The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Meyer[edit]

Daniel J. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a musician which neither makes nor sources any substantive claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC — as written, it just recounts his existence and lays it at the feet of two primary sources and a Blogspot. But that's not how a musician gets a Wikipedia article — it takes reliable source coverage demonstrating that he passes one or more of the NMUSIC criteria, but there's none of that here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would say the sources provided fall short of "reliable" and "significant coverage" standards. North of Eden (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did several searches including ALLmUSIC and found nothing. I'm willing to change my mind if somebody can find at least three good sources, just ping me. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now (draft/userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qubes OS[edit]

Qubes OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plenty of refs but almost all are direct own refs or refs by Joanna Rutkowska in the blogosphere. It appears that Joanna Rutkowska is very closely associated with Qubes OS and gives interviews about it - and this interview is the final ref. Nothing independent, nothing substantial. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two articles from The Economist and Wired to the article. It's clear that the developers (of which Joanna is one) do not update / care about this Wikipedia page, so I would recommend updating it with newer citations and deleting anything that's too self-referential rather than arguing it should be deleted due to poor maintenance by the community. They occasionally link to notable third-party articles that discuss Qubes on the main website which is where I found the above articles. This is an important software project that other notable projects like Whonix compare themselves to (and try to integrate with). CreakCask (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qubes is presently at number 102 in Linux DistroWatch ranking (See [1]), gaining in popularity over months. It would be funny that this important linux distribution has no wikipedia entry. Brunogabuzomeu (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the few linux distributions mirrored on the official linux kernel.org site [2]. If you delete Qubes feel free to delete the rest of the distributions on that list from Wikipedia as well. But seriously, if you find the article bad please help clean it up and update it -- it's clearly notable, just lacks attention. CreakCask (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an designer who works on various open source projects and have been contributing to Qubes recently. I've just updated the logo to be the current logo which is displayed on the website BrennanNovak (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the issue is the citations, why not put up Template: Primary sources warning, rather than the deletion warning? The original complaint was entirely focused on the lack of third-party refs. Did my additions of third-party references help? Some feedback would be appreciated. Feel free to delete some the first-party references that you find most problematic. CreakCask (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are multiple reliable sources discussing this on the web, for instance, http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/Qubes-OS and http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/81282.html?rss=1 These sources are in addition to those discussed above. Theorem41 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Independent of any quality issues with the text of the article itself, the topic is a notable Linux distribution. ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would say refs [3] and [4] show enough notability for WP:GNG, in addition to sources from Theorem41. The article could probably use more third-party sources, though. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of evidence of growing notability. Article could use improvement as others note above, but should *not* be deleted. --Treekids (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khirbet Susya[edit]

Khirbet Susya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicate of Susya Huldra (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The articles certainly overlap and should be merged.--Oneiros (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don´t think it is much to merge, actually. A user just registered, split the Susya-article into 3 articles *without* any discussion beforhand. I reversed the edit with the removal from Susya, but need others to agree to delete this, and the other new article: Susya, Har Hebron, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There was no discussion. My mistake! So your solution in undoing all my work and not even bother to explain why? Why those 3 different places, as close as they might be, should be in 1 article? How does it help the reader who is looking for the information? I brought the similar case of Carmel where it is split. Settleman (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can user Huldra explain why it should be 1 article? Every time you read 'Susya' you have to guess which one of the distinct 3 places it is referred to. Settleman (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep These seem to be different settlements, even though located more or less in the same area. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there has been a tradition of one place =one article, take a look at Amka: why should that be in 1 article then? (exceptions are made where there is a lot of info: say, we have Londinium and Anglo-Saxon London in addition to London). From what we know so far: the history of these three articles is intimately connected, that is why it should be one article. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the history is so connected. Different places, different history. I saw nothing in Susya, Har Hebron that overlaps the other articles. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A better example is Katzrin and Katzrin ancient village and synagogue or the 3 different Kabri articles. Settleman (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which we are not discussing here. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Settleman & Debresser + current Susya article is about controversial Khirbet Susya (mainly), then about ancient Jewish town, and a rest only about Susya, Har Hebron. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think having separate articles on the ancient site, Palestinian village and Israeli settlement is fine. Huldra's claim that "there is a tradition of one place=one article" is entirely untrue, and she is well aware of the fact because she has worked on numerous articles on Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that had an Israeli locality established in their place (many of the articles in this category are duplicates). We also have several examples a third article on a historical site in the same location (e.g. Huqoq/Yaquq/Hukok). Number 57 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I should have said one place=one article when there is no complete break in tradition. Typically, Ein Hod is one article, (and should stay that way, IMO), while the structures of Huqoq were never a part of the life of Yaquq (AFAIK: they were mostly buried under ground, while Yaquq existed.) This in stark contrast with Sysya; where the ancient structures have been used up through the ages by different people. Not that the present divisions everywhere on Wikipedia is perfect: e.g. Ayn Karim should obviously be a part of Ein Karem, IMO: one of the articles was started without community consensus, and now both articles are a complete total mess. As, I suspect, will these 3 articles be in the future. (If they stay as 3 articles, that is), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - The logic is sound, yet, this isn't Ayn Karim/Ein Karem case where one article covers all history and another tiny article just says "Oh, by the way, it was depopulated by Israel" (Interestingly enough you edited both and it didn't occur to you until now the 2nd one should be deleted). A better comparison will be City of David located inside Silwan which has it's own article because the archaeological site is notable. Settleman (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my comment here. Not sure why this is 3 separate discussions instead of just one. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Simply add a trimmed history section to Susya, Har Hebron.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious attempt at ethnic separatism for three overlapping realities, to restrict the Palestinians to the dump the occupying authorities consigned them to, and cleanse the 'Jewish' site of any odour of 'Arabs'. According to the latest information much of the whole area is under Ottoman period Palestinian title, and that is from Israel's Civil Administration's resident expert.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this POV-fork was made by an obvious, and extremely disruptive sock. When did we start to reward liars and cheaters like that? Huldra (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, totally my mistake; I mixed "Settleman" up with "ISavedPvtRyan", (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93). Until anything else is proven, we all have to "believe" that Settleman is a brilliant new editor, (heh), Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "POV", and "disruptive editor" are WP:PEACOCK terms, and do not carry any more weight than a simple "delete as fork". By the way, I just want to repeat that this is not a fork, but an article about a different location. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a fork created by a banned editor, the fact of whose abusive meddling is being casually ignored by editors supporting his disruptiveness.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What should I do if another user deletes my comments? Settleman (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Map of the area showing the 3 different places

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all 3 articles; one is about a small town where people live, one is about a significant archaeological site; and this one is primarily about a land rights controversy over a small Palestinian settlement. 3 locations = 3 articles. But have a disambigulation line right at the top directing readers to other two places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susya, Har Hebron[edit]

Susya, Har Hebron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicate of Susya Huldra (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Duplicate??? You put back material moved into other article when I split the original into 3 articles Susya, Susya, Har Hebron and Khirbet Susya. It should be 3 different articles like it is in other places such as Carmel, Har Hebron, al-Karmil and Carmel (biblical settlement) or in Hebrew wikipedia for Susya.

