The status of the singer among other well-known singers may be seen in i) Ref-5 (History, Nupur school ....) and ii) Ref-6 (Bengali Association of Victoria...). The two organizations based in London and Melbourne of Ref. 5 and 6 respectively mention only a few persons of good reputation in their invitee lists, in which Guhathakurta found his place. Most of the invites have their respective wiki pages too. These are independent sources citing the subject among reputed artistes. Refs 12("Event in the memory of Kanika Bandyopadhyay: The Telegraph, Oct 12, 2009") and Ref.15 ( "Mitali: Event in Kolkata in 2009".) are relevant too, though to a lesser extent. Ref. 24 ("Mitali: Indo-Bangladesh Rabindra Sangeet Talent.....) mentions the subject as one of the few judges in a talent search event organized by an Indo-Bangladesh cultural entity. I think being a judge distinguishes the subject from others.

I think I have shown resources that independently identify the subject's rank among a few well-known names and his placement among his peers (Ref.: template "Notable singers of Rabindra Sangeet"). I think if someone implies the existence of an innumerable number of Rabindra Sangeet singers with no way to distinguish themselves, he/she is hardly taking a rational standpoint. Independent sources mentioning a good ranking (that is what one requires to avoid any subjectivity) are readily seen now, than before, and this helps to satisfy the objectivity behind notability. This is not a place to argue whether Rabindra Sangeet as a genre or the associated singers as a group is relevant or not. Neither, there is a need to discuss whether spending money to produce albums and having contacts help one become famous. The table in his page shows a partial list of albums published over a time of almost four decades where he also sings with quite a few other well-known artistes. I like to invite a rational debate.Yes, I am aware of WP:SIGCOV.Seeuhere (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable, cannot satisfy even one single criteria on WP:NM; authored and pushed by a single purpose user. --nafSadh ^{did say} 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I find the citation of WP:NM completely irrelevant since there is enough material for notability for musicians. If someone from India gets an offer from Film Directors like Rituparno Ghosh and Goutam Ghosh (both are internationally acclaimed Directors) to do playback in their movies, this itself is a big recognition for any musician’s career in India. Then there are independent invitations from Govt. sponsored programmes (Indian High Commission) and clubs of repute in foreign countries, an invitation for being a judge in a bonafide music competition combining two adjacent countries (India and Bangladesh). Newspaper articles showing the subject as a prominent figure among celebrities invited in important events in Kolkata and beyond. I think the above comments for “Delete” are entirely arbitrary. Even a single person contributing to editing is good enough if the page has materials consistent with all the requirements. I requested for rational debates. Receiving biased and arbitrary opinions with no explicit argument is not something I would expect. I believe that the Wikipedia is not a personal property of anyone and one must give enough reasons to refute a claim. This should at least be the criterion irrespective of whether one is an experienced editor or author. The above "delete" arguments seem to be devoid of logic and biased.Seeuhere (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and now there are thousands of Rabindra Sangeet singers not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This simply shows that the above author did not read my comments. Which reputed film director would invite a singer for playback singing in a movie unless he/she is famous? I have already given other arguments. I am not preaching for anyone (except being the author of the page), but I can hardly accept such irrational and biased opinions. If someone is not able to distinguish between the good and the bad in a given field of interest, one should rather refrain from commenting on it. Or, as an wiki editor even if one is ignorant of a given field one should at least see the coverage and the arguments already given. This is as simple as it sounds. Please justify this if you have any answer.Seeuhere (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Apart from the single SPA, no-one else supports keeping this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The is a weak argument. It does not answer any one of my questions and pointing out of things. I would not call a single friend to vote for a "keep" when I know that I am not talking nonsense. It is quite unfortunate that the commenters are simply ignorant of the field, visibly biased against the given genre of music. On the other hand, they are irrational enough to answer valid questions and want to be blind against things vividly pointed out. Seeuhere (talk) 02:41, 8 October 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 was openess by some to userfy if requested, but that path always exists via WP:REFUND. —Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandford Sellers Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; created in 2007 by a likely WP:COI contributor and somehow still here 11 years later. No independent references and no available WP:RSes to replace them. