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

The result was Drink up and DELETED by an Admin - (non-Admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAC is inappropriate for a delete closure. The result here is delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean drinking game[edit]

Korean drinking game (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)

Wholly unsourced. Refs relate to drinking, social etiquette of drinking in Korea but none support any of the content. Probably WP:OR or even a hoax. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. All original research, if not a joke. Zezen (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is not exactly a hoax, although it appears to entail original research. I am aware, through an old friend, that drinking games are in fact popular in South Korea and amongst Korean Americans. Anthony Bourdain hosted Parts Unknown season 5 episode 2 in which he discusses this practice, complete with a time-reversal. The real question is: can this be saved? Bearian (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, unless actual reliable content can be found, in which case I would support a merge/redirect to Drinking culture of Korea. Neutrality^talk 05:43, 16 November 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. KTC (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hugo Hidalgo[edit]

Carlos Hugo Hidalgo (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 voice actor for English Wikipedia. Even his Spanish Wikipedia entry has been deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable actor, when it comes to BLPs at least some content must be sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing better to suggest a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Voiceover actors don't get much press. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 16 November 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Winn[edit]

Mississippi Winn (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:NOPAGE concerns. She was the seventh oldest person in the world at the time of her death. While oldest in Louisiana and oldest African American would at least be top people, the general view is that sub-national supercentenarians are not inherently notable. The three sources are all examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage and no evidence of WP:N. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oldest in Louisiana... really? Why not the oldest in Rhode Island? Are we to have fifty simultaneous articles about the oldest person in each US state, and hundreds of others about deceased formerly-oldests? And of course the territories and possessions! What about Wales, Scotland, England? Essex, Surrey, Kent? Bavaria, Tuscany? Each Swiss canton? The states of India?

Pedestrian details of an unremarkable, and unremarked, life. NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask that question. You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed the anti-jinx ritual. EEng (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to one of the three longevity-related lists she's on. You can find them under "See also" in this "article", such as it is. For sources, we have a primary source (a City of Shreveport proclamation) a fairly brief CNN feature about a birthday with thoroughly pedestrian information, all of it dutifully transcribed into the "article" as if it says something encyclopedic and a WP:ROUTINE obit. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Precisely the kind of bio for which WP:NOPAGE was written. WP is WP:NOT: a web-hosting service for the Gerontology Research Group, a WP:MEMORIAL board, a place for hobbyists to accrete WP:FANCRUFT. We're building an encyclopedia here. The encyclopedia is not enhanced by hundreds of stand-alone articles like this, celebrating the "achievements" of long-lived people as they vie for mythical titles, with "incumbents" "losing" their places to "successors" who stave off the Angel of death one day, week or month longer than current "record-holders." The study of human longevity is a fit, indeed crucial, subject for our encyclopedia to cover. The individual lives of every long-enduring mortal soul? Not so much. There are three longevity lists to choose from to redirect this person's name. One can even insert a mini-bio on to some longevity lists, and maybe more need them. But the plague of trivial articles long-ensconced in this prohibited WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning. David in DC (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three people mentioned in these articles died while I was reading your long post. EEng (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing I see noteworthy here is if she was indeed the last remaining child of an American slave. But that in and of itself seems it belongs to a page about American slavery rather than as its own entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several sources provide notability. Also the fact that she is believed to be an endling makes her notable. If people are going to start targeting articles about the last survivors of specific events then there are several others with fewer sources that they can start with. There are more sources out there if you do a little searching:

It's Great to be 108 (Jet, 30 May 2005)

930310 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list.

If you'll list out the articles you mention as being even more worthy of deletion, I'll be happy to nominate them -- WP:OTHERCRAP. EEng (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is WP:A7. AfD isn't about verifiability of "a claim"; it's about SIGCOV. EEng (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable person. The claim of being the oldest person in Louisiana at the time of her death carries no particular presumption of notability under any recognized specific notability guideline or outcome. Therefore, in order to qualify for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, the subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This subject does not have such coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross[edit]

Rick Alan 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)