Can user Huldra explain why it should be 1 article? Every time you read 'Susya' you have to guess which one of the distinct 3 places it is referred to. Settleman (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One article covers the same specific locale in its various histories which are intertwined after Jewish settlement. Splitting only created stubs that will remain stubs, since there is a dearth of RS on each element considered independently. The only purpose of the split, as before, was to get rid of the Palestinian historic presence from the new Israel settlement. Wiki is not a tourist airbrushed brochure for readers who displike history and complexity.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying they are at the same location? The UN has here a map which shows they are distinct. Settleman (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (1)Every other settlement has its own article. (2)It sits a few km away from the archaeological site and related to it only by name. (3)Even an outpost of Susya, Mitzpe Yair has it own article, so the main settlement shouldn't??? (4)In talk page of Susya I brought several examples of separate articles in similar cases. Settleman (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Povfork. These articles have been created in order to deny/hide some part of the reality/situation in contradiction with wp:npov. The material should be gathered in the article Susya. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you claim it is located at the same site? Just saying it the split is based on my opinion is meaningless because it isn't about the same place! Someone should write about wp:povmerge. Settleman (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Settleman + current Susya article is about controversial Khirbet Susya (mainly), then about ancient Jewish town, and a rest only about a subject. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think having separate articles on the ancient site, Palestinian village and Israeli settlement is fine. I am also rather disturbed (although not surprised) by the deletion rationale and some of he subsequent argument for deleting. We have numerous separate articles on Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the subsequent Israeli localies established in their place. We also have numerous examples of a third article on a historical site in the same location (e.g. Huqoq/Yaquq/Hukok). There seems to be some kind of double standard being played here - i.e. that depopulated Arab villages (which the creator of this AfD has worked on heavily) are worthy of a separate article but Israeli settlements are not). I think the closer of the AfD might also find it useful to read Talk:Susya#Split? and make up their own mind about what is going on here. Number 57 11:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is not enough here to justify an article covering the same locale in its various histories. Splitting only created stubs that will remain stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnmcintyre1959: Call me paranoid, but an account which was created just a couple of days ago, and whose first edit is to an AfD does not inspire trust in me. The fact that you happen to agree with me here is strange but not relevant. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please see my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khirbet Susya why this cannot be compared with Huqoq / Yaquq And I would definitely argue for a merge between the former Palestinian village of Ayn Karim and the present Ein Karem, ---Huldra (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - your logic is sound. The problem is, you neglect the fact Susya, Har Hebron is exactly like your Huquq example b/c it is in a different location and thus your vote should be Keep. Settleman (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Number 57: see my comments on Talk:Yaquq: I did not object to a new article Huqoq (in the same place), as there was absolutely no overlapping history: Yaquq and Huqoq could be two clearly defined different articles. This is not the case here. That, and the fact that these new articles were very obviously made by an extremely disruptive sock: when did we start to reward those cheaters? Huldra (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the overlapping history here? There is nothing in the article to connect historical Susya to Khirbet Susya since there is a gap of at least 500 years (13th-19th). The settlement is built a few KMs away and the attempt to include it is based on agenda. Settleman (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no overriding reason to split this article, for instance WP:TOOBIG does not apply. Discussing the historical situation is an integral part of any location, especially when the history is not dead, but ongoing. Moreover, we should look at the sources cited. A fair bit of the notability of this article comes from the fact of a struggle about eviction from Susya, with international statements on this by the US and EU. It would be wrong to hive off such matters into a separate article; this would intrinsically violate WP:POVFORK. Also, it is not possible to neatly separate out the Israeli settlement and Palestinian Susya. For instance, the UN factsheet states that People’s access to their farming and grazing land has been progressively reduced due to systematic abuse and intimidation by Israeli settlers. A simple look at the Susya, Har Hebron page shows that nothing of this is mentioned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - The UN report make a clear split between the two. One is Susya and the other is Susiya. By your logic, al-Karmil and Carmel, Har Hebron as well as Adora, Har Hebron and Dura, Hebron should be united. Settleman (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should, but please read WP:OSE. I had no role in creating the other articles, and have no opinion about them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is a prime example why the articles should be separated. You moved text to create chronological order but now anyone who reads it will think that the settlement was displaced. There is no one timeline because the two are in different location.Settleman (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will deal with the point about "3 separate locations here". Please see this UN map. The original Palestinian community location was declared in 1986 to be an archaeological site and the inhabitants expelled (point 3); they settled a few hundred metres away. The illegal Israeli settlement was built in 1983, and some of the people live in the area from which the Palestinians were expelled (point 5). From the other side, since the 1990s, the Israeli settlement was expanded to "five times the currently built up area" (point 6), which intersects a large part of the Palestinian community area and resulted in "systematic settler violence and intimidation" denying access to 2000 dunums of land (point 7). Whatever your views about settlements, I fail to see how artificially separating out things which are inseparable will lead to a better article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your points - The distance between settlement and historical site is almost 2 km. Between Psagot and al-Bireh there is basically a fence and between Ofra and Ein Yabrud there is a road. So what? does that mean they don't need their article? Maybe we should combine Ma'on, Har Hebron and at-Tuwani which are just as close and have just as many issue between settlers and Palestinians. So... many settlements and Palestinian villages has issues and are close by. Lucky for them, their name is different so they got their own article. (Like I mentioned earlier, in your edit you messed up because it is confusing. Which one of the there are we talking about now?) Settleman (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: You are a new user, so here is a tip, free of charge. You are of course free to comment on everything, as you have done on this page, but people are not forced to reply to each and every point you make. You might want to read the essay WP:BLUDGEON. I used to do this as well when I was new, so I don't mind it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What should I do if another user deletes my comments? Settleman (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that was my mistake; I mixed you up with ISavedPvtRyan, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93 ---Huldra (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Map of the area showing the 3 different places— Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all 3 articles; One is about a land rights controversy; one is about a significant archaeological site; and this one is about a small towin where people live. 3 locations = 3 articles. But have a disambigulation line right at the top directing readers to other two places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, establishes notability, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a contributor with 25 edits know the word notability in the context of wp and more precisely wp:AfD ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is nothing to say about this settlement which is not directly linked with the Palestinian village or the ruins... The only source which is used is the one of the settlement... It is just an attempt of promotion : it has not notorious by itself. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a quick look at villages in Template:Hebron Governorate show they some have even less information. Settleman (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Max Semenik (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Kimball, Jr.[edit]

Richard A. Kimball, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. President of a non notable company. essentially every one of the sources is a mere mention. The claims for his business accomplishments are unverified. Speaking at conferences does not contribute to notability. Stanford Distinguished Careers Institute is essentially a postgraduate executive management program, [5] and being admitted to it is not notability DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a solid contribution in the name of telehealth / population health. All the references have been verified by several moderators. Speaking at conferences is only part of the WIKI and other contributions have been noted in the references. Stanford DCI is a fellowship and Richard has provided substantial contributions in the form of commentary and interviews. He penned substantial research at Brookings and holds a Trustee role at that institution which is usually only given to people with considerable careers and contributions. I disagree with DGG. If I was to site non-notable WIKI's there are several in existence but this is clearly not one of them. In addition, Richard is a contributory writer for several publications and notability is required for such positions. HEXL.com/news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnatar (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC) — Donnatar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did approve this article, but I am going to hold out from voting either way. Full disclosure, I was very borderline with approving this article, and maybe even a little too friendly. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard is working on research that will standardize the telehealth industry and the USA needs this desperately to manage its aging population. A great deal of press that is posted here www.hexl.com/news is not listed on the WIKI and I hope it will be soon since it is more relevant and shows he is a notable figure in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnatar (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 July 2015‎ (UTC) [reply]

I have been following Richard's progress and he is working on research that will standardize the telehealth industry and the USA needs this desperately to manage its aging population. His career proves he has the expertise from all sides of the equation e.g. healthcare investment banking (top IB firms), public policy (brookings), and distribution (Cancer center and Accretive); his press comments are focused, determined and visionary. A great deal of press that is posted here www.hexl.com/news is not listed on the WIKI and I hope it will be soon since it is more relevant and shows he is a notable figure in the industry. I think you should read the news below to help you make a better determination of his value.

Most of this news below is not on the WIKI but is listed on http://www.hexl.com/news/

BeckersHospitalReview.com - The Role of Health Care Workers in Chronic Disease Management Beckers Hospital Review.com - Chronic Disease Management: Improving Outcomes for Low Income Patients ElectronicHealthReporter.com - Telehealth a Promising Future for Healthcare TheStreet.com - Here's What's Standing in the way of a Technological Revolution in Health Care, By Richard Kimball , Jr ElectronicHealthReporter.com - Selected FAQs About Telehealth, by Richard Kimball, Jr. BeckersHospitalReview.com - 5 Ways your Hospital can Benefit from Patient centered Care TheDoctorsChannel.com - HEXL Plans to Innovate on Financial Models of Healthcare Effects of Hospitals' Health IT Investments on Quality of Healthcare (Digital Mag, May 2015, p. 23) (PDF) TheDoctorsChannel.com - Consumer Technology Enables Halthcare Industry Innovation TheDoctorsChannel.com - Concierge Telemedicine can Transform the Healthcare Industry - Richard Kimball Jr. (video) ForTheRecordMag.com – Web Exclusive – Richard Kimball, Jr. MedicalOfficeMgr.com – Telemedicine CorporateWellnessMagazine.com – Telemedicine an Ally in the Fight to get your Life Back CentralJersey.com – EyesIn.com Interviews Richard Kimball (excerpt) EyesIn.com – Richard Kimball of HEXL Interviewed by Vivian Van Dijk of EyesIn.com (digital magazine) CADRPlus.com – Healthcare Month Review Community.AdvanceWeb.com – Top 10 Reasons Telemedicine is Good MDTmag.com – Medical Design Technology – Rebooting the Healthcare System (Interview) HealthCareReformMagazine.com – Telehealth: Affordable Health Care Hedgeweek.com – Building a business around Healthcare: A closer look at today’s hottest hedge funds Hedgeweek.com – HEXL: New Disruptive Player in the US Healthcare System (Interview) Scoop.it – Telemedicine will likely make house calls increasingly characteristic of modern healthcare delivery DotMed.com – Wearable Technology: One Step Closer to Mobile Healthcare WTEnews1.com – Wearable technology: One step closer to Mobile Healthcare DirectPrimaryCareJournal.com – Telemedicine: An Ally in the Fight to get your Life Back And More...............http://www.hexl.com/news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruquart (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• COI/sock Both User:Uruquart and Donnatar are new accounts that have ONLY contributed to this AfD. The article itself has only two editors, both of whom are relatively new and are only editing articles about companies and executives. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third-party neutral references provided, and I don't find any. All of the references are from companies or organizations he is involved with (HEXL, Accretive Health, Stanford). None are about him. Many are mere mentions. The remaining references are articles BY him, not ABOUT him. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading HEXL.com/news and the WIKI tells me that Richard's viewpoint is well informed, skilled, notable and should be publically available on WIKI. Telehealth is a valued topic and we may soon achieve better patient care through the efforts of people like Richard. Getting doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to agree on anything is a major feat, arranged by a noble effort, and should be listed as a notable act so why should we cast it aside and not find value in it for all the American people to learn more about. There are third party interviews on the WIKI and on the hexl.com news page. Add all of that to a Brookings post, Ralph Lauren Cancer Clinic and fellowship at Stanford and you have notability. If we are going to qualify Brookings and Stanford as institutions that accept or produce unworthy individuals then we should be concerned for the whole world and not just this one wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruquart (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