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the sources are primary and no other ones exist to replace them. Not a Football AFD, though. SportingFlyer talk 00:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed this AfD from the WP:FOOTY list, as the subject has nothing to do with association football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably was meant for American football. It's been added there now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this secondary source: http://www.justinmuseum.com/cccpapers/sellerssbio.html, but it's the only one I could find. --John M Wolfson (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a secondary source, but is it independent and reliable?Sandals1 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's independent, since I don't see any association between it at the Wentworth Academy and it's a whole museum of Military History and lots of other stuff, akin to the Political Graveyard. However, its reliability is cast into doubt given that he doesn't cite any sources and accepts submissions of stories (and thus potential info) uncritically, and there's no independent mention of it in a Google Search. In any case it looks like this article will be deleted, and there aren't any other secondary sources to the best of my knowledge, but still. --John M Wolfson (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it is now written and presented. It's possible that he may have achieved notability, but it's hard to really determine for someone from this time period just from internet searches. I'd be fully supportive on incubating the article and trying again once we have good, solid sources (even offline sources). But as it is written now, there doesn't really seem to be a notable claim--was this a high school? Junior College? It may be there, but I'm not clear. Would be willing to change my position as we discuss.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also endorse Paul M's comment on willingness to incubate if the article creator or another editor were to request that. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Currently I don't see any accomplishments that would show he belongs in an encyclopedia and the coverage doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 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 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction video games[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. There are literally thousands of games with science fiction themes. List will ultimately not server any navigational purpose. Category:Science fiction video games serves this purpose much better. TarkusAB^talk 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, nothing else to offer. Too broad for a list, category serves better. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm torn. I understand the reason for deletion, on the other hand (OSE notwithstanding), we do have List of science fiction television programs, A to List of science fiction television programs, Z and they do serve a purpose the category cannot serve, e.g. giving an overview over when and where those programs aired. I think something similar can be said for this list as well per WP:CLN. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With science fiction film, television, and literature I agree. With video games however, I think gameplay genre is a more defining characteristic than thematic genre. Halo Wars and Portal are both science fiction games, but are so wildly different gameplay-wise that I don't see the sense in listing them together. TarkusAB^talk 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A science fiction video game is a recognized "thing." For instance these: [27], [28] from a quick Google search. I don't see a reason in WP policy not to have a list of them. Of course this one could use much improvement, but it seems to be the sincere effort of a fairly new WP contributor. (Not me. I just spun the list off from Science fiction where it didn't really fit in.)PopSci (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book, but it might be self-published: Science Fiction Video Games. PopSci (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not self-published. CRC Press. PopSci (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. There is nothing that verifies these items fit with the topic of science fiction video games. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started some research for the article "Science fiction video game." So far I haven't found much in the way of sources that even define the subject. Also the category has hundreds of games and sub-categories of games. It doesn't look good for that article or for this list, practically speaking. I still say that if we were going by WP policy alone keep the list.PopSci (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A video game genre is based upon gameplay, not narrative. This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and highly WP:OR. Doom? A station on Mars. Metal Gear? Bipedal tanks. Super Mario Sunshine? F.L.U.D.D. Fallout? Robots, mutants and futuristic weapons. Where does it end? I suggest starting out with an article like science fiction in video games, like science fiction on television, before a list like this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea.PopSci (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not really suitable for video games. Games aren't like television, where a genre is designed by the narrative. Would be much better used by a cat. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD reasoning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the sort of list that works better as a category. /Julle (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly broad list per WP:LISTCRUFT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:38, 3 October 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. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK series thirteen)[edit]