He has done his best to work with us and failed in good ish faith. He is not very noteworthy, only that one case, create a redirect to it seems best. Jason Scott case His comment, I have repeatedly requested to have my bio deleted due to the way it has historically been abused for propaganda purposes and personal attacks. I don't think blocking and censoring me now is fair and it doesn't reflect the principles of fairness that Wikipedia says it stands on.Rick Alan Ross, seems to be the last resort for him. In the spirt of WP:BLP , lets end this here , delete. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Only that one case"? I guess all the work that I have done around the world that has been reported about by national and international media networks year after year for decades is somehow an illusion. Creating a redirect to the Jason Scott case, which ended in 1995-96 seems just a bit off. Excuse me, but Wikipedia at times seems like an alternate reality created by its editors for its editors and not in the interest of public education.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the article has been up for deletion before, under its previous name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), which resulted in keep
• Keep, whether the person is annoying in wiki environment or not has nothing to do with the person's notability, which is clear to all extents and purposes of WP:GNG, and is ***certainly*** not limited to the Jason Scott case. I'd prefer editors with the "notability limited to Jason Scott case" bias would steer clear of the article, or start looking up reliable sources. And no, the subject's bias has no influence on the article's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the second nomination for AfD of this article, which should be noted in the nomination and the title of the nomination (the nomination should move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)), and the side header to the article should list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), which passed overwhelmingly 26 Keep to 3 Delete. Notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence. There is a part of me that wants to !vote delete because: the article subject has asked for it repeatedly and because no article will obviously put a stop to the never-ending headaches over the tendentiousness of the article subject as a demanding, whiny editor. He's not here for Wikipedia, he's here for his bio and online image and self-promotion. On the other hand, the subject does meet notability guidelines, albeit more in the past than the present (but, Wikipedia is not news, so...). I guess keeping is more in line with Wikipedia's purpose. Still, I'm torn because I know RAR is going to remain a pain in the ass as long as the article remains. Unless something helpful to the encyclopedia is done to keep his fingers out if the pie that is the BLP on him, that is. Which leaves me to say this: those of you saying "Keep" but refusing to do anything to keep the article subject away from article even though for years he has yet to show he's anything but a troublesome WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia... You will reap what you've sown: more disruption and frustration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well-formed, fully referenced. I don't know what the criteria would be for deletion, but "not noteworthy" just isn't the case. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Excuse me, but it is not whiny, demanding, or self-promotion to expect accuracy and fair unbiased editing. It is not a solution to either censor me or delete the bio because it isn't exactly as some editors prefer it to be. I have raised questions at the Talk page about the consistent application of Wikipedia rules and fairness. That is not disruption, but rather constructive criticism. It is troublesome to see the way that some people periodically pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash me. But recently the bio has become more stable. My fingers in the pie is necessary to offer some balance to what has been a very messy and often nasty process of editing. I certainly don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but rather a check and meaningful frame of reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAR, you said you'd go away for at least three days and not post or edit in order to get a handle on policy and guidelines. And, as I expected, you reneged on that promise just as you have previously with similar promises. Do you think we're kidding here? Please don't answer. Just fulfil your promise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about some of your comments some more, I'm struck by the outright and sheer arrogance of them. First of all, BLPs in Wikipedia are written quite well and without the assistance of the article subject all the time. It's been that way since the first Wikipedia BLP was created. We don't need you or any article subject to help us write such bios. As far as balance, Wikipedia editors (especially those of us who have been here a while and have thousands and thousands of edits to our credit) know how to create the appropriate balance in an article based on Wikipedia guidelines. And if we ever get flummoxed, we have each other to work with in order to get it right. We don't need you be "a check" or a frame of reference, because we have reliable references available to us. That's the way it works for all BLPs, in fact. Do you honestly think we are all so inept that we can't get it right? Do you seriously think that you, someone who has said over and over again that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, can better edit or edit by proxy than those of us who already know policy and guidelines? If people truly do "pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash" you, it's taken care of. Those of us who have been answering your questions and have taken inordinate amounts of time trying to explain things to you have the article on our Watchlists, so we know when an edit occurs and will correct it if it's outside the bounds of policy. You really don't need to be here for the article to be done right nor do you need to keep a guard on the article. We're not idiots and we're not new to this. You, on the other hand, keep telling us how you don't get Wikipedia. Well, if you really don't get how things work, please stay out of the way of those who do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I never called anyone an idiot. I think that my knowledge of the facts and reliable sources about my own life and work is meaningful and probably more informed and in-depth than most Wikipedia editors. Also, given the sorry history of my bio and all the sock puppets posting there it isn't meaningful or constructive to insult me. I will continue to read the Wikipedia links offered. I will take a break to do this and appreciate the constructive criticism and helpful suggestions offered. If you will please stop posting misleading negative rants about me there would be no need for me to respond. Let's cool off and take a break. We both have better things to do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, cool it off and take a break? You said yesterday you would stay away. You haven't done it yet. And you want the community to trust you? You haven't yet given us any reasons to do so. From what you've demonstrated so far, your word is no good and you have proven yourself to be totally fucking disruptive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This seems a personality conflict, and there is absolutely no place for that. The references supplied are impeccable, and numerous. The subject is notable within his field, and generally. CBS, New York Times, books, newspapers, legal journals... Forty-five refs supplied, both primary and secondary. Deleting the article because there is a WP:COI is not the solution. On the other hand, the subject of this article needs to restrict himself to the article talk page, not edit his own article, and quit irritating the VOLUNTEERS who put their time and effort into maintaining the encyclopedia. If there is something wrong, yes, we want to hear about it. That's not a license to disrupt the project. Scr★pIron^IV 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has over two score sources provided. Person is mentioned at least six times in NYT. (including "Ansel has his own baggage: Once a renowned expert in the vein of the cult authority Rick Alan Ross, he ..." ) . One of the easier keeps known. Collect (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and that nomination looks decidedly WP:POINTY. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable enough for an article. It's the article quality that's the problem. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and well written. Zezen (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it clearly meets our criteria for notability, but I think winkelvi's concerns that it cannot be preserved without community/administrative action regarding COI-SPAs need to be thoroughly considered and investigated. I think it might not be a bad idea if as many of the here-involved editors as possible take a look at article, the TP, and the issues in question, if they can find the time. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Absolutely meets WP:BIO. What a nonsense for AfD. STSC (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no question that the subject passes Wikipedia's notability requirements and we do not delete articles just because they are, for whatever reason, difficult to deal with. In the universe of PITA articles this one in not very bad although Mr Ross needs to understand and accept Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their neutral application. In particular he needs to remember that reliable sources drive all content decisions and while some personal insights are helpful in applying editorial discretion we must, ultimately, stick to the sources that are available rather than self published material or self reported opinion. Jbh^Talk 15:43, 13 November 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. KTC (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Saylor[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The current content is unduly promotional. Prodded; deprodded by Stifle who asserted notability but did not provide any additional references and did not address the other problems. Huon (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe one day, but he doesn't currently meet WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (musicians) as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 13 November 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/delete as a recreation of an article previously brought to AfD back in September, a little under two months ago. The issues have not been resolved and the sources here do not establish how Barron is independently notable of his father. As was said at the prior AfD, children do not automatically inherit notability from their parents except in very specific circumstances such as certain types of royalty. Other than a couple of sources, the focus is almost solely on Barron's parents and it could also be argued that the sources that do mention Barron are more interested in covering his parents than they are the child himself. There's also the issue of him being a minor, which means that we need to approach an article with even more caution than we would an adult. That his parents are not entirely shy about putting him in the public eye is irrelevant. I think that Bearcat sums up Wikipedia's policy on children of famous parents quite well in this edit to the prior article for Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt: "redirect; per WP:NOTINHERITED she does *not* qualify for her own separate Wikipedia article until she's actually done something more notable and sourceable than having famous parents." If someone wants to contest this, this will have to be taken to WP:DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barron William Trump[edit]

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC beyond a 2015 People Magazine profile of him. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the clear decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump. The previously voiced concerns are still valid, especially about the privacy of a minor vs. the encyclopedic value of trivial tabloid information. GermanJoe (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Professor JR:, as the page itself was originally created by another editor. GermanJoe (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm going to close this as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD. I cannot see where any of the material here greatly differs from the version of the article that was deleted at the last AfD. Barron still lacks notability outside of his notable parents and there's still the very, very pressing concern about the child's privacy. If anyone wants to contest this, take it to DRV. Do NOT recreate this article in the mainspace until this goes through DRV, as we have to guard the privacy of a minor and I cannot really see where the information here cannot be just as well contained in Trump's article or an article on his family, if there is justification to create the article Family of Donald Trump. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 10 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talyan Wright[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. To date her career has consisted of only minor parts. Her most notable role was as a minor recurring character in 5 episodes of Two and a Half Men. AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom, career so far fails NACTOR requirements for encyclopedia inclusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all. I made this article. Sorry, if this might not meet the guidelines, but I don't yet see why not. I first thought to make it because I noticed she was one of the only recurring characters not to have her own page on the List of Two and a Half Men characters page. She is not listed, there, under the Minor Character heading. So I'm not sure it fails WP:NACTOR, because "significant" is somewhat subjective. I personally think a recurring role in a notable TV show, like this is "significant" and winning awards for her significant role in the short films Father and Cracked, qualify as multiple significant roles, it seems to me. True they are short films, but being lauded by as venerable and significant a festival as Woods Hole Film Festival, for example, makes them notable, in my view. Of course, I am still learning, as an editor, but these seemed to add up to multiple significant roles in notable productions, to me. Of course, I am always willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and will concede, if I feel I made a mistake. But so far, I am not convinced this doesn't meet the NACTOR. Also, I'd appreciate if someone could make more clear what "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" means, as that also seems subjective. I imagined multiple awards, by notable film festivals would qualify for that point, as well.--_{User:AntonTchekhov| reply here} 19:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" usually means a main character, or a recurring character whose participation in a TV program went well beyond that of a recurring character. In this case, Wright's role was simply a recurring character in 5 episodes. Having a recurring role in a notable TV show does not constitute a significant role because notability is not inherited. The subject must stand on their own as a notable individual. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, understood. But, for future articles, what is the cut off point of significance, and where is that defined, on WP? Also, what is the situation with awards from notable insitutions? Given these were awarded to Wright, specifically, wouldn't that make her notable, as an individual? She did play a major role in both short films. Are short films exempt from notability? If so, where is that stated on WP, so I know for the next article? Although I thought Wright was notable, I also don't want to make the mistake of creating articles for non-notables. I want to improve my editing skills, so I can avoid time-consuming deletion noms, in future.--_{User:AntonTchekhov| reply here} 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps even if seen as weak on WP:ENT for works or WP:ANYBIO for awards, she might meet WP:BASIC through coverage. So AntonTchekhov, what sources speak about this youngster in a more-than-trivial manner? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now and draft & userfy as this may be borderline keep but we can delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above editors; and I agree with SwisterTwister to Userfy, since this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and because MichaelQSchmidt poses a valid, if unanswered question. Currently does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 17 November 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOPzilla[edit]