These are ALL third party http://www.hedgeweek.com/2015/03/06/219589/hexl-new-disruptive-player-us-healthcare-system EyesIn.com – Richard Kimball of HEXL Interviewed by Vivian Van Dijk of EyesIn.com (digital magazine) http://www.mdtmag.com/blogs/2015/03/rebooting-healthcare-system Each one of these was written by someone else other than Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruquart (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an advocacy website. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, speaking at a notable conference by itself does not grant notability, but keynoting could be in some cases. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford DCI http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-dci-2015-fellows-10-16-14.html is a selection process from one of the TOP ranked schools in the world. Being recognized by top institutions for your contribution is notable otherwise how would anyone ever achieve goals or have people to support their ideas. Institutions recognize, select and promote leadership for obvious reasons and Brookings and Stanford saw something in Richard. I respect the decision of institutions that have been around for many years, the time factor alone means that are providing value and are recognized as an authority11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)~. Preceding comment was added by User:Uruquart. Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing administrator. Some of the accounts !voting and/or commenting here are  Confirmed socks. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He meets GNG, but if the article is kept it needs to be rewritten. Granted, much of this is rumor, but per the following, his notability is related to his personal life:

Which Goldman Sachs Golden Boy Throws the Most Extravagant Parties?
Goldman Threatens to 'DeClaw' Party Boy Partner Kimball
Goldman Sachs Director Rumored to Like Elevators, Halloween
Goldman Partner's Neighbor's Scandalized By Shirt Optional Parties

JSFarman (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject is quoted a few times and wrote a few articles. No authoritative sources indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Long reference list? Yes. Non-trivial, third-party coverage? No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The only "keep" opinions are by editors with no or few edits unrelated to this topic, whereas established editors recommend deletion. I give their opinion greater weight because of conflict of interest concerns. (Reclosed after a previous "no consensus" closure following talk page discussion.)  Sandstein  05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planio[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)).

Planio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Software with questionable notability, only one independent source Linkle KMF (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources from more independent websites, as the tools is quite popular in Europe.Tommycarney (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe that the company satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability requirement: it has some independent sources, one of which is a publication by Fraunhofer Society. The latter also confirms two large international corporations as customers. Companies which are not notable would not likely be able to attract clients like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janschulzhofen (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Janschulzhofen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NSOFT. Sources are primary or not independent. The book source contains content written by the CEO which does not count as a notability argument for this corp. Vrac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The CEO was not an author of the book. He was one of the subjects of the book. In addition, the University of Marburg provides training on the use of Planio, which meets the notability requirements of WP:NSOFT. Tommycarney (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)— Tommycarney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Autoren der Expertenbeiträge in alphabetischer Reihenfolge:...Jan Schulz-Hofen (Planio GmbH) ... Like I said. As for the the university: wurde ein internes Schulungsangebot eingerichtet, of course an organization that buys software is likely to offer internal training sessions on how to use it. It doesn't make this software particularly notable. Vrac (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEO was interviewed as an expert. According to book listing, CEO is not an author. ^[1] Additionally, the part which states that MTV and Software AG are customers is not part of the interview but part of the general description of Planio in the paragraph leading into the interview. Finally, there are at least 6 additional independent secondary sources for the article. Tommycarney (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that the fact that University of Marburg bought and uses the software could make the software notable on its own. The University is a renowned institution which is over 500 years old. A software which their data center services department selects and rolls out campus-wide will unlikely be unknown. Being a customer doesn't make the source dependent IMHO. Janschulzhofen (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument for notability in Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is established by what reliable sources say about subjects, not on opinions of importance or ideas of intrinsic notability. The university web page is not a reliable source, it is an informational page for their project management. And please don't try to tell me otherwise like Tommycarney did, I do speak German. Vrac (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fraunhofer is a customer of Planio's which means the source is not exactly independent. Vrac (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraunhofer Society is an organisation with over 23,000 employees and 66 separate institutes. According to the source you mention only the Fraunhofer ITWM (Institute for Technology and Industrial Mathematics) based in Kaiserslautern is a customer. The book was written by Fraunhofer IAO (Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation) which is based in Stuttgart. There is no connection between the one institute being a customer and the other institute writing the book. Janschulzhofen (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but there is a potential conflict of interest, kind of like you editing your company's Wikipedia article, except that there is no doubt about your conflict of interest. Since the creator of this article has attempted to misrepresent sources, I'm inclined to be skeptical of claims of propriety. You really should read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Vrac (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am generally in favour of keeping Wikipedia clean and not creating articles for every new startup that pops up. However, this company is 5 years old and seems to have acquired some notability. It has won an award and a book has been written about it. No matter if the CEO is an author or not - Fraunhofer has decided to include them in their book. Fraunhofer is a reputable organization. I don't think they'd to this "as a favour" because they're clients. Also being offered to students by Uni Marburg is quite strong." — Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note to admins: this AFD was not listed in any deletion log from 7/16 until 8/2 due to an edit conflict issue during relisting on 7/16. Please relist for another week if it doesn't reach consensus by the time it expires (which I think is today 8/3). Thanks, Vrac (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another project management startup. Nothing indicates that WP:ORG criteria is met.--Rpclod (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Waterworth[edit]

Lizzie Waterworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I for the life of me can't understand how this article's been up for 8 years in the state it's in!, Anyway there's not one source in the article and unfortunately I can't find any either, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find anything authoritative online and the article provides no references.--Rpclod (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now preferably rather than say redirect to Horrid Henry which seems to have the most episodes because I'm familiar with all these shows but her bio is vulnerable to BLP issues and is probably best deleted for now (IMDb takes care of the necessary information anyway). The best my searches found was this at News. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- As a BLP, it ought to have sources. It does not seem to be too bad an article in principle (if sourced). Not sure whether she is really notable. I cannot see the point in redirecting to one of her roles, and I am reluctant to vote delete, but fear that may be the only viable option, though it would be a pity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest I'd prefer it to be kept and improved but unfortunately if there's no sources it probably means no improvements either, It hasn't been improved in the last 8 years it's been here and being completely honest I don't think it'll ever be improved, –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is this entry at imdb, but it doesn't match the long list of credits in the article. I think without references we have to toss it out. ubiquity (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to verify the credits in the article simply by looking up the programmes, but it is incredibly hard to source youtube videos. i.e. rocket boy and toro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YD-4gh-z54&t=10m42s ~ - annonymous user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.62.213.9 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Kudos to Davey2010 for catching this one. My sweeps of British, US, worldwide media, using the different name variations, revealed zilch-wad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks , It's not everyday I find utter shite articles so this is a rare gem .–Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Great job Davey2010, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I added a references tag because I couldn't find any myself. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangledupinbleu chs I apologize for sounding like a dick but was there any point adding it if it's gonna be deleted anyway ?, Just seems a waste of time tbh ? –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably any of us working on AfD have too much time on our hands, eh?--Rpclod (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Ross[edit]

Calvin Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted above, subject is not a notable musician. Obviously, that could change in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so there's no justification for an article now. If he puts a single on the Billboard charts down the road, then we can revisit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing at AllMusic. There are a lot of Ghits, but they seem very shallow. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a showcase held at Pdiddy's recording studio sounds like absolute fluff. Obviously the creator of this article is Calvin Ross. Tisk tisk... Ovo16 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted (film series)[edit]