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

Too much detail for general-interest, especially notes. Matt14451 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

I have tried to improve the originally-nominated article, along with GUtt01 (talk · contribs), but Davey2010 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive and led to the page being protected. Matt14451 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should be kept, along with those being nominated, since these can be easily just sorted out through editing and changing them. If so, it should be edited to consisting of an Episodes table, as with any article pertaining to Television series/seasons. GUtt01 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further to what I suggested, any notes should be maintained, regarding any broadcast issues. Any general matters that occurred, or significant events that were aired can be relayed into a section focused on Series Overview. Other information like Ratings and Criticism & Controversies, are relatively fine for these articles; the general issue may be the bulk of information covering the episodes. GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give an example to be clear - "Due to the live broadcast of the 2017 BBC Sports Personality of the Year overrunning its timeslot, the Final was broadcast later than had been originally scheduled." - a delayed broadcast is not necessary and too in-depth for Wikipedia. Matt14451 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television states that plot summaries shouldn't "offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens. Matt14451 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, deleting the articles is not neccessary. As I stated, the articles can be edited and changed, rather than deleted, towards something that I suggested - reformatting to a list of Episodes.GUtt01 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the pages while this process is ongoing, it'll take at least a week. Improvements can be considered as part of this discussion. Matt14451 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to point out that before this discussion should have begun, it might have been wise to have done what is mentioned in WP:BEFORE, under Section C, Points 1. & 3. (as well as 2. for the article covering the fourteenth series). I just read that, and I think you should have before making these nominations (believe me, I raised a discussion on this before). GUtt01 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of work which is required is significant. I'm happy to help improve the articles. Matt14451 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing - Did you know this is the same situation for articles covering the seasons for the Amercian original? GUtt01 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the American version so haven't previously looked at their pages. Just had a quick look at an example and it doesn't look good. Matt14451 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a useful resource and as the boardroom is split into four definitive sections (results, team deliberation, bottom three and elimination) the notes section provides a short overview of each part without it becoming convoluted. 82.23.197.204 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inarguably a notable UK series with multiple notable seasons, and loading all this into the main show article would make it so bottom-heavy that no sane reader could ever navigate it. Nate • (chatter) 18:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the series notable no one's disputing that. Vast majority of the content is unnecessary and won't need to be merged. Matt14451 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - "Too much detail for general-interest" is not a valid reason for deletion, We delete based on notability (or lack of), Not on whether an article is over-detailed, All of the articles are absolutely fine interms of content and notability. –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television states that plot summaries shouldn't "offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens" like what is currently in the article. Matt14451 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on both factors - we should keep the articles, but we really need to change them to reflect what the guidelines of WP:MOS state for television shows. These articles have had too much content added in, that its practically filled mainly with original research (which even I contributed to). I think Matt14451 made a good start with changing these - switching the information to Episode Tables, and given a brief summary of episodes should be what happens to all that is within the Episodes section of each article, only retaining the Original Air Date from what is already there. I made a start with Series 1, and the others need to be amended in due time.

I wasn'[t of aware of the scene-by-scene thing so thanks for linking that, WP:SOFIXIT applies tho. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"but Davey2010 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive and led to the page being protected. Matt14451 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)" - I was simply following BRD and it's worth noting to nip the bullshit in the bud I on my own accord went to the talkpage before the article was even protected so we can quit the "Davey2010 was disruptive" bullshit - I wasn't the one changing the article without any sort of discussion or consensus ....... –Davey2010^Talk 11:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were disruptive. Language like that doesn't support your case. We have discussed here. Do you also oppose the changes the series one? Matt14451 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Like I said you were adding content that I stated I objected too more than once yet you both carried on so it's not me that was beinfg disruptive, No because like I said on the articles talkpage you've added the episode summaries there, Had you bothered to add these here there wouldn't be a problem, Anyway edit warring issue belongs on the talkpage not an AFD!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just me that reverted you. You could have added episode summaries. I agree that this specific discussion belongs on the talk page so don't continue here. Matt14451 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons already stated. I would like to add, as a general Wikipedia user as well as an editor, I have found the summaries in these articles very useful. If they are too detailed or have other issues they can be edited. Fourteen series would be too long to summarise in one article, even with less information. Sr88, talk. 22:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per editors above, notable content, unfounded reason for deleting. -- Alex^TW 01:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support above arguments. Drawoh46 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable WP:SPINOFFs for obviously notable series with many seasons. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The series is notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of stub articles. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely snowing. This is going nowhere really quickly. -- Alex^TW 10:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no issue with separate pages for separate series. Pretty common on Wikipedia for this to be the case. A modified Episode Table, as being trialled on the series 14 page, may be an excellent way of curtailing the potentially excessive notes section. But no need to delete the 14 pages. eeveeman (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Matt14451: @Davey2010: Pages should be kept. However I think the weekly tasks column is helpful. The ‘Task Summary’ section adds a lot of excessive detail about the task. However it’s useful to know Who was on which team, who the Project Manager was etc.

Issues with episode/page layout - belongs on talkpage

The You’re Fired panel section and the Notes section should be removed however I agree with Matt that there is a lot of unnecessary detail, however a basic summary of the task as shown in the episodes column doesn’t tell you who won, who was on which team.

I think a good idea would be to keep the layout like this..