STOPzilla (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)

Written like an advertisement, very little references and hardly referenced. Very little information anywhere except under Reviews. Anarchyte 11:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I guess not notable or worse.. Note, I've edited this page to keep stuff out.. and tried to get some WP:PRIMARY source stuff in that seemed very dubious. comp.arch (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to suggest better at this time. Notifying past AfD commenter Jarkeld. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has run its course. Nothing new to improve it with. Time to go. Jarkeld (talk) 11:26, 16 November 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. KTC (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NetBet[edit]

NetBet (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 written like an advert/press release, i.e:

"NetBet is a regulated and transparent website, which offers its players secure payment methods for depositing and withdrawals, such as Visa, Mastercard, Skrill, Neteller and Paysafecard"

and

"NetBet works closely together with counselling services for gambling addiction and allows players to set deposit limits for themselves. The site also offers demo versions of the games, which can be played without wagering real money, and denies registration of minors" Lancshero (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be WP:ARTSPAM created by single-purpose account. Citobun (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very difficult to research. Hundreds of hits, but all appear to be mere mentions or press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 16 November 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. KTC (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAIF[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage of this network protocol anywhere, only the Linux kernel changelog already cited and an email by the authors of the Linux module here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until a better article can be made as I see nothing currently better and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 16 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair692 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Stuart Styron[edit]

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

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

This article has been speedy deleted twice and been the subject of a previous AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Styron) that closed as Delete. Right now, the article is in worse shape than in 2014 and the original reasons apply: Non-notable as actor, musician, or artist. I have suggested to the article creator that the article be userfied but they insist on recreating the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like much of the copy of the article is taken from his Facebook biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks better than the one I speedied, but I don't think the author has grasped the idea of notability and reliable independent referencing yet. (I did try explaining after receiving a somewhat aggressive message from the author - which didn't worry me, even though it accused me of being aggressive...). I too suggested Draft:space or user space but was ignored. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for an admin: How does Draft:Stuart Styron compare with the 2014 version? --Finngall ^talk 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finngall, that draft article is sparse on notability but at least it is original content rather than being cribbed from his Facebook About page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Finngall, Peridon and Liz ^{Read! Talk!} I should apologize some reactions from the last 2 days. Before I decided to work very seriously on the article, I could imagine how hard it gonna will be. But hard attacking every hour from everyone to delete the article, because of the "disasters", "Speedy deletetes" from the past (for example) is not acceptable. It`s now 1 year left and a new chance for a new article is absolutly okay. With a negative energy going through from the first minute is not professional and against Wikipedia rules. I even not starting with the text and all of you starting attacking. So, i must react in the same form to get attention that I am serious in what I`m doing. I know there is an option however it is, that Stuart Styron should placed here on wikipedia. It is just a question of finding the right elements. "Living people" or "artist" or "musician" or "actor" should be checked cleary, I know that now, but it`s not easy. He is a musician and an actor, he already study all in all for many years, but if it`s not notable, that`s fine, but we should find a middle way to describe his work and engagement. Kicking him out with all your hearts is a mistake. Whatever, now the site looks much better and i still working on it. If you want to help in some points, that would be fine. I would be thankfull for every positive advice and enthusiasm. Ulla1956 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs) Hello Finngall, Peridon and Liz ^{Read! Talk!} Can someone check the work I did, please? There are many changes since you nominated the article for deletion. Thank you. Ulla1956 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest a currently better article. Notifying past AfD commenters Pharaoh of the Wizards and Widefox. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same lack of notability for each possibility as per my prev AfD, combined with aggressive promo activity from this new WP:SPA User:Ulla1956. Here's the prev Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_(2) , Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez (it's not clear to me if this was part of the sockfarm Bert Martinez, or what looks like separate autobiography promo that got caught up in it. There are several new accounts now, all promo, listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Stuart_Styron, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hollenderek. Widefox; talk 14:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Promo socks blocked User:Hollenderek User:Botamy007 Widefox; talk 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Draft deleted promo / blocked editors, suggest closing (as SNOW). Widefox; talk 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:17, 12 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Disability Journal[edit]

Considering Disability Journal (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 new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Further independent sources added, indexing in progress with journal. Notable as is only journal in field for entry-level studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.196.147 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — 82.46.196.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment There are currently 4 sources in the article. #1 is an email announcement and call for papers. Not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]) contributing to notability. #2 is an in-passing mention on the website of the founder's university: not independent and not in-depth. #3 is a company profile on a website that takes its information from public sources and doesn't guarantee it is correct. Not a reliable source and not in-depth coverage. #4 is the journal's own website. Unfortunately, none of these sources contributes to notability. Being the "only journal in field for entry-level studies" is not something mentioned in either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Randykitty, it's simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 15 November 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylin Busby[edit]

Cylin Busby (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 one hand, we have a BLP1E situation with her father and the shooting. On the other hand, we have her book-writing. The former does not lend itself towards inclusion on Wikipedia, and the latter is not significant enough for her to pass WP:AUTHOR. The book-selling success is (if I had to guess) largely due in part to the TV show that featured her (and probably threw in a plug or three for the book). Her other works do not appear to have drawn much attention, and thus she does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She does in fact pass WP:AUTHOR: "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Because The Year We Disappeared got multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I'll add a few to the article right now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do see Nom's point, that she is hardly a major writer. But Wikipedia is all about sources, and this author/article has sources and plenty to pass WP:AUTHOR. I added a little sourcing on her childhood. Obviously needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I just ran her and the book title into a news archive search, in 2008 The Year We Disappeared was all over the media. Lots of reviews ran in multiple papers (not echoes, independent reviews,) and there were feature stories. In plenty. @Primefac:, you may want to run the book title and/or names through a good news archive search, and consider withdrawing the nomination. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant weak keep simply if there's enough sourcing to at least suggest a borderline keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gggrrrr, another author who easily meets WP:GNG, article now reflects this, thanks to E.M.Gregory, a 1min search showed 3 reviews from Kirkus Reviews - [1] and 3 from Publishers Weekly - [2], that exceeds notability requirements, let alone the other references in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:40, 14 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini (Telugu actress)[edit]

Ragini (Telugu actress) (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 references are unreliable. There are many actresses named Ragini. The Avengers (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Delete - If the articles creator fails to add reliable references within a couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magipur (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Indian topics, WP:INDAFD: "Ragini"

Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO by winning the notable Nandi Award for for three consecutive years as Best Comedian. Alo, it would seem her career meets WP:ENT and her coverage meeting WP:GNG.[3] What we need is assistance from Indian/Telugu Wikipedians to refine searches, not deletion for being a poor stub. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now Agree with the above, would be good to hear from Telugu Wikipedians or Indian Wikipedians with knowledge of this subject. If has won Nandi Award is presumably notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 November 2015‎

• While I feel certain there will be agreement, our own article on it here states the Nandi "is the highest award ceremony for excellence in Telugu cinema." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep simply because any better sources may not be easily accessible. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU-TV[edit]

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

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

No proof of its notability provided in any way. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BROADCAST. Also read WP:BEFORE.--RioHondo (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Is there any reason to consider this station notable enough for its own article other than guidelines you haven't read thoroughly? If it does have original programming, how come the only thing the article contains is information about its location and specs? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raykyogrou0:, as i said WP:BEFORE. You have nominated this article for deletion without even thinking and researching if it offers regional programs that suit its regional viewers of Cebuano speakers when notability for broadcast stations relies on that (and not just what you see in the article's current state).--RioHondo (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously accusing me of not knowing the policy? There aren't even any results to be found when searching the station alone. [4] I mean like, come on. If you have something to present that actually proves notability, go ahead. Otherwise, get busy with something else more useful instead of this pointless argument. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is titled following some convention. It appears that its common name is UNTV 39 or UNTV Cebu. But as I am not familiar with this channel or anything about the Cebu regional media market for that matter, I would have to wait for the article maker to make the clarification.--RioHondo (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the channel, this is an article about the station. Not that it matters, there's nothing notable to say about this article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of the article is a relay station. Per the same guideline given by RioHondo (WP:BROADCAST), relay stations does not merit its own article. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this station have its own Cebuano language programming like most regional stations? Pinging article starter Supergabbyshoe, appreciate your help on this. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BCAST if it is a relay as stated here, otherwise if it does original programming, then Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect (just like the other station) - I was waiting to see if the relay/original broadcasting issue could be resolved, but since no source has been put forth that it is anything but a relay station, there is no justification to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 17 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYBU-TV[edit]

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

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

No proof of its notability provided in any way. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BROADCAST. Also read WP:BEFORE.--RioHondo (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Is there any reason to consider this station notable enough for its own article other than guidelines you haven't read thoroughly? If it does have original programming, how come the only thing the article contains is information about its location and specs? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raykyogrou0:, as i said WP:BEFORE. You have nominated this article for deletion without even thinking and researching if it offers regional programs that suit its regional viewers of Cebuano speakers when notability for broadcast stations relies on that (and not just what you see in the article's current state).--RioHondo (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously accusing me of not knowing the policy? There aren't even any results to be found when searching the station alone. [5] I mean like, come on. If you have something to present that actually proves notability, go ahead. Otherwise, get busy with something else more useful instead of this pointless argument. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is titled following some convention. It appears that its common name is TV Natin 43? But as I am not familiar with this channel or anything about the Cebu regional media market for that matter, I would have to wait for the article maker to make the clarification.--RioHondo (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the channel, this is an article about the station. Not that it matters, there's nothing notable to say about this article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of the article is a relay station. Per the same guideline given by RioHondo (WP:BROADCAST), relay stations does not merit its own article. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this station have its own Cebuano language programming like most regional stations? Pinging article starter Aztegdude, appreciate your help on this. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BCAST if it is a relay as stated here, otherwise if it does original programming, then Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect per WP:BCAST - I was waiting to see if the relay/original broadcasting issue could be resolved, but since no source has been put forth that it is anything but a relay station, there is no justification to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 17 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Jane Weinstein[edit]

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

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

I can't find references that convince me this author truly meets WP:GNG. The links in the article are mostly self-published. Many are self promotional; notably, links to the subject's own Kickstarter funding campaigns, and to guest-written pieces at Today and the Huffington Post websites. Most all are self-published primary sources, even if thinly veiled. It's not hard to find a few mentions of the books, so maybe the books are more deserving of articles than the author is. Mikeblas (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although News, browser and Highbeam found some links, there's nothing particularly better. Pinging interested subject users Tokyogirl79 and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really finding much either. I see a few places running excerpts or general human interest pieces, but they're fairly few and far between. The best I found was this article that talks about her appearance on the Today Show, however that's not really enough to have an article. From what I can see, she received a small flurry of coverage around 2012 but not much attention since then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least this will need to be cleaned to get all of the promotional material out. I just found three hotlinks to Amazon in the bibliography section. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Author of three (3) books: Mediation in the Workplace: (2001), Fat Kids: Truth and Consequences (2014), and Fat Sex: The Naked Truth (2015). Additional sources, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "mediation" book seems to have been reviewed in some niche journals and is held in ~500 libraries, but that hardly makes it a bestseller. I couldn't find reviews at Booklist or Publisher's Weekly, and I couldn't find any mention searching JSTOR. I couldn't even find the reviews that are listed; those journals don't seem to be in any of the indexes I have access to. In any case, one moderately successful book is not enough. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I ended up finding those through the databases offered via the libraries for Drexel and VCU. I was a little surprised that I found them, to be honest, since they didn't show up in other searches. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 17 November 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 merge to AXA UK. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftcover[edit]

Swiftcover (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)

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was simply not convincingly better here, here and here and considering there a few news sources in the article such The Independent, there may be more but it's not convincingly better again. With its current state, it can even be considered speedy and PROD material but given its age and history, AfD again may be better. Pinging past AfD commenters Stifle, NickelShoe, Master Jay and Mailer diablo, past users JzG, Closedmouth, MER-C, X! and Postdlf. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to AXA UK. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Stifle - not enough to keep a standalone article, but enough to warrant merging with the parent company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 17 November 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. per SK1 (I know there's a delete !vote but notability was proven by sources thus making the delete !vote moot), Thanks JMWt for your help in finding sources :). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GTFM[edit]