Ted (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

With only two films that both have their own pages, this article is rather premature. No prejudice against recreation if a third film is released, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted (franchise) for why this should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the related franchise Afd verdict. Two do not make a series. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I stated in the previous discussion, Ted is a growing franchise as it has two films, as well as merchandise and games. Albeit the merchandise and games aren't acknowledged in this article, they were in Ted (franchise). A hint in the theme park underworld also says ride though that is unconfirmed and I have no credible source for it. CDRL102 (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two films alone are not enough to constitute a franchise, and we don't include unconfirmed information per WP:CRYSTAL; all article content must be reliably sourced. I can't find anything on Ted-related games. Merchandise might be available, but that's irrelevant to whether this merits its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument two films does not make a franchise is invalid, as I said in the previous discussion, there are many film franchises on wikipedia with just one film, but they make up for it in other ways, ie merchandise and games, which Ted also has. I know the theme park attraction is unconfirmed, which is why it is not mentioned in this article nor was it mentioned in the previous article. As for the game - http://www.xyi.com/universal/Ted-uk/FistsofFurry/ . As well as that, despite the fact MacFarlane hasn't confirmed the third film, Sam Jones has confirmed he is contracted for one, which in theory is a reliable source. Amanda Seyfried also said she joined the franchise to be in several films. CDRL102 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I said two films alone aren't enough to make a franchise. A franchise could theoretically contain a TV series and two films, same with a TV series and one film, but two films on their own don't make one. Other franchise articles are irrelevant to this discussion per WP:WAX. The game you linked doesn't really count as an official game as XYi has no confirmed affiliation with the films or even MacFarlane. It's likely fan-made. Merchandise doesn't cut it either and is irrelevant here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As others have said, two films are not a "series". Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Two films do not make a series. See previous AfD. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Graves[edit]

David W. Graves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable religious figure. My news sweeps did not find anything to indicate that this subject might meet the WP:GNG. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May well be prominent within the Nazarene denomination, but I couldn't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Close Dr. Graves' leadership role in an international church is, on its own terms, more than a little notable. A very simple Google search easily pulls up acceptable sourcing that details Dr. Graves' notability -- [6], [7], [8] - which can easily be added to the article. And let's be perfectly honest - this AfD is not here by accident. This AfD is strictly here as an act of vindictiveness following my questioning of the nominator's efforts to save this article - [9] - in another AfD debate, even going to the point of trying to erase my editing of the article that included redlinks that clearly show the subject's achievements are not notable. In fact, the nominator specifically cited this article in a sad attempt to embarrass me in that other AfD discussion. And this is why so many people get sour on Wikipedia - they are here to try to do something of value and they are treated like sh*t. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: I would also recommend going through all of the entries in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) and compare this stub to the other entries of previous superintendents. You will see the article is no better and no worse than any of the other biographical articles on previous superintendents. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [User:And Adoil Descended]] I do not doubt Dr. Graves' leadership within the Church of the Nazarene. However, denomination-affiliated publications cannot be used to establish notability, see: WP:N. What is needed to pass WP:N are articles about Dr. Graves in publications not affiliated with the denomination, thinks like book reviews and profiles whether in the Los Angeles Times or the Christian Post, but not in the denominational press. The exception to this rule is that clergy who attain certain high rank within denominations are considered Wikipecia notable (much as congressmen and college presidents are), which is why Superintendents have articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you explain the other articles listed in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene), none of which are stuffed with Los Angeles Times profiles of the church leaders? In fact, most of them have far less in the way of sourcing than the article on Dr. Graves. Why aren't any of those articles up for deletion as well? And while we are talking about WP:N, may I quote from the guideline that notability is extended when "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Dr. Graves, in his role as General Superintendent, has become part of the "enduring historical record" of his church. In fact, the phrase "denomination-affiliated publications" and the warning against these publications is not found in WP:N, nor is it found in WP:VERIFIABILITY. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:And Adoil Descended, just fyi, WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." is routinely interpreted to mean, for example, not merely denomination-published magazines, but even that, for example, the statewide, general circulation newspaper, Deseret News cannot be used to establish the notability of individuals employed by LDS because Deseret is indirectly owned by the LDS Church. Church publications can be used on facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wait. I feel like an idiot. I was doing a routine sourcing, and totally missed: General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene). My apologies E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Tomwsulcer Doesn't General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) pass the way bishops and Presbyterian Moderators do? E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the rule, in which the WP:GNG does not apply, such that heads of churches are automatically granted their own articles, and I'll consider withdrawing my nomination.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, It is commonly cited (asserted?) with high-ranking Mormons (Council of The 70) and Presbyterian Moderators, and us sort of accepted by extension, I suppose, from WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, shall I find some examples of AFDs where this came up?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific guidelines such as WP:CLERGY tend to codify the past experience of Wikipedians in determining notability, although notability is still determined by the general notability guideline. For example, Catholic bishops, in the cumulative experience of Wikipedians, tend to be notable because they almost always pass the basic criteria for people. What these Bishops do has impact -- it is covered in major media -- their decisions affect not only the Catholic community but the wider world, and are reported in the NY Times, Guardian, etc. In contrast, a much less prominent religion such as the Church of the Nazarene really does not get much coverage at all, because it does not have much impact. The Wikipedia rule is People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third party coverage. My sweeps of sources found nothing on Mr. Graves other than reports within its own magazines (which does not seem impartial). Further, if you look at prestigious position, you'll see that it falls under the subject heading of factors that do not automatically render notability. The result is current "articles" on Mr. Graves which are almost entirely unsupported, could be fabricated, are uncheckable, and are BLP violations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The General Superintendent is the highest elected office within the Church of the Nazarene, which has more than 2.2 million members in 159 countries. I think this very obvious fact ensures that the subject of the article more than passes the very basic standards of notability. And the grasping-at-straws statements that the religion "does not have much impact" or that the source material about Dr. Graves is "fabricated" shows off the venality and foolishness of this AfD. I strongly recommend that this AfD be shut down with all due speed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then where are the sources?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that the church "does not have much impact" or that the source material about Dr. Graves "could be fabricated"? You made those statements - either produce evidence to back those claims or man up and withdraw this AfD. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reason we have WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is so that we don't have to go over the same ground every single AfD. Yes, this is the equivalent of an Episcopal bishop - a more significant position in fact: the Church of the Nazarene is larger than the Episcopal Church (United States). The fact that there is an article on the position of General Superintendent indicates its notability. StAnselm (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I knew that I had seen that argument/outcome in several previous debates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment To understand this policy, look at List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America or click at the most recent bishops to be added to the list, such as Robert Skirving.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing editor. The 2 principal editors on this page, appear to be presently engaged in some sort of personal vendetta in which each attempts to disparage and/or delete pages begun by the other. I have no idea who or what started it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my part. I sincerely don't think Graves is notable. I've always gone by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. The other editor's obsession with Dr. Graves began in this AfD [10] when he scavenged through my back edits and pulled up the stub I wrote on this subject in an attempt to discredit my comprehension of WP:RS. You will also notice that he made no effort to have any other article in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) removed, even though most of them have worst referencing than this one. How is it that Dr. Graves' article alone fails WP:GNG and no other article in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) has the same problem? And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If community consensus is to keep articles on top church officials, regardless of lack of sources, then I'll withdraw my nomination. Please understand my nomination was made in good faith, my predisposition is to doubt any article which lacks sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "General superintendent" as head of the denomination is essentially the equivalent of a bishop in other denominations. If the complaint is that the article is unsourced, it should be tagged accordingly, not deleted. There are many unsourced articles in WP. If they were all deleted, WP would be much smaller. WP:V requires that information is capable of verification, not that that every fact has a full citation. I appreciate that BLP articles are now required to have citations, but a citation of an internal source (such as a denominational website) ought to be sufficient for that, even though such sources do not qualify as WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M. Gregory and Peterkingiron. North of Eden (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw my nomination for deletion; I had not understood policy about clergy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skypatrol LLC[edit]

Skypatrol LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Forbes source is the only source providing substantial independent coverage of the subject. However although it's written by a Forbes member of staff, I think it still falls under the contributors part of the site, which lacks editorial control. I haven't been able to find other high-quality sources and as such WP:CORP doesn't appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches and the current listed are not significant and outstanding combined, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability threshold met with Forbes peice along with others mentioned here and in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng Now looking at that link, it seems to only be mentioned twice (not exactly solid enough to save it) albeit Forbes is a good source. Coverage for the company seems to be marginal and minimal at most. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Forbes article in on a very minor point and is enough at most to support a single sentence in the middle of the article, not enough to provide notability for the subject as a whose. The same thing can be said about refs 8. 9 , and 10. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - fails WP:ORG - they have a little notoriety from the stalking incident and the litigation but neither is of the kind of substance that makes this company encyclopedia-worthy. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something specific in WP:NOT than makes this subject not encyclopedia-worthy? Notable companies are encyclopedia-worthy and I don't think we should be discriminating based on the reason for their notability. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is the relevant point. Can you elaborate on which sources you meant by "others"? More than a single piece in Forbes is necessary to demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Looking more closely I notice I was wrong about the reliability of Forbes in this instance as I now realise that all their articles are under /sites/ rather than just the non-RS blogs. This doesn't change my opinion of notability though as that is still a single source and the company is not the main subject of the article either. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pratva[edit]

Pratva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable piece of software created by someone clearly affiliated with the subject of the article. Was created by Ghnit, and the article says that the software was created by a company named "GHN I.T.". Gparyani (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Per WP: G11. Promotional (Editor claims to be representing GHN I.T. on its userpage). Unsourced and no claim of notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Kravits[edit]