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

==Episodes==

===Week 1: Chocolate===

Original Air Date: # October ####
Tenacity: Lauren (Project Manager), Alexandra, Becky, Louise, Samantha, Sinead, Tracy and Ursula
Vitality: Clive (Project Manager), Dan, Freddie, Harry, Joshua, Kieran, Liam and Nathan.
Task: Make a brand of chocolate, before selling it to customers. Most profit made, wins
Result: Tenacity made a profit of £200.00, while Vitality made a profit of £500.00.
Winner: Vitality - By £300.00.
Brought into the boardroom: Lauren, Louise and Tracy
Fired: Lauren - For her indecisive leadership, and for overspending on the ingredients which ultimately led to the team’s failure

Strictly2018 (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. This will still make the articles designed to favour fans of the show. I believe you will need to provide a strong enough reason that this will be neutral in design and be encyclopedic, otherwise we stick to listing episodes in the standard for any season of a programme - thru an Episode Table. GUtt01 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It probably doesn't really matter at this point, since someone appears to have transwikied the older versions of these pages onto The Apprentice Wikia, but the I'd advocate still including the main reason why each individual candidate was fired, since that does appear to be fairly standard for reality TV show season pages, and I think that's something most readers would consider relevant, not just fans.--DaveJB (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed your !vote - This AFD is for notabililty purposes not layout purposes - Please take your concerns that are unrelated to notability to the talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Matt14451 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Gareeb[edit]

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

Need re-evaluation, no in-depth coverage about him. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Pollock's (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like a reliable reference from FOrbes magazine itself rather than from a Forbes "contributor". This is also from Forbes, the magazine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Meets criteria. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs a rewrite but seems to (barely) pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 23:01, 3 October 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 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GPxPatch[edit]

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

Non-notable game mod. Reyk _YO! 14:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has been around for 12 years, PROD'd twice, and still isn't even close to notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 1 October 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 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baby (MacLachlan novel)[edit]

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

To be honest, I'm not too sure what this is supposed to be. It's an unreferenced 11 year old article about a 1995 novel that fails to establish the novel's notability. It looks like an IP editor added the big third paragraph in 2008, and it has remained that way since. With or without it, this article does not establish the book's notability. – numbermaniac 14:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two reviews plus a mention on a best books for teaching. Given the age of the book I did have to find the reviews behind paywalls, but I have added citations for all three to the article and removed the poorly worded plot summary. This was not a complete search so more reviews might be out there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 01:33, 29 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 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game Grumps serials[edit]

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

Extremely long article yet none of it, I'm convinced, has been covered by reliable sources. This is very detailed, but any coverage this gains in reliable sources is better served in the main Game Grumps article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:14, 27 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) 14:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few examples of games that they have done is sufficient in the main body. We can't catalog all their game series which individually have nearly zero recognizition on their own. --Masem (t) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly stupid attempt to woolpull a 'List of Game Grumps episodes' fancruft by using a different title. Nobody uses the word 'serial' this way (this is the first I've ever heard of it anywhere), and this has zero difference from youtube.com/user/GameGrumps/videos. Nate •(chatter) 14:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Floipoid (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its one giant example of WP:GAMECRUFT. We're not a giant catalog or fansite covering every video game they've done a Youtube video of, and it doesn't do the reader any good offer a bare list with no real context either. Most of all, like Masem says, the sourcing just isn't there - sources sometimes cover the show, but not each individual episode like this. The fact that the article is over 360,000 bytes in size with only 15 refs, most of which are first party sources from Youtube or Reddit, is all the proof you need really... Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not really the kind of person who calls things "cruft" in AfD discussions, but—this is cruft. (though I must say—at least it uses en dashes correctly in the lead. . .) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s helpful. If you don’t wanna read it just don’t. Why would anyone care about an article? Do you not have anything better to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.205.51 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't wanna read it just don't"? Striking out clearly unsubstantiated keep vote. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other "delete" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want someone to tell me what about the article specifically violates the Reasons for Deletion detailed in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion without using Wikipedia jargon like cruft. I don't think it does. At the very least, I would think it should be merged into Game Grumps or tagged more appropriately as needing sources, not deleted. It's a long comprehensive list of episodes that you can verify exist by seeing that they are published on the Game Grumps' youtube page, and they are also catalogued on IMDB. It's a notable enough list for the wiki page to be updated religiously with each new episode that comes out. Furthermore, Serials seems like the most appropriate word to use to me, what else would you call a series of their episodes, I guess besides a "Series"? And even then you don't need to delete the whole page over it. Floipoid (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ATA for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, like WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSPOPULAR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how this article is different from the "List of (show name) Episodes" that accompanies every TV show on Wikipedia. Floipoid (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because every episode of those TV shows gets at least a couple of reviews in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I actually understand what you're talking about I think. There's not really any coverage of Game Grumps episodes anywhere. Much as I hate to see such an exhaustive and comprehensive documentation of game grumps episodes go away, I guess it might not really belong as an article since the documentation is being done originally on Wikipedia and not somewhere else. Unless some fans like, decided to start writing about game grumps episodes in an editorial context somewhere else first. I removed my vote :'( Floipoid (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a summary of episodes that is comprehensive and easier to find specific information on than their YouTube site. TdanTce (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's aim is not to be a WP:DIRECTORY. That it is easier to navigate doesn't mean it should stay. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft and too much information. Anything here can be covered in the main article. JC7V-constructive zone 18:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a WP:SNOW case: it's an incredibly long list about every episode Game Grumps have put out. No additional information, barely sourced, besides mostly sourced by the medium itself. WP:NOTTVGUIDE essentially. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the WP:NOTTVGUIDE argument isn't super applicable. The only points I think might fit this article are 1, though I argue that this list isn't about loosely associated topics since it's all Game Grumps episodes; 4, though I argue that this article isn't about upcoming programming but only episodes that have passed thus not advertising programming; and 7, though I argue that the context is that creating episodes of a show is pretty much Game Grumps' main thing. Floipoid (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a list of episodes on the Game Grumps show. I don't see why reliable sources matter when all of them are on the Game Grumps channel itself. It's a very helpful list, as they increase their amounts of series and episodes, and it becomes harder to keep up with them.-K-popguardian (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails a lot of things we are WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it, to respond to a couple keep arguments, a web host. SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 4 October 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 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalCampus[edit]