GTFM (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 radio station, Due to the moronic station name I cannot find anything at all on the station, Even "GTFM Wales" shows nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News and media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Davey2010 - searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a radio station with an OFCOM license to broadcast on fm, therefore it seems to me to be at least as notable as many other British community radio stations with pages on wikipedia. It is a page with a fairly small geographic footprint, I can't see that a lack of links found on google is sufficient to determine notability - or indeed whether the page should be deleted. If this kind of AfD is allowed, I think it is a dangerous precedent whereby only radio stations with a wide geographic listenership are considered notable. That said, the content is rubbish, I'm not sure that a person arriving to find out more about the station would learn anything of value from it. JMWt (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because it has an Ofcom licence doesn't mean it should get an article, With the greatest of respect If there's nothing on Google or anywhere else that establishes notability then it doesn't deserve an article, Not true community stations can be and are in most cases are notable but some stations like this one aren't notable. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, WP:NMEDIA does state that if a station has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.), then it needs to make no further claim of notability beyond the fact of having a license — but the fact of having a license does not constitute an exemption from having to reliably source the resulting article. A radio station does not gain an entitlement to keep an article that's permanently unsourced, or based solely on primary sources like its own website — it's the quality of reliable source coverage that you can provide to support the notability claim, not the mere fact that an unsourced claim of notability has been asserted, that gets a radio station in the door. Better sourcing might be possible here if somebody has access to a better database of British media coverage than what shows up on Google News — I only have deep database access to Canadian newspapers, so I'm not the angel of salvation here — but having an Ofcom license does not give a radio station a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're talking about two different things here, first whether the station is notable, and deserves a page, at all. I agree with Bearcat (and apparently WP:NMEDIA) that having a broadcast license should be enough to fulfil the notability challenge. The secondary question is about the sourcing. And I would agree that the sourcing on the page is bad. I said this above - I'm saying the page should be kept even if it is decided that the content needs paring and the sources improved. I also note that according to local media, an independent survey suggested that it was the most listened-to radio station in the broadcast area. I've been able to find references on the station in other local media, from the Welsh government, from OFCOM, from the UK charity regulator. I therefore disagree that this station is not notable and politely suggest that it ought to be possible to rewrite the page sourcing information from outwith of their own primary source. I think that would make it a more valuable page for potential visitors wanting to find out about the most popular radio station in their area, even if it has limited interest to anyone else. JMWt (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added some extra references from books, OFCOM official documents, news reports etc. Please can you take a look and tell me if this (obviously still incomplete) improvement addresses any of the issues raised here? If not, can you please explain what it is that would be needed? JMWt (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's definitely heading very much in the right direction — I'd certainly like to still see a little bit more if possible, but you yourself acknowledged that it's "obviously still incomplete", and there is enough meat to what's already there that I can officially now take a position one way or the other: flag for refimprove, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 10 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felixstowe Radio[edit]

Felixstowe Radio (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 radio station, The only source I managed to find was something to do with a carnival[6] which for a 9 year old station is extremely poor!, If it's taken 10 years just for that bit of source then this station's screwed notability-wise!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a community radio station with limited range (5-10km for community stations in the UK) I'm not surprised you couldn't find any national secondary sources :-) Perhaps it's worth collapsing the set of UK community radio stations (many of which have similar pages and are likely to be similarly non-notable - sorry I haven't gone looking yet) into a tabular format? I need to declare a vested interested of course: I'm the volunteer technical manager at Felixstowe Radio. Phlash909 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlash909 - There is a table somewhere as that's where I've been basically nominating via, To be fair tho there's quite alot of community stations here that are notable, We could redirect to the table I suppose but I'm not sure there was much info there, –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the list is at List of radio stations in the United Kingdom but for the community section there's barely anything there and so IMHO redirecting all stations there would be pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks - I hadn't seen that page, that pretty much covers what I was suggesting by 'collapsing into tabular format', I wasn't suggesting lots of redirects. Phlash909 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I didn't even realize you said that!, Think I need to go sleep , I know but if we redirect this then we'd really need to redirect them all and to be honest it seems to much flaffing around . –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment - Before anyone !votes redirect I'll be removing all redlinks/afd-deleted articles from that table, The table is pretty much useless as it stands (Sure it can be improved but it's unlikely it ever will be so there's no point in creating heavy work for nothing.) –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to merely be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom - not sure if Davey2010 is done with his maintenance of that table, but it seems a better choice than simply deleting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi onel5969- I've began to remove redlinked/deleted articles on the table, As it stands the table is useless information wise (There's not much info on the table so redirecting IMHO is pointless and seeing as half of my nominated radio stations have been deleted it makes sense to just delete the lot instead of deleting 98% and perhaps redirecting 2% of the stations :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 17 November 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. joe decker^talk 02:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn FM[edit]

Dawn FM (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 radio station, Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs in the article, a local community radio station. Their webpage says 'coming soon', it can't be good that they have more info on wp than their homepage. Szzuk (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable local radio station. The BBC mentions the station, so the "reliable source, independent of the subject" in WP:GNG is ok. It's however a mere mention and thus fails "significant coverage" per GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:28, 12 November 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) ansh666 23:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISentia[edit]

ISentia (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)

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this, this and this and this has not changed much since starting in October 2005. Several users have come and go, changing this and that, but none of them are considerably active except DMacks. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most coverage seems to be routine; nothing that seems to satisfy the GNG. Bjelleklang - talk 11:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's worth noting that until 2013, it was called "Media Monitors," but I still can't find anything past the mundane. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They're a specialist company, but a reasonably well known one. For instance they (and their predecessor Media Monitors) provide or have provided services to a range of government departments; won the 2015 AMEC award; produces a regular index for Crikey, is an ASX listed company that currently has a market cap of $830million, etc etc etc. -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) (no conflict of interest)[reply]

• Delete - accomplished is not the same as notable. No in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

  1. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-05-05). "Media-monitoring firm iSentia set for $400m sharemarket float". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  2. Bell, Nathan (2014-06-11). "iSentia's share price is a fragile flower". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  3. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-06-05). "iSentia shares impress on debut". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  4. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-06-07). "iSentia overvalued, says analyst". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  5. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-07-01). "Media monitoring iSentia 'ticks all the boxes', says Moelis". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  6. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-08-29). "iSentia reaffirms guidance". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  7. Chappell, Trevor (2014-06-05). "iSentia makes strong ASX debut". The Australian. Australian Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  8. Jackson, Sally (2013-10-30). "AAP sells client list to dominant iSentia". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  9. Stacey, Daniel (2014-02-19). "Quadrant Delays $451 million IPO of iSentia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iSentia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: All of these articles concern the IPO and the stock price following the IPO, and while I'm far from an expert on these things I'd think that this is more or less routine coverage any company would have after an IPO, regardless of the notability of the company. Bjelleklang - talk 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is fine for the sources to be about the IPO and the stock price following the IPO.

  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage:

  Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

  There is "deep coverage" about iSentia.

  This article from The Australian:

  iSentia was a dream pitch for private equity seller Quadrant, which did a fantastic job of getting this away at a price-earnings-ratio of 26. There’s also no doubt that media monitoring is a good and growing business. iSentia is the largest firm of its kind in Australia, enjoying a 90 per cent market share by revenue, and counting 87 per cent of the S&P/ASX 100 as customers. Tick the box marked ‘‘industry leader with pricing power’’.

  The company was founded in 1982 as a press clipping service, but is now a software company. Its products are organised into three pillars to help organisations get their message into the mainstream and social media, keep customers up to date with what’s appearing in the media, and delivering analytical reports on an organisation’s performance in the media.

  The company’s 5000 or so customers – mainly large companies and governments – pay a subscription fee to access these products and tend to be loyal. Its top 50 clients have been with the company for an average of more than 11 years – another tick.

  There’s also the fact that iSentia’s software is highly scalable. With costs largely fixed, a decent chunk of each additional sale flows straight to the bottom line. That’s good for growing margins. Tick.

  This article from The Australian:

  iSentia was among the most traded stocks, with its market cap hitting $486 million.

  iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market, providing information from various media sources to alert business and government clients to what is being said about their organisations, competitors and industry.