Garth Kravits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-written bio for non-notable artist. damiens.rf 14:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does pass GNG with an appropriate claim of notability backed my multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks significant sources. doesnt pass GnG Ovo16 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadman Zafar[edit]

Shadman Zafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable person who is simply doing his job as the head of a unit at a bank Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Makes a good claim to significance, but not notability. There are some mentions and maybe brief descriptions in reliable sources, but no significant coverage so the article falls short of GNG. North of Eden (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claim of notability in the article, just another bank employee Kraxler (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratech, Inc.[edit]

Ultratech, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I went ahead and redirected Arthur W. Zafiropoulo to this article (I almost AfD'd that article as well) as my searches as mentioned there found no evidence of good independent notability and I'm also questioning the notability of this as my searches here, here, here and here and here no considerably good coverage with probably the best shot of notability being the NASDAQ position. I'm also not seeing a good move target from the currently listed articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seeing some marginally significant coverage in the HighBeam results. Since this company has been around since the 1980s, web searches are not going to give a good picture so we need to err on the side of generosity here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being on NASDAQ has always been considered insufficient for notability ,so it doesn't matter how well it has been proven. The remainder of the material on Highbeam is either routine legal notices or press releases in trade journals--nothing on that page seems to be a reliable source for notability. I agree with Kvng thatconsidering the size of the company one might haver expected something better, but it doesn;t seem to be there. Seeking Alpha might be the best of the sources, but reading the excerpt it says "if FinFET-related annealing orders eventually do appear in 2015 and the 3D advanced ..." Since that's from 2015, the conclusion is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Article is currently all based on WP:SPS nothing notable about this company covered in relevant media - this is really just a directory entry and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Spot Pictures[edit]

Blind Spot Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although my searches found links here, here and here, nothing seems to suggest more solid and good notability. Therefore, with no good improvement or signs of it, there's not much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complete name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [11] [12]

Founder:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [13]

Partner:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [14]

Country:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [15]

Comment: As they have produced several award-winning films and seem to have some Finnish language coverage, I will await input from Finnish Wikipedians. We now have an article on the arguably notable and easily sourcable Tero Kaukomaa, so a partial merge and redirect to he or to his his partner Timo Vuorensola is also a consideration as Timo's involvement can be sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC) struck as now moot (see below) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use available sourcing to improve as being poorly sourced is a reason to fix, not delete. I reached this decision after being inspired by my own comment above to create an article on its founder Tero Kaukomaa and finding that both he and his company Blind Spot Pictures Oy have received a great deal of brief but more-than-trivial mention in in multiple film industry reliable sources to meet WP:N. It serves the project for this to be kept and improved over time and through regular editing to inform readers interested in the Finnish film industry. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tero Kaukomaa - article is unsourced (except their official website and IMDb), content is duplicated at Kaukomaa, no in-depth coverage to be found to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, the production award is usually given to the producer (person) not to the production company Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is enough available for a good claim at WP:GNG. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No persuasive arguments for keeping the article have been submitted. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anavex Life Sciences[edit]

Anavex Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Search for sources yields only discussion on penny stock boards, press releases and other WP:SPS, and other poor sources. They have no products on the market so there are no WP:MEDRS sources about their products (which would be for an article about their products, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator used only this very basic search mechanism as shown above, nominator didn't do his homework. Nominator glosses over the fact/refuses to acknowledge that (A) this company is in the research stage for its products (so it cannot have any products for sale, and that is in any case irrelevant to whether it should be listed on Wikipedia or not), (B) has presented at conferences (including ALZ's AAIC 2015), (C) is listed on the US stock market, (D) has been covered by the media, and very significantly, (E) has a trial showing promising results with probably the only drug that corrects protein folding in Alzheimer's patients. Note that the article being nominated for deletion has been very significantly cut down by User:Alexbrn, and after I attempted to restore (asking why it was cut down in the first place, since there were sources), it was reverted by User:Jytdog, claiming there were no sources (there were), then after I added *more* sources, it was again reverted by (apparently) Alexbrn's bot, and after I reverted the bot's edit, was again reverted to its current state by User:Jytdog, who accused me of edit warring, all the while initially reverting my edits/reverts without any reason that didn't lead to a WP page. See history here. --Agamemnus (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to work with you on the Talk page to find good, independent, secondary sources; all you brought is the same ones above, which are not sufficient to meet NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend @Agamemnus: tone it down a notch, and work rather on beefing up the independent, quality sources of the article. Otherwise, a state a clarifying broad opinion below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Table / allow extended dicussion. I have no final vote on the matter, but am discussing it with others offline to better understand how such decisions should be view. My only present comment is that pharmas should not be viewed through the lens of information technology startups (which often rapidly have products, though rarely making profit on them for years). In the case of small pharma, not yet having a product does not mean that reputable sources will not exist; nor should it being a "penny stock" count against it. Brick and mortar startups have distinct attributes regarding their notability, and if this one has a single compound in the pipeline that has been presented to good press at a national meeting, then it is suitably noteworthy. My view, but again, without a firm vote, yet. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will be adding citations to a further reading section at that article, but will otherwise make no changes (while this is being moderated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "table" AfDs to the best of my knowledge. I looked for sources to show NOTABILITY and found them lacking. If you can find good sources (not crappy ones) to improve the article with, please do - there is no bar to improving an article while an AfD is ongoing. But people will look at what is there, when they arrive here, and each will decide if they want to !vote or not. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. The fact that you reverted the bigger article with more sources (and we clearly disagree on whether they are quality sources) means that someone looking at the present cut-down article would be misled. --Agamemnus (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

couple of notes. being a penny stock is not a bad thing - what i mentioned were sources like "discussion on penny stock boards". And Agamemnus, bigger with poor sourcing =/= better in WP. But hopefully we will get more responses here. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no significant coverage, so does not meet WP:CORP. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to mention that you are one of the two who deleted large sections of the article, including posted sources.--Agamemnus (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. A video on the company's drug trial and several media articles on the company in different reputable newspapers is "not trivial or incidental coverage": it is significant coverage. --Agamemnus (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it: if you can provide me with an instance of an article that has significant coverage (just tell me the strongest one), I shall reconsider. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This. --Agamemnus (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a short item from Yahoo! Australia on a new pill. It fails WP:MEDRS for health content, and is not directly about the company. If this is the strongest source there is, it reinforces my view that this topic fails WP:GNG. Delete. Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an item from Yahoo Australia, it's a report from "7News Melbourne". That you say it's not directly about the company is facetious at best. It is directly about the company's trials, which is what the company is doing. Your citation of "it fails WP:MEDRS" is invalid for many reasons, one of them being that Leprof pointed out this is an article about a company, not about settled medicine. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said it fails MEDRS "for health content" which it does; and as you say, it's "about the company's trials" - the company is thus incidental. Sometimes trials have articles on Wikipedia, but they need substantial coverage. See GERAC e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the article fails MEDRS. The article you cited is an article where multiple companies are involved. The article I cited is an article in favor of the company's significance. I am not in favor of making an article for a single trial. They have conducted more than one trial and will conduct more. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company exists and its trials are confirmed by multiple sources to be real and with significant preliminary results. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same reasons as Agamemnus. JD Lambert^(T|C) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Existence is not enough, and nobody with experience here should be making that argument. When they have an approved product, there are likely to be good sources. As far as our experience here goes, it is even possible that when they are engaged in State III trials, which are the ones whose successful completion leads to approval, there may well be enough sources. But not early stage II, where most product candidates never get any further. Articles in the popular press about them at this stage are just hype, otherwise known as advance PR, they are not encyclopedic information information. Claims for medical usefulness must follow MEDRS, even in non medical articles. This very specifically applies to the making of claims that something will treat a human disease, on the basis of in vitro studies. It's that type of material which caused us to adopt the MEDRS requirements DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Woods[edit]

Les Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable boxing promoter who has promoted only 2 minor fight cards. Only coverage is passing mentions in articles about Lennox Lewis and their proposed joint venture.Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from being in a proposed venture with someone notable. Papaursa (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Barden[edit]

Lee Barden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP with no independent sources. No real claims of notability and reads more like an advert. Nothing that meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. The comment on the Talk page from 2008 says it all. This is a pure promo piece for the subject himself and his product.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article that lacks the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Nothing shows he meets any criteria to show notability as a martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Czar's suggestion to repurpose the article in a "List of..." format should be discussed subsequently on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One video games[edit]