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

No independent references. Doesnt seem to exist now - though there is a seperate organisation of the same name - https://globalcampus.nae.school - Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak notability and probable COI issues. Orientls (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company was dissolved in 2013, [29], nothing to see. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 1 October 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) 07:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Mythology (comics publisher)[edit]

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

Little coverage in reliable sources, all coming from or being press releases. wumbolo ^^^ 13:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, have you done any research? They publish a lot of comics, not as big as DC or Marvel but a fair amount is published. I do believe you haven't done enough for WP:BEFORE, you didn't you even consult WP:WikiProject Comics, your lack of communication is disturbing. Govvy (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comic-related deletion discussions appear on the Comic Project to-do list. Any interested party can follow the link from there. Nominators do not have to start a discussion about a deletion discussion prior to a deletion discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nominator, I was only able to find superficial coverage via press releases. I believe this publisher will be notable one day, but for now they don't meet GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search returned a lot of ghits, but I couldn't find any reliable sources that had significant independent coverage of the company itself. Papaursa (talk) 22:17, 4 October 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 Deadmau5 discography. Redirected without deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. No secondary sources referenced whatsoever. Lazz _R 12:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Redirect to At Play. This is an early indie release by an artist who became much more notable later, but this release seems to have been ignored in its time. Can find no reviews or other media notice beyond the usual retail/streaming sites. Some of the songs later appeared on the compilation At Play so that is a redirect target. However, my take is "possibly redirect" because a user search for "Vexillology (album)" is unlikely and would cause confusion with the main Vexillology article about flags. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Play has no direct relation to the album whatsoever other than two of the songs appearing on it. A redirect there would be far too much of a stretch... Even redirecting to Play Records would make more sense than that. Ultimately, redirecting to Deadmau5 discography would make much more sense. Lazz _R 14:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the ultimate decision is to redirect, then Deadmau5 discography is probably the better target. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per doomsdayer520. Regarding navigation: some readers are familiar enough with Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation system to recognize this search term, and otherwise we could but a disambiguating hatnote at vexillology. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 28 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) Kpg jhp jm 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Lynette Dawson[edit]