  The company uses software and other systems to capture and interpret data from more than 5,500 mainstream media outlets, 55,000 online news sources and 3.4 million user-generated content sources on Facebook, Twitter and Weibol.

  Clients include Microsoft, Nike, Coca-Cola and Samsung and most of the top 100 companies listed on the ASX.

  It also operates in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam and has an emerging presence China.

  The Australian says that "iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market", which strongly establishes that iSentia is notable.

  And the coverage I quoted above extends "well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage:).

  Cunard (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think Cunard made good points about WP:ROUTINE, which seems to be aimed at the truly mundane coverage. When articles in RS remark that a firm is exceptional, I think that means ROUTINE does not apply. Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I participated in the DRV that resulted in this article being relisted. I couldn't see the state of the article, because of course, it had been deleted. Hats off to @Cunard: for marshalling detailed and substantive references. Now that the article has been restored I can see it needs a lot of work, to integrate those fine references. I started integrating the references Cunard found, and started to add some additional references I found. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Geo Swan (talk · contribs), for your work on the article! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• iSentia is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

  Here are some analyst reports:

  1. From Morningstar, Inc. (link): 1^WebCite, 2^WebCite, 3^WebCite, 4^WebCite, and 5^WebCite.
  2. From Reuters: link (12 pages)^WebCite
  3. From Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc.: "Wright Investors Service Comprehensive Report for iSentia Group Ltd" (53 pages)^WebCite
  These sources demonstrate that because of analyst reports iSentia, like almost all publicly traded corporations passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelines.

  Cunard (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, There are quite a few references available when anyone search by companies' previous name Sentia Media and Media Monitors. Quite a few reliable sources including Techcrunch, Business Insider Australia and others. Even publicly traded corporation, itself is a primary critera to establish notability.Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH; some of the coverage transcends WP:ROUTINE, providing background information and overviews about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 17 November 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. KTC (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Maxwell[edit]

Abel Maxwell (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)

Biography of non-notable person. The "National Academy of Best-Selling Authors" is a vanity award [7] and absolutely not a claim to notability, and all sources except one are primary sources such as press releases or directory listings. The exception is a review on a blog, so not a reliable source and again not support for notability. bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nom has a point. The alleged book, "Transform: Your Life, Business & Health" is puzzling because of this Amazon.com page: [8] which appears to show the same title being promoted as 3 separate titles all identical except with a different author's name featured on the cover. Also here: [9]. Some sort of scam? I don't know. What I do know is that I can't source or validate Maxwell's authorship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems self-promotional. All the references are basically press releases rather than independent coverage of some kind of notable achievement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 November 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. KTC (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley McGirr[edit]

Bradley McGirr (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)

Apparently non-notable local politician. 0 hits on Highbeam, 0 hits on Google News Archive, 1 hit on Google News, for a child of 13 in New Zealand. The article is a shameless autobiography, copied directly (with permission) from his profile at the law firm where he works, and as far as I can see entirely innocent of any vestige of an independent reliable source. I started trying to clean it up, but then asked myself why I was doing that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and also WP:GNG. Promotional article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show he meets WP:POLITICIAN.Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:32, 15 November 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. joe decker^talk 02:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hulme[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since I created this AFD, some editors have added a number of sources that may reflect notability per WP:GNG. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One ref in the article which is a link to her webpage...which says "coming soon". Google doesn't bring back anything. Probably qualifies for speedy delete as blatant promotion. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete:- Telegraph reference is reliable however this seems to be an early stage. Its WP:TOOSOON.Ireneshih (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Entirely promotional in tone. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:50, 12 November 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. Given less weight to canvassed and votes based on personal attacks. The argument around the sources is around their reliability and whether they pass the GNG. Generally, in the UK, tabloid sources do not count so arguments about the Mirror et al are valid but broadsheet coverage does. The argument then comes down to whether interviews are enough to pass the gng. There is a wide consensus that they do not - indeed they are considered primary not secondary sources as the information comes from the subject not an independant source. As that is essentially the argument put forward to counter the keep argument, it does firmly reflect policy and practise and leaves the conclusion that the consensus is to delete. That said, I have the sense that this is very close to the line and that further coverage not based in interviews presented in my talk page could persuade me to reverse this close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigma Talib[edit]

Nigma Talib (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)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. The best claim to notability is that she wrote a book that appeared at number 248 on the Amazon.com bestseller's list. This does not seem good enough per WP:AUTHOR. The other claims to notability are based on press-coverage that seem to be more part of a junket rather than notable for some sort of journalistic reason. It may happen that eventually she gets her own talkshow or becomes famous and notable for some reason, but until that time I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. jps (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets GNG; meeting an additional or more stringent standard is not required. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the consensus is that we need to have strict standards for WP:BLP. jps (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true, as well as GNG, articles must also meet policies like NPOV and BLP, and this article cannot, if the references are promotional. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV and BLP are not notability standards. Obviously additional or more stringent notability standards are what I was referring to. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV and BLP are not notability standards, but articles must still meet these policies, and deletion is not only for notability, the article fails NPOV and BLP and maybe cannot ever pass, so delete it. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet GNG nor WP:BIO; subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers) and health magazines, which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. Some of those articles were the result of a PR campaign paid by the subject. Most of those articles seem like they are part of a press junket and contain adverts for her naturopathic and spa services with prices. It would be different if she has received a major award for her contributions to society in a meaningful way. Subject has done nothing notable other than run popular alternative health clinics in NY and London, publish a book on "anti-ageing", and market herself to the Daily Telegraph and other celebrity-focused magazines. Delta13C (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Daily Telegraph and other celebrity-focused magazines" is nonsense. By any standards, The Telegraph is a reliable source and is not a 'celebrity-focused magazine'. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is maybe one source that meets reliable source rules. The rest is promotional and a violation of standard policies. If we have to have an article it should follow our pseudoscience rules and point out that what she says is nonsense, though I know of no reliable sources that has paid attention to her. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, references are promotional and the content is WP:FRINGE. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, If she was featured and interviewed in so many reliable sources like 1,, 2, New York Observer, called by BBC 4 and there are quite a few reliable sources. She is meeting GNG, It is certainly unexpected to see so many votes against without looking into the details. I might agree to a point about the rational for naturopathy, but She is quoted in various other news sources, asked for her opinions as an expert in her field. My vote is definitely keep for her.Ireneshih (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone bother to search those locations mentioned in the article? Highbeam search shows four mentions of The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record and Chronicle, definitely independent reliable sources on [10]. If she was interviewed in that many reliable sources she'd be notable. I am changing my vote to Strong keep Ireneshih (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As jps pointed out, the number of mentions are effects of a PR junket and also seem to be from syndication, rather than multiple reliable sources. The locations are irrelevant if they are basically copying the same content, which was reporting on natural ways to keep skin moisturised without sunscreen. Those sources are not reliable as they discuss pseudoscience topics, like taking "a teaspoon of organic sesame oil, swish it in my mouth for a minute each morning and then spit it out. It helps detoxify the body and improve skin” or "Headstands are great for getting the blood to flow to the face, oxygenating your complexion and helping to remove wrinkle-inducing toxins." Those sources are tabloid-style publications which are not known for publishing purely journalistic content of high reliability. According to WP:Potentially_unreliable_sources, "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." Delta13C (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delta13C, Do you mean The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record, Telegraph, New York Observer, Daily Mail and others are not reliable??? If you believe they are not reliable sources there are atleast 100k existing Wikipedia pages referenced with these sources, lets clean all these pages with sources and bring all of these pages to WP:AFD. If they are a part of PR junket, it is clearly marked on them as as Press Release or Paid Advertisement. Reviewing your recent contributions, they seem to be mostly focused around only this page after your failed attempt to create a promotional page of another naturopath Draft:Michael Uzick. If you know what reliable sources and what are not, why this page was attempted??? Is Nigma Talib a business competitor of Draft:Michael Uzick?