Formula One video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Moderate notability with regards to the Fomula One articles and the F1 video games' articles are already connected through a navbox and a category, making a dedicated article which simply repeats what's already here in other namespaces redundant. Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per page statistics, the navbox has 53 views in the past 30 days, taking into consideration that it may not count views from the box placed on other pages (I couldn't find that information of where the box is actually placed throughout Wikipedia)... while over that same period, the catagory has 526 views and this article has 4381 views. While these numbers are based off of software marked as beta, it does appear that the reader would stand to lose more accessibility by deleting the article rather than the navbox or catagory if the argument is simply that of redundancy. Twirlypen (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Also, while it lacks any inline citations whatsoever, it is heavily referenced. Poor MOS shouldn't get an article deleted on that alone. Twirlypen (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one of the games got 31244 views in the last thirty days, while the average F1 season article had 128248. For the video game article, that's nearly eight times as much as the list of the games. So the list itself doesn't get that much attention at all. And like you self-admitted your numbers on the navbox are incorrect. Here are all the articles to transclude the navbox. Everytime these articles are viewed the navbox get at view as well. Tvx1 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, your example is right at the top of the current season article as a "Not to be confused with..." notation. I'd bet that game article would still have at least 95% of its traffic even if there were no F1 video game list, category, or navbox at all. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Might not be a very good article, but it is more than a mere list and features some prose that can be the base for a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ...for the fact F1 videogames were pretty common in the 1980s through 1990s so I can't see how this topic is of "moderate notability". Donnie Park (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because they existed, does not make them notable. There is a general guideline for that. By the way, we wouldn't be deleting this information from the wikipedia entirely. These games have their own articles. And every of this articles includes a box listing all the produced F1 video games .Tvx1 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an example of how the subject matter as a whole has got coverage see here. Polequant (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one source does not satisfy the GNG's "significant coverage". Besides the information would not be removed from the wikipedia entirely. Tvx1 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the GNG about the number of sources needed (though I found that after a minute looking, so would reasonably expect to see more, oh, and after another minute see this). And I have no idea what you mean by your second sentence. Polequant (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that the GNG does call for multiple sources otherwise it it would have called for coverage in a reliable source not reliable sources (notice. The plural).--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It says multiple sources are generally expected. But that doesn't mean required. In any case I have given multiple sources now. Polequant (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sim racing, page is redundant as there's nothing that doesn't already fit elsewhere. None of the Keeps have actually refuted the nomination reason.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to List of Formula One video games. Many of the keep rationales above are not based in policy or much depth. And as for whether categories, lists, templates can be redundant (as nominated)), WP:CLN says it can. I think the list is a smarter way of getting through the ugly navbox. Anyway, these are all clearly linked to F1 as a brand and once all the unsourced material is removed, the list should be sufficient. – czar 15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to renaming to 'List of...' and lists can still have background information. Unsourced information shouldn't just be deleted, it should be looked at to see whether it can be sourced. Also interesting to note that the GNG says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Though I think I've shown notability anyway, WP:USEFUL is sometimes a reason to keep, particularly for lists. Polequant (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsourced info should just be deleted. If you would like to salvage it, that's on the contributing editor or any other interested party. – czar 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both articles. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquim Valente[edit]

Joaquim Valente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable martial artist. Studying BJJ under the Gracies doesn't make him notable and he has no sporting success to show he meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:MANOTE. Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Article has the usual unsupported claims about training police and military personnel. Mdtemp (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusual unsupported claims about training police and military personnel"??? This must be a hater trying to delete the article about a martial art professor who received his belt and professor diploma from Helio Gracie himself. Only 27 people in the world have achieved this. About military and LE instruction, Valente has taught local and federal law enforcement departments and most of the US military branches. Recently these guys were teaching the elite of the Navy. Just do a search on google and you will find all the info on them. These guys are recognized around the world as being the most legit instructors in self defense and yes they are NOT competitors and hove NO fame for that. THEY ARE PROFESSORS AND FOR THAT THEY ARE VERY HIGHLY RECOGNIZED AND FAMOUS.

I wrote this article because I saw a big piece on him on Ocean Drive magazine and on a Record TV. I did some research online and found a lot of evidence on the Valente's. It is very useful to keep this article online. Miamijj1 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Miamijj1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page because it is very closely related (his brother) with similar credentials:Peter Rehse (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Valente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - Much of the content has wrong or irrelevant information. Non of the accomplishments are notable enough for an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both My search didn't find multiple cases of significant coverage in reliable independent sources and there's nothing in the article to show they meet any notability criteria. Notability is not obtained from one's instructor. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Marsden[edit]

Matt Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not inherited from the fighters whose corner he's been in. Coverage is passing mentions, blogs, etc. Doesn't have significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources.Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article gives no references and the external links are to blogs, podcasts, IMDB, etc. Currently I don't see the significant reliable coverage needed to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim of notability in the article, it's mostly name-dropping and questionable sources Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find a single independent and reliable source about him. Clearly no extensive coverage available. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooks[edit]

The Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable shopping centre, I can't find any notability at all, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The consensus has long been that we do not have articles on malls. I would have suggested (like Strefford mall) redirecting to a section on the economy or town centre of Winchester], but there is none. As a county town, I have little doubt that Winchester will have a vibrant town centre of which The Brooks will be a small part. However, without something in the city article on Winchester as a retail centre, there is nothing this can be merged to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I couldn't find a single source about this mall. Me5000 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stretford#Economy. Closing early as was unaware of a redirect location (Had I known I'd of redirected myself) and obviously redirect is preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stretford Mall[edit]

Stretford Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable shopping centre, I can't find any notability at all, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stretford#Economy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect per VMS. The consensus has long been that we do not have article on malls in UK, other than major out-of-town centres, such as Trafford Centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Sanchez[edit]

Frank E. Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable martial artist. Lacks significant independent coverage. Only claim to notability is creating a non-notable martial art (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San jitsu) and founding his own organization for creators of their own martial arts (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Head of Family Sokeship Council). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To be fair the AfD deletion of San jitsu or World Head of Family Sokeship Council should not affect this discussion but that said the nominator is correct. Claims of notability are based on a non-notable martial art and an organization founded to apply credentials to those that need them (ie. walled garden).Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the individual parts of this walled garden are notable. Neither WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE are met. Papaursa (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solis boxing family[edit]

Solis boxing family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unlikely search term and no significant independent coverage. It's not that some of the individual members aren't notable, but this topic lacks coverage on its own. The article's only sources are to the individual fight records of its members. Nothing shows the family topic is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nominator has a point - there is not enough independent coverage to justify a separate article. The information is contained in List of boxing families or the individual boxers articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the previous comments. The article has no references that refer specifically to the subject and only repeats what's already at List of boxing families. Papaursa (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Formula One season[edit]