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

Unremarkable crime. WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On-going coverage, including international coverage (e.g. [30][31][32]) - continuously over the past 4 decades (1982 through present) - amply satisfying NCRIME. Note her husband Chris Dawson (not in DAB) being a rugby star in Newtown Jets (at top-flight team prior to 1983) would pass WP:NSPORTS - NOTINHERITED here, of course, but this contributed to coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORTS , per plenty of reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Dawson disappearance has been the subject of detailed investigation in significant reliable sources over an extended period. These include 60 Minutes, The Australian, Australian Story (2018), Australian Story (2003). Also received international coverage through CNN, The Independent, BBC etc. WWGB (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable case with lots of coverage Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a flurry of recent coverage, nothing more. The above claims need to be substantiated. At most, the information should be merged to Chris Dawson.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, Chris Dawson does not have an article, and the coverage goes back to at least 2003. A 15-year flurry? WWGB (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed, quite reasonably, that since WP:Sport was beong bandied about that there would be an article, since the notability bar for ball players is so low. Despite the cite from 2003 I still see no evidence of serious ongoing coverage. And keepWP:CIVIL in mind.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by reliable secondary sources goes back and over many years. (If subject matter needed to be intrinsically remarkable to be notable then 90% of all sports people, never any hit bands, horses, and 99.99% of all celbrities, who are only famous for being famous, would also need to be deleted. To be notable a subject only as to be sufficiently referenced in reliable secondary sources.) Subject here has been the topic of multiple radio programmes, multiple television programmes, and multiple news organisation articles both nationally and internationally, and variously over a long period. Without trying too hard here is one from 2014, one from 2010. Aoziwe (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable case with lots of coverage Epideme12 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 3 October 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) Kpg jhp jm 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Kenya[edit]

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

Not a list, unsourced 2-line nanostub. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've expanded it with the entries from the corresponding category, Category:Television stations in Kenya (why people don't look for such things before jumping to AFD is beyond me). This can obviously be annotated and developed further, and so passes WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list of notable subjects with clear criteria for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Television stations in Kenya. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is valid for a list-type article and the threshold for inclusion in list-type articles is not very high to start with but this list meets that threshold. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 1 October 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 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Neczyporuk[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability. He existed, his paintings sometimes appear on minor auctions, but he hasn't received any attention in reliable sources as far as I can tell. Fram (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No critical attention in reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Ewulp (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill painter with no sources out there to establish notability. Nothing serious found in a search other than low-grade auction listings.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 2 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Whitehead[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable sources in this article to signify the notability of Whitehead. The first source is about an interview he did, in the following three references, I see no mention of his name. More eyes should help determined if he meets WP:GNG. Cheers 6Packs (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC) 6Packs (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Two sources listed in the article, [33] and [34], offer some biographical detail, as does this source, which was not included in the article. The rest of the sources listed in the article either do not mention this person, mention only his name, or are links to other Wikipedia articles. This article does not appear to cross the threshold of notability yet. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

App Annie[edit]

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

Undisclosed COI work and the article's athuor's only-ever creation. Reads severly like an advertisment and in a bullet-point list. The second section is entirely unsourced and the first lacks citations in several places. Lordtobi (✉) 05:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional. Fails WP:NCORP. If the spam was removed, there would be a very small article. May survive on it. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, article is also promotional. Fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 2 October 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 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Alhaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article is sourced only to instgram and Imdb, and a BEFORE search turns up no other information. Note also that the actor has yet to make his debut, so WP:TOOSOON also needs to be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable source coverage to establish notability under any criteria. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable sources available. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing shows that either the GNG or WP:NACTOR is met. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Sandals1 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 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 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Günther C. Feigl[edit]

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

Needs third party coverage. Unclear notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent third party coverage and none likely to emerge in the foreseeable futures. (List of publications:[35] It's not super long for a medical researcher his age. Note that unless he appears first he didn't actually write the paper. If he appears last he did exactly nothing, it's just a routine honorary mention he receives because he's the boss of the working group.) Damvile (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search result came up with nothing notable. Will see if there are sources available in different languages. Rzvas (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:08, 3 October 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) Kpg jhp jm 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer Research Forum[edit]