WP:PUS is an essay and as such has no status. Further it is incomplete and, in any case, no justification has been given to support those sources that are included. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUS, like all such essays, is a rationale and isn't -- and was never intended to be -- some sort of binary law. Proclaiming "it's just an essay" is, in fact, an implicit admission you don't have an actual counter-argument to use against it. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PUS has good advice. In addition to being circumspect of sources that qualify as tabloid journalism it also makes a great point about Who's Who scams, of which one was formally referenced in the Nigma Talib article section on Awards and Recognition Old revision of Nigma Talib. I understand that editors should apply advice in essays if they help improve Wikipedia. In this case because most of the citations in Nigma Talib come from tabloid, celebrity gossip newspapers and talk about pseudoscience topics and are aimed at business promotion, rather than discussing real achievements, influence on history or science, or anything that would suggest a notable contribution to the greater good. As far as I can tell, Nigma Talib does spa treatments on celebrities and makes dubious claims about gluten and wine affecting the health of facial skin, which are not supported by science. I'd hardly call the page I tried to create of Michael Uzick a promotional page. I noted he has been sanctioned by his naturopathic board for using a pecular substance that is illegal in his practice, which I thought was curious and perhaps notable. It was my first try at making a page (trying to stick to WP:NPOV, and I wanted to gain experience. I learned a lot, including how to use reliable sources, which is what I am now applying in this case. Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delta13C, Can you please review List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, Page has references from the most reliable sources (Only for references Telegraph.co.uk is Daily Telegraph). Also I would again like to know how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back?? 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment regarding the assertion that PR efforts on the article subject's behalf magically make reliable sources not count: No. Companies and individuals issue press releases all the time, and Wikipedia properly does not consider such sources when looking for sources to establish notability. However, once a reliable source such as The Telegraph takes information contained in a press release and subjects it to fact-checking and editorital control, the resulting article, even if based in part on such press releases, is both a reliable source and a valid proof of the notability of subjects discussed in any depth in the article. If we discounted every newspaper or magazine article that used a press release as a source for some of its content, half of Wikipedia (or more?) would have to go. I realize this fact about use of press releases by mainstream press outlets may not be obvious to some people who have never worked in publishing; hopefully the distinction between a press release and an article which used a press release as a source is now clear. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meeting WP:GNG isn't a guarantee of being eligible for an article, it's a minimum requirement. And it also takes a pretty generous interpretation of the GNG to say Talib passes. I see no evidence of noteworthy accomplishments, achievements, or real claims to fame, other than the ability to get media outlets to quote her advice. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, if WP:GNG isn't a guarantee of being eligible for an article, then there are higher chances than there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia would qualify for deletion. Your reasons are not satisfactory. Can you please review the history of the page, most of her contributions were edited and deleted by users.

Please review Category:Internet celebrities, they also qualify only due to WP:GNG. If the she was referenced in only one or two sources, she would have failed WP:GNG but with the existing sources notability is WP:INHERITED. Ireneshih (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is Talib's articles. The subject here is not internet celebrities, climate change, or the batting averages of the 1939 San Francisco Seals. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

So, did you have anything resembling an actual argument, our are you limited to frantic handwaving? --Calton | Talk 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that for the argument of inheritance to work for notability, then Nigma Talib needs to be associated with something that is certainly notable. What is this legitimately notable something? Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Inheritance is in the number of reliable sources, 1 where she is mentioned as an expert naturopath and indeed much more reliable than Draft:Michael Uzick. If she isn't notable, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back??

• Delete Many of the sources which mention her do not cover her 'in depth' as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, Did you checked these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/health-advice/the-skin-doctor-who-will-change-your-life/ http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/news-features/TMG10624773/Nigma-Talib-The-Complete-Woman.html 4, http://observer.com/2014/11/have-you-got-wheat-wine-or-dairy-face/ http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/beauty/beauty-products/naturopathic-expert-dr-nigma-talib-shows-us-what-s-inside-her-make-up-bag-20141227905 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035d8qd