2017 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is to soon to have this article already published. It was created out of a habit that these articles for two seasons away in the future are always created around this time. While that is true, it has never been proven that the articles and the readers have clearly benefitted from being created this early. While there is a bit of content unique to 2017, it is not actually that much and insufficient to warrant this article to be existing already. The recentmost predecessor, 2016 Formula One season was created in July 2014 (actually it had been created and deleted a couple of times before that) and for the first six months of its existence it was only subjected to addition of unsourced information, vandalism and edit warring. Not just a bit of that, it was the only thing. See the articles history. Only towards the end of 2014/beginning of 2015 did considerable information for 2016 become available and the article could be expanded considerably. We are in no rush whatsoever to publish things and we can easily wait quite some time before putting this article up live. Tvx1 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is only too soon if there is no sourcing. But there is, particularly about proposed rule changes, so there isn't a problem. Vandalism or addition of unsourced information is not a valid reason to delete. 217.36.84.105 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there is no such guideline or policy that states that it is no to soon to have an article if any sources about it are available. Whether a subject 'already) merits an encyclopedia article is determined by the notability guidelines. Don't make the mistake that we should include something simply because it has been mentioned in sources. Tvx1 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I wouldn't normally support it, but it has sources, plus the regulation changes for the 2017 season are notable and will only receive more coverage and discussion in the near future. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Regulation changes which are only speculated and not confirmed at all. And that they will only receive more coverage and discussion in the near future is just your speculation. It might as we'll remain silent about the subject for a few months. That's not justification for having the article right now. We might as well delete the article and recreate it in a month or six/seven if we have more definite rule changes to report on. Tvx1 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it matters that it's speculated as it's received significant coverage. It's not a BLP, so when reliable sources speculate strongly about something, it can be notable. (I'm not sure if you're serious about it being only my speculation that there will be more coverage of these regulation changes... are you really implying there might be NO such coverage? This will just disappear? Nobody will talk about these rules either being implemented or abandoned? OK...) Additionally, drivers have confirmed participation in this event. Having an article on a sports event/season two years out seems perfect suitables when entries have been confirmed and there is coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Formula management seems to change their mind in a wimp regarding rules. They raised the idea after a disappointingly boring 2015. But since then we had an eventful 2015 and really exciting 2015. Another such race and they might decide that no drastic rule changes are needed after all. So yes you are speculating a bit there. And regarding the entries, that's actually one of the main motivations of my nomination. Save for one new constructor entry, no entries have actually been confirmed yet, just three drivers signing a long term contract a while ago. Tvx1 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, your argument against referenced speculation (actually, it's noting that the Formula One Strategy Group agreed to these proposals. This is something that has actually happened and is not speculation at all) is quite simply unreferenced speculation? Twirlypen (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The strategy group did not agree to these proposals, they made them. The FIA are the ones who have to agree with them. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't even reach the FIA if all 6 teams in the Strategy Group don't agree to them. Remember the Manor rule allowing them to use the 2014 car in 2014 trim that got shelved simply because the first team in the group to vote, Force India, voted no? It has to be unanimous to even reach the WMSC. Twirlypen (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even then they can easily be rejected by the WMSC. Moreover, Formula One people tend to change their opinion very quickly. Earlier this season the teams unanimously agreed with an extra unpenalized power unit to be used on top of the four they could use already through the Strategy group and one week later they changed their mind and drivers started getting penalties for using fifth power unit components. Tvx1 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tend to" =/ "definately will". Again, the readers are not misled. Nothing is stated that the changes will or will not happen, only that they have been agreed upon and proposed by the Strategy Group. Simple reading comprehension. "An initial series of changes have been put forward by Formula One Strategy Group but have yet to be accepted by the FIA, including: [...]" 99% of the time, the best way to interpret content is to read it one word at a time and not look too far into "secret meanings". It is sourced that these proposals have been put forth and written explicitly in a manner that doesn't imply they are anything more than just that: proposals. If you think readers will misinterpret that as the changes will definately occur, then you are simply devaluing and insulting the reader's intelligence. If/when a subsequent source comes along stating that the FIA has rejected/accepted the proposals, we can just, you know, CHANGE it. You're acting like what's written now is written in stone when. In fact, your only argument against reputably sourced material is basically "The FIA tends to reject some proposals, so I, without sources whatsoever regarding their decision on the new proposals, declare that they will probably reject them and therefore this should be eliminated". If that's not pure speculation, thinking the FIA will do something based off of past tendencies and using this judgement to attempt to influence sourced content that's not misleading, then I don't know what is. Also, to touch on what you said earlier to another editor in what seemed like a condescending manner, this isn't the place to dispute content. Twirlypen (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would disagree, traditionally at WP:F1 it is usually two seasons ahead we have it, so now it's 2015, the 2017 article should be up. The reason for this is we know regulations and contracts for this year, which can therefore be sourced/referenced which qualifies for an article. The only issue I have with this article (and previous season articles) is the list of races, where it says "list of races contracted for 2016, but not for 2017". Also the information about the GPoA I would prefer off the list also, because really it isn't happening, users talk about the contract being signed, yes that's fair enough, but the race hasn't happened, therefore the contract has been broken and no longer is relevant, but others will argue that. CDRL102 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I also comment, a pet hate of mine is when a user tries to speedy delete an article and it fails so they nominate it for deletion. There was a reason it wasn't speedy deleted, because it is a good article. CDRL102 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the place to discuss changes to the article's content. You should do that on its talk page. And a decline to speedy delete is not an endorsement of it being a good article. It just declared that it does not meet the strict criterium under which it was created. I will also note that the person who declined the speedy delete even suggested going to AfD. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can tell from the speedy deletion discussion that the person that suggested it didn't mean for it to be taken literally. Your only argument on this, as outlined in the description you wrote, is basically "a lot of people vandalised the 2016 article and I didn't like having to revert it, plus there wasn't a lot of new information for the first six months or so. Therefore, I speculate it will happen again." Again, no matter how much you say otherwise, VANDALISM AND UNSOURCED ADDITIONS ARE NOT CRITERIA FOR DELETION! Drop the stick already. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep – It is within the timeframe of season creation articles with the past five season articles, along with that there is unique and referencable information pertaining directly to that season, as per above. This nominator appears to have a grudge against its existence despite these referencable facts, as it's the same editor that nominated it for speedy deletion and was rejected, simply because they cannot be bothered to revert inevitable vandalism. However, AfD is clearly not the avenue for article protection against vandalism, and I'm finding the continuous attempts to get the article deleted by a lone editor to be a bit much. Twirlypen (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No grudge at all. Just a genuine good faith concern that there is not benefit at all of having this article already instead of say at the start of 2017 when we'll likely have much more specific information for it. I still like to see any argument how for instance 2016 benefitted from being created in July 2014 instead of at least six months later. No harrassement by any means. Please comment on the content and not on the nominator/contributors in an AfD. There are other avenues for that. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same reasons made during the speedy deletion discussion. You might think that the facts are trivial, but they are unique to the season and precedence has held that this is enough to warrant an article creation - especially when everything is properly sourced. The tendency that new articles are subject to vandalism and/or don't get updated or have edits made every day isn't particularly relevant to the criteria for article deletion. As the article is written right now, there's nothing really much wrong with it. The Strategy Group DID agree to the proposals to bring forward to the FIA. This can be and is cited. The FIA HAS opened a tender for new tyre suppliers and it can be sourced that there are bids from two companies, which will be selected at the next WMSC meeting in Paris on 30 September. Nothing in the article is written in a manner that expicitly states or implies that these changes are definately going to happen, so no one is being misled. We don't have to wait for the season to be on the doorstep to create an article about it. See 2028 Summer Olympics. Twirlypen (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the aforementioned reasons. There seems to have been an attitude among the WikiProject of late that future articles should only be created on a set date, rather than based on the merits of available sources. It seems to be a by-product of the 2013 season, where the regulations were deliberately kept stable ahead of the major changes in 2014. In this case, the proposed regulation changes for 2017 are substantial enough to justify the article's creation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to be just as much an argument for deletion as one for keeping. The most important rationale for creating and keeping is :"we always create them this time of the year" (i.e. set date), instead of the quality and the quantity of the article. Tvx1 12:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with the quality? Nothing is unsourced or speculated. And as far as I can find, article size doesn't dictate whether a topic is deserving of an article. The sources are reliable, the content is not misleading. This is, again, no different than the aforementioned 2028 Olympic article stating that cities have put in bids to host with sources. Twirlypen (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact is there is just no that much 2017 specific content in there. A mere three drivers, a list of contracted races (which could make for some years to come based on the contracts) and some speculated rules changes. Not that much to warrant a standalone article. It could easily be discussed at Formula One#Future. Wait a minute.....it is discussed there. Tvx1 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is mentioned in that section over the course of one entire paragraph. Still a weak argument against the deletion of expanded information with sourced material. It's not like it's just a placecard for the season like it was back in 2010 or 2013. With that logic, let's just delete all mentions of Jules Bianchi dying outside of his own article then, since apparently information is only allowed to be mentioned in one article and one article only. The content is clearly sufficient for it's own article, as determined by an administrator when the draft went through the AfC process. Its existence doesn't hamper, detract, or hinder the overall project at all as stated by other contributors in this discussion. Anyway, it's clear we've both made our opinions known. We'll see how another administrator feels once this frivolous submission gets to the top of the queue. Twirlypen (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who has said that information can never be included in more than one article? That's just nonsense. Tvx1 08:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You did, literally one comment before this. "Not that much to warrant a standalone article. It could easily be discussed at Formula One#Future. Wait a minute.....it is discussed there." And you're right, it is nonsense. Twirlypen (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Including the 2010 discussion from five years ago is completely meaningless. That argument has absolutely nothing to do with this one and continuous tagging of the article only further serves to show that you're heading down the option B path instead of option C. Twirlypen (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what this accusation pertains to. Again, please don't discuss contributors here. Tvx1 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Including a discussion that is completely irrelevant to this one isn't discussing a contributor, it's pointing out a sly attempt at canvassing, as anyone outside of the project is going to see that and assume it's a true second attempt deleting an article when in fact the two discussions are five years apart and are completely unrelated to each other. Twirlypen (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Twirlypen, it's a policy to include the previous deletion for an article in a box on top of an AfD. It's not something you can choose to do. In fact the box is added automatically when the AfD is generated. And yes your WP:PONY accusation was very much a case of discussing the contributor. Tvx1 16:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally closed this as Keep but the nom disagreed[16] so have reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The line A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours) is advisory, it does not say must. Also Wikipedia:Snowball clause could be called, only the nominator has said delete, all other votes are for keep or speedy keep. CDRL102 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but only 50 or so hours have elapsed since nomination. Only five users have weighed in their opinion. No that much in both cases. Just let this run its course. There's no rush. Tvx1 23:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CDRL102 - As seen here (Alexandra Quinn) One AFD closer closed one as Keep - Despite the outcome being fucking obvious it was sent to DRV because it was closed 17 hours earlier, After a discussion it was then reopened/relisted so even If I said "nope it's staying closed" TVX would've gone to DRV and they would've said reopen/relist anyway, Ofcourse had DRV not been a soft and quite honestly a fucking useless board I would've said nope but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What a complete waste of resources. No wonder everything is backlogged on Wikipedia. Oh well, four-and-a-half more days of this utter nonsense it is. Twirlypen (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude I actually close AFDs earlier then normal so I'd say I actually reduce the backlog, With all respect I'm not being sent to DRV where after a weeks discussion the AFD gets relisted for another week!, As much as I disagree with this bollocks I'd rather reopen than go through DRV which drags on for alot longer!. –Davey2010^Talk 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, I in no way meant to implicate that the fault was yours, my friend! As you can see by my comments, I find this to be equally ridiculous. I understand that you've got to follow the rules. I just wish nominator would simply drop it and get over it already. Twirlypen (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh damn sorry I thought you were unhappy with me sorry , Considering it's an obvious Keep I really don't know why the nom wanted to follow procedure as whether it's closed now or days later it's gonna be a keep!, Unfortunately my friend you get some editors like myself who follow WP:IAR and others who have to follow word by word of every policy here!, Just the way it goes unfortunately. –Davey2010^Talk 05:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In an AfD there's no need to drop it and get over it, because there is a default length after it will end anyway. And besides, in the meantime someone one has stated it should be removed from article namespace. That's why an AfD should be allowed to run its course. To allow as many people as possible to weigh in their opinion. I really wish that some people wouldn't always be in such a rush. Tvx1 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I accepted this at AFC because it did have references and had some unique content that was not a duplicate of other articles. I did consider the 2010 AFD but that was really irrelevant, being so old. The other season articles were also created more than 17 months before the start, and 17 months is not really that long, so it now looks to be the time to ahve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userspace until this is encyclopedically relevant. "Referenced" speculation is still just speculation. See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing a Strategy Group agreement, a tyre tender that has already been offered, bids on said offer that have already been submitted, and event contracts that have already been signed isn't speculation. These things have all already happened. I kindly suggest you read the article before you comment on it. Under this argument, any article whose subject is beyond today's date should be deleted/moved to userspace - including the 2016 article. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nominator closure). sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swing hitch[edit]