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

No evidence provided of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least two scientific articles: https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q4492078 — fnielsen (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the two sources listed on Scholia [36][37], there is this book [Alzheimer: 100 Years and Beyond] which discusses it in depth. Alzforum is heavily cited in the literature and hardly an article or book on Alzheimer does not mention it or cite it. SpinningSpark 21:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have a lengthy bibliography, although I shall admit the bibliography does need tidying up somewhat. Vorbee (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG: [38], [39], [40]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 4 October 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. Withdrawing nomination. Excellent sourcing has been found, thank you to those who provided the sourcing. I appreciate your efforts. As promised, I will incorporate some of the sourcing into the article. (non-admin closure) Waggie (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saamana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only one source outside of their own website. Waggie (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fully acknowledge that the article is in terrible shape, but there are plenty of sources to be found: see [41] and [42]. Furthermore, the mouthpiece of a party which has a large presence in a region of a 100 million people has a strong claim to notability . I'll do my best to work on this soon. Vanamonde (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the listed articles there don't really offer much, but a couple look promising. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if the article can be improved. If you point out some specific articles that you think will help establish notability for Saamana, I'd be happy to assist in placing them in the article. Thank you for making the extra effort here, Vanamonde93. Waggie (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historically important, influential and notable publication. See [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as there is coverage in sources like Indian Press Since 1955 and Identity, Politics and Violence: Shiv Sena in Retrospect. Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 27 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 sourcing fails WP:NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNPric.es[edit]

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

PRODed but was refunded; No real independant sourcing - sources that aren't press releases or their own website only mention the website occasionally as a source of information - no depth of coverage for WP:NCORP, with sources cited for notability by the creator being only mentions with no depth; being "widely known" doesn't necessitate notability; that requires sources with a depth of coverage Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any significant coverage for this website. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about that it is quoted by Verisign, the company that runs .com, .net, .tv and several more TLDs. Here are the references to their presentations text and slides. They rely heavily on the data from DNPric.es in their pricing models. Landain ^(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of references are referred in the news section; this is covered in English, Chinese, Czech, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese languages. Top publishes like The Next Web and Media Temple, The Register, Habr had articles about the service and practically every top domain name related blog wrote about it (see the in the news section above). The service is referenced on Crunchbase et al. Google News indexed 163 publications. In addition to this there is one scholar reference. The database is the largest domain name price tracker in the world after all with hundreds of thousand of users in the DNS industry. Google search for "dnpric.es" returns over 11,500 unique independent pages related to this service. Landain ^(talk) 00:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go through every source on the website, but they're all low quality/passing references. The Next Web is probably the best source listed on the website, and it's literally titled "short sweet tips". It's not about the subject iself, but instead about how to choose a good domain name. DNCPric.es is incidental in the article. Same for "10 tips before you buy a domain" and the register article, which all constitute passing mentions and therefore fail WP:SIGCOV. The Habr article is a blog post. Blog posts don't count as WP:RS. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both DNPric.es/Registra.rs represent the widely used services in the DNS industry. This is a niche industry and is not covered by New York Post every day. We need to adjust for this. The news in DNS are covered by all the mentioned sites (and dozens of references exists as provided), be it of low quality/passing references. Those sites are to DNS what The Economist et al are to finance. We need to compare apples to apples and DNS world to DNS species. Landain ^(talk) 09:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how notability works. There needs to be indepth coverage so that a neutral article beyond a stub can be written on the website. The main issue is not that the websites aren't the New York Times but that they simply do not have much actual coverage of the website Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how do you relate to other entries, like Propertini? There are thousands of those here on Wikipedia we all contribute to. It has much lower news coverage by factor 10 at least. In that sense DNPric.es is of much higher notability. Landain ^(talk) 09:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google news hits does not determine notability, but that company is indeed not notable. I've nominated it for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And crunchbase is essentially a directory listing. Dozens of mentions do not constitute passing WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial content on DNPric.es is somewhat limited I agree. Wikipedia describes thousands of similar companies of similar size and influence in various sectors so there is no reason to exclude DNPric.es. I do agree with you that the article can be improved to suit Wikipedia better. Please share your suggestions and tips. Landain ^(talk) 11:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP. The sources given above don't meet the significance test of WP:GNG, as they discuss the subject only in passing. To establish notability we need reliable independent sources which discuss the subject directly and in detail. The number of Google hits isn't relevant, but the search given above only returns about 130 unique hits instead of the 11,000 claimed. It may well be that there are other companies/sites with Wikipedia articles which don't meet these standards, but that isn't a reason for keeping this one. They can also be nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNPric.es to DNS globally is what Zoopla is to the real estate in the UK. There are some concerns about Zoopla too ("A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."). Do we really have to delete it, even as DNPric.es exposure is somewhat smaller? There are no major magazines in DNS which Wikipedia tags as major sources. Yet, the quoted sources are highly ranked within ICANN and abouts. So that we understand, everyone is using DNPric.es data to price the domain names. E.g., MMX (Minds and Machines) a company behind .london et al rely on the data to price their premium items. I attend ICANN meetings, in person so know the insides. Hence sharing it with you here. Landain ^(talk) 10:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there really are no reliable sources which have covered the subject in detail then there isn't much we can do. Without those it isn't possible to write an acceptable article under our rules. Even if people are using the site or regard it highly then that isn't sufficient. We don't delete articles because a contributor had a conflict of interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the existence of sources. Hut 8.5 10:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. However, as I provided some examples already above, e.g., Propertini, hundreds thousand of quality and related pages will then need to be removed from Wikipedia. It is up to the admins of how to interpret the guidelines. I would rather keep DNPric.es. See for example one of the top registrars Uniregistry, it uses the same sources, mainly blogs in the DNS industry in the references. However Uniregistry matches GoDaddy. DNPric.es matches Zillow. The only dfference, DNPric.es is in the DNS world, like Uniregistry, and Zillow is in, a better covered, real estate. Landain ^(talk) 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also found references by Verisign, please see above in the comment to FenixFeather. Landain ^(talk) 00:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about other companies or websites aren't relevant here. The subjects of those articles are not the same as the subject of this article. The sourcing about each will be different. Even if there aren't any suitable sources for those articles they can just be nominated for deletion, as has already happened with your first example. Your Verisign source is just a citation, which clearly does not cover the subject in detail. Hut 8.5 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Uniregistry? It uses the same sources. Landain ^(talk) 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again other articles aren't relevant here. Notability is determined by the existence of suitable sources, not by the quality of the sources cited in the article. To decide whether the subject of that article is notable I'd have to Google it and spend a while reading what came up, as I did with this one. Hut 8.5 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are now saying that Uniregistry and hundreds of other articles in DNS space should be deleted as well? Landain ^(talk) 08:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no opinion on the notability of Uniregistry. I'd have to do some research to form an opinion, and I haven't. Again the notability of other articles is not relevant to the notability of this one. Hut 8.5 20:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft The article at present does not show notability; since it's asserted there are further references, the reasonable thing to do is to give them a chanceto be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, per WP:NCORP. If somebody can find good sources to meet WP:NCORP, I have no problem with them recreating the title, but none of the sources presented here meet that standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP as a service organization; fails WP:GNG as a database. What is so difficult about the concept of substantive coverage in independent reliable sources? --Bejnar (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, fails WP:NCORP, lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 27 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 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventure College (Netherlands)[edit]

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

Yes, the school exists. But this article is so badly translated that WP:TNT is the best option for this article. The Banner talk 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, can you shove it over to Draft? Then someone can work on it there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The school is old enough and has enough notable alumni that it should be easy to find more sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To explain a bit: I have asked for WP:TNT (blow up and start again from scratch) not clean up. The Banner talk 17:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen worse cases posted at WP:PNT, but I can definitely tell some machine (over)translation has taken place here, e.g. "LHNO de Noorderwiek" translated as "Wiek LHNO the North". Even the article title was translated where it should not have. Leaning towards draftify, although I do wonder who is ever going to fix the article within six months. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done done cleanup, as have a some other users. See Special:diff/801595155/860759242. I no feel longer WP:TNT applies. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It still contains utter nonsense due to translation mistaken even Google Translate does not make... The Banner talk 21:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this article is to be kept, it will have to move to Bonaventura College, as names in such a construction are generally not translated. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: deciding whether to use the original language title of an organization, or the English equivalent is sometimes not a straightforward decision, and sometimes leads to long discussions. Using either one does not count as an error. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't see the article when TNT was proposed, but looking at it now I have to agree with BillHPike that this is a case for cleanup. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concerns with the notability now that the article has improved. Bharatiya 29 14:10, 3 October 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 IONIS Education Group. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICS Bégué[edit]

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

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) => No secondary quality source focused on the subject of the article.

For information : This article has already been removed from Wikipedia fr for this reason. EulerObama (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding the french wikipedia AfD:

It's from 2008, which is rather old.
It was not done for this reason, but because the proponent said: "not an exceptional private school", which is a rather thin argument.
It did not advocate removal, but merge with IONIS Education Group.

Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Comte0 you can merge. I don't see any secondary source focused on this school and this school is not notable. It's just a random private school.--EulerObama (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to IONIS Education Group, i agree with the discussion above. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested' reasonable compromise DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 6 October 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.