Swing hitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is predominantly a guide, but WP:NOTGUIDE. Unsourced. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No longer unsourced. No longer a guide-style article instructing with verbs in order form, but informing on the usual. Is essentially similar to many other knot articles. I will be adding more references to cover all statements in it :-) Cobanyastigi (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Kimes[edit]

Mina Kimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

On the surface, the article seems benign. But take a good look at the sources - the majority of the sources are ESPN press releases, with more than a few of Ms. Kimes' articles thrown in. A quick Google search finds very little to justify the subject's notability - her only claim to fame, it appears, is being hired to write an ESPN column. Winning a few obscure awards doesn't earn the subject notability. Plus, the original author is an SPA whose Wikipedia input appears to be writing about a circle of Brooklyn writer friends. As the article stands now, it does not pass WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Successful investigative journalist who was the subject of in-depth coverage here, an influential player in the sports-business journalism world. Plus she was the recipient of so many journalism awards that if they were pinned to her chest, she'd topple over (see awards on wikipage). Press release references removed as per WP:RS and article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. The NY Post article is a personnel announcement that borrowed everything from the ESPN press release on her hiring. I question how "influential" she is. I never heard of her or her awards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the NY Post article was not a press release; it does not matter where the NY Post got the material as long as they're putting their editorial weight behind it. That, plus the numerous other awards and media attention clearly put her into the WP:GNG camp, since If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.--Further, that you "never heard of her or her awards" is irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) There is another in-depth source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tom, you're assertion that she is "influential" is wildly incorrect - where is your evidence to back that up? And Milokan is correct, the NY Post article is pretty much a cut-and-paste of the original press release that announced Ms. Kimes was being hired - that is immediately obvious when you compare the two. Any casual research into the so-called awards that Ms. Kimes won will show that these are not very meaningful achievements; some of the award announcements in this article come from the award providers' websites, a WP:RS problem. Also, the blog RiveterMagazine.com that did a Q&A with Ms. Kimes does not meet WP:RS requirements. As I originally stated, the article seems perfectly benign, but once you start picking it apart you realize that Ms. Kimes' sole claim to fame is being hired by ESPN - which falls under WP:BLP1E. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Powerful reporting in major publications, numerous well-referenced awards, in-depth treatment by NY Post and Riveter Magazine (no it is not a "blog" as you assert but a magazine that sells subscriptions) -- all these easily meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Plus, And Adoil Descended, I trust that you have a good grip what constitutes reliable sources when you created this article on David W. Graves which has this as its only source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Powerful reporting in major publications" is strictly your opinion. "Numerous well-referenced awards"- really, where is the news coverage of all of these so-called awards? "In-depth treatment by NY Post and Riveter Magazine" - no, the Post pretty much copied the ESPN press release and the Riveter interview was a blog posting. As for your hunting through my Wikipedia work in an effort make me look silly, all I can say is that your childish desire to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is noted. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you as a person, I am simply questioning your understanding of Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By scavenging through my back edits and pulling up a stub that I created that was merely designed to plug a void in Wikipedia's coverage of the leadership history of Church of the Nazarene? Really? Let's try to focus on the merits of the article and not go digging for dirt in an attempt to belittle this site's contributors. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tomwsulcer. I have never heard of her or her awards either -- so what? BabelStone (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to User:Tomwsulcer] for his persuasive execution of WP:HEYMANN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per awards and basic GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per awards and basic GNG; couldn't have said it better. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per documented awards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually taken a good look at these awards? None of them are significant enough to warrant their own articles on Wikipedia - one editor here tried to erase the redlinks tied to them when I highlighted the obscurity of the prizes here. As for the awards, two are given out by local press groups - one in Atlantic City, the other in New York - and the Henry Luce Award appears to be an internal honor among employees of Time Warner publications. In the other awards, Ms. Kimes was among several dozen receiving honors; these award-churning groups seem to give trophies to everyone that shows up. None of her work to date has received standalone honors like the Pulitzer Prize. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I looked at the awards before voicing an opinion, the awards confer notability, as does that fact that her job moves are covered as news. The it is true that the article has hype stuffed in and could use some intelligent deflation, but please do try to assume good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Closing admin please consider tactics such as the nominator deliberately redlinking content without any intention of writing articles about the redlinked content, to try to make the subject appear less notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The closing admin should also please consider that winning an award given by the Press Club of Atlantic City and being one of several dozen people to pick up a prize from an obscure journalism organization is, on its own nature, less than notable. Calling attention to the obvious is hardly a sin. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tom and Adoil desperately need to buy each other a beer or something. We're all on the same side here, that of making good articles. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tomwsulcer's persuasive argument that, despite likely being a press release, the NY Post choosing to publish it gives it their editorial weight, and the press release being picked up by multiple outlets lends weight to the claim to WP:GNG as well. Noting here only for the record that this thread is a reopened WP:NAC and thus should be closed by an administrator. (There's a template for this but I can't find it) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, but using admin discretion to specify that this is without prejudice to individual noms (group nom for varied topics within a same field is a bad idea); thanks however to NickCT for at least trying to make a good-faith attempt at a bold solution to a long-standing dramafest. Hopefully a partial solution might emerge from individual discussions about merging some articles into others. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depression Quest[edit]

Depression Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Following a discussion on Jimbo's talkpage, I'm submitting several articles loosely related to the Gamergate Controversy (i.e. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Fredrick Brennan, Depression Quest) to AfD. I submit these articles under the following rationale;

1. Examining these articles' edit histories makes it clear that they were created in response to the Gamergate Controversy. It is not clear that the subjects of these articles would be notable outside their role in this single event. It is not clear the Gamergate Controversy would qualify as highly significant; thus, per WP:BLP1E, individual articles for these subjects may not be appropriate.
2. The Gamergate Controversy article became subject of a significant Arbcom Case, which seemed to make it evident that a number of WP editors had become passionately concerned with the event, and some even felt personal affected by it. That said, we should remember that Notability is global. Things are notable if the "outside world" (i.e. not the world of Wikipedians) has taken note of it. The Gamergate Controversy and related articles have clearly been subject to far more attention on WP than would be warranted by coverage in reliable source. It seems likely these articles exist as a result of navel gazing rather than genuine notability.
3. Finally, an argument based outside of policy; the amount of wikidrama surrounding this event and related articles seems unhealthy. For the benefit of WP as a whole, it may help to reduce the amount coverage given to these subjects.

As a personal post-script, I'd like to note that I'm not proposing these deletions out of misogynism or callousness towards alleged victims of cyberbullying. Misogyny and cyberbullying (including but not limited to doxing, death threats and/or threats of violence/injury) are pretty pathetic, lame and immature. That said, unfortunately misogyny and cyberbullying do exist, and we should be careful not to use WP as a soapbox to highlight individual examples of those practices which aren't covered by external sources.

Unfortunately, given the number of WP editors who have become personally involved/interested with the Gamergate Controversy, I seriously doubt all or any of these proposals will be succesful. To those editors with extensive history editing Gamergate articles, I'd ask you to try to dispassionately assess the proposed deletions by our notability guidelines.

I may propose more deletions using the rationales above, if I find more articles which appear to be created purely in response to Gamergate. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)