I checked all but the video (which doesn't play for me). A non-adversarial interview with the subject, where no prior research or critical evaluation is apparent, is not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, Again checking upon again on your comment, Many of the sources which mention her do not cover her 'in depth' as required by the WP:GNG. Do you still believe it doesn't meet WP:GNG? References are from List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, even if they are interviews they do not call any naturopath multiple times if they are not reliable or non-notable (Review). If not than what about Category:Internet celebrities, there are all references of interviews only ?Ireneshih (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuartyeates, articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. So long as several of the sources cited are in depth and from reliable independent sources, it is not required that all sources cited cover the subject in depth. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. Except that they're being used here to establish notability. Which, well, they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging, White Arabian mare, Bilby, Perogrimadi involved in editing and talk page. If Nigma was not even 1% notable, Bilby would have straightaway deleted the page. Can you please cast vote to bring an consensus whether subject and sources are verifiable or not? Ireneshih (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Votestacking is against the rules. Delta13C (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is not to WP:Votestacking, but asking senior resources why the page wasn't deleted earlier by them when it wasn't notable, Again the same question, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back according to you when Nigma Talib is not? Ireneshih (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You selectively solicited votes. That is votestacking. I concede that Draft:Michael Uzick is not notable. It was my first try at creating an article. Delta13C (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So does it means that you have less experience in clarfying what is notable and what is not? (Review this) This is indeed not your first try at creating an article, it is second after KWUR. I typically do not understand why your edits are only around this page, whether it is tag templates or noticeboard? As suggested by GrammarFascist, Please focus on the contributions, not the contributors. Ireneshih (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot I created the KWUR article. It was over 10 years ago. I guess Uzick article then is considered by first article creation in recent memory. Thanks for pointing that out. I did make a mistake in issuing a warning, which I retracted, because I misread the timestamps of that user's edits. This discussion between you and me is becoming less about the merits of the Nigma Talib article and more about your analysis of my contributions to Wikipedia. Why don't we move this aspect of our disagreement to your talk page or mine? Delta13C (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging editors to a deletion discussion who have previously contributed to an article (including its talk page) is not necessarily an attempt at canvassing or votestacking. If all editors who recently contributed are included, it is arguably merely a courtesy. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective pinging is votestacking, you know the ping did not include other editors, so why pretend this is harmless? The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said selective pinging was not votestacking; why pretend I did? Put the strawman down. That said, the ping appears to have targeted editors who a) had edited the article recently but b) had not participated in the deletion discussion. Editors who had already participated, regardless of which view we took, were not included presumably because they had already contributed to the discussion. Asking an editor why they didn't nominate an article for deletion that was subsequently nominated by someone else is reasonable, and Ireneshih sepecifically gave that as her reason for pinging those editors. There was no way to know whether they would be in favor of or opposed to deletion; some editors who worked on the article had already argued in favor of deletion. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanispampuffery. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a bio yet it appears to be here on AfD mainly because of Wikipedia's need to stamp out any and all naturopaths. It's even listed as a reason for deletion by the nominator. Wikipedia should be showing all sides and not be so closed minded. Ah, well, that sort of altruistic ideology, I believe, is long gone, never to return! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's need to stamp out any and all naturopaths. Really. And your evidence for Wikipedia's need is, what, exactly? Did I miss the "Wikipedia:Stamp Out Naturopaths/Noticeboard" page? --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Came across this on my daily browse of ANI) Literally none of the sources used actually say anything about why the good doctor is notable. Most, if not all, of them are articles that say something along the lines of "Dr Talib says..." or "According to Dr Talib...". Many of them are from clickbait blog sites that could hardly be called reliable. Blackmane (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'CommentNigma Talib: The Complete Woman" expresses an identity and atleast for me means the same and other sources even point out this.Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While that article's title bears the subject's name, it does not cover her in depth but rather talks briefly about various pseudoscientific habits the subject does on a daily basis, like reiki, while promoting seven+ distinct products or individuals' businesses. That article is obviously part of a press junket. Delta13C (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, People included in the Telegraph are notable. Provided information is known to exist and even I do not agree with the arguments. "GrammarFascist's comment for the reliability of the sources is worth noting and is helpful in participating on other other AFDs' as well. We cannot deny the reliability of these sources in different Wikipedia pages. The sources listed in the content have the power to move any Wikipedia page for a Keep.Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So any mention in the Telegraph means you are notable and should ignore all Wikipedia policies? Guess we should get cracking, there's thousands of BLPs to write.DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Complete Woman" is a regular series in The Telegraph that superficially highlights women in fashion and beauty alongside flagrant promotion of commercial products they like: [11] Delta13C (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, DreamGuy I might agree to your comment if it was the only source. Even a simple google search drives multiple news sources and the content is WP:NPOV. Telegraph is not a source, which flaunts or exaggerate to being larger, better, or worse than it really is. There are several media reps that claim to publish them in the reliable sources however Telegraph has not confirmed it or even I cannot find any news where Telegraph has confirmed of writing promotional article. If someone claims promotional content on Telegraph, we cannot rely on it without evidence. The example of most promotional content is for WP:ACTOR, where the content is highly promotional and still considered to be reliable. On the contrary these sources are still reliable, this is a better situation and sources are reliable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with me or diagree, I don't care. But articles have a lengthy list of requirements to stay, and articles that stay have to meet WP:FRINGE and other requirements. If the article manages to stay it won't read remotely like it does now. 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with me or disagree, I don't care are very harsh words when everyone is working on a common goal here. Normally, I would go along with the nomination, but in this case, the sources seem to show that she has gotten significant media attention.Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't believe I have to keep pointing this out in deletion discussions, but the notability standard requires us to look at whether reliable sources did cover a subject, not whether reliable sources should have covered it. If reliable sources devoted substantial coverage to a given subject, then the subject is notable by definition, and any Wikipedia editor's opinion that the subject was not worthy of the coverage received is simply not relevant. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, After reading this long discussion about references, notability and arguments, page is a keep for me. I waited for a while and analysing the arguments before voting. Perogrimadi (talk) 13:30, 17 November 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 delete (G11) by Allen3 (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surfingkeys[edit]

Surfingkeys (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 subject of the article, the chrome extension, is brand new. Less than a couple weeks old. Less than two months old. Nothing has been No articles or anything significant have been written about it to my knowledge, and the article was created by the maker of the extension. There exists no very few references to it on the internet other than the pages to download the extension. Elzbenz (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in good faith though, I hope that this info can exist elsewhere. To be an article it can't be something that is brand new and is yet to be written about by anyone. Feel free to nominate for speedy deletion, don't let what I've done slow that down if this is just a standard thing to speedy delete.Elzbenz (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Extension was first created or maybe released September 4 2015. I have corrected my original comment with the use of bold for additions and strikethroughs for removals. Elzbenz (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:29, 9 November 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 delete. Promotional, unsourced, already exists as draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanggelan beach[edit]

Nanggelan beach (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)

Reads like an essay with unreliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete from mainspace as inadequately sourced and unwikified. Article also exists at Draft:Nanggelan beach, where reviewers can make suggestions for its improvement. (In other words, draft is already userfied.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional and uninformative. Nick Number (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already declined at Articles for Creation, but re-posted to main space anyway. No clear assertion of notability, plus promotional and unencyclopedic tone. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:36, 13 November 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. joe decker^talk 02:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Ventures Limited[edit]

Ergo Ventures Limited (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)

Business that isn't notable. Author deleted the speedy tag. //nepaxt 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, clearly! The author of the article isn't allowed to remove a speedy deletion template. Company is barely described, let alone any claim of notability. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cited sources are directory-type listings and/or not independent, and searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO turned up nothing better, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means and this should've been deleted as A7 as initially tagged. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 11 November 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 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbarrow Mine[edit]

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

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

An article about a mine which may or may not have been found. The single ref from 1940 is also speculative about whether what was found was or was not the mine. Fails WP:GNG by a spectacularly wide margin. Although most places are judged as inherently notable, this article cannot actually say whether this is a place and whether what may or may not have been found in 1940 was or was not that place.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. I have just added three ((cite book))s, something that should have been done WP:BEFORE, and I have corrected the lat and long with data from The Idaho Geological Survey's Mines and Prospects Database. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sam Tailor; the additional sources make all the difference. —Swpb^talk 20:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with the new sources.Kavdiamanju (talk) 15:45, 15 November 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.

Dwaitham[edit]

The result was DELETE by an Admin- non-Admin listing close Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaitham (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)

Procedural AfD nomination. It was tagged for deletion per CSD G11, but I declined it. It's just an upcoming movie, with the only reference being a Facebook page, so I personally suspect that it doesn't meet GNG. Biblioworm 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to indicate notability at this time. I originally nominated for speedy deletion because it also looked to be like a promotion; I apologize if I got that wrong.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:TOOSOON.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:07, 15 November 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 nomination withdrawn JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caparo plc[edit]

Caparo plc (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)

• NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The death of the CEO does not make this company notable JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly this company is notable, as are just about all publicly listed companies. A simple search on Google establishes notability. The guidelines regarding public companies is here: [12]. Danrok (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It may be notable but I couldn't find any reliable sources other than the CEO's death and the fact they are going into administration. JMHamo (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as obviously meeting WP:CORP -- employs thousands of people, listed company, plenty of press coverage independent of CEO's death, eg. [13][14],[15] -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:07, 9 November 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. KTC (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindteck-Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament in 2005–06[edit]

Mindteck-Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament in 2005–06 (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 cricket tournament, no sources either Fenopy (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles too may not be notable : Bradman Cup 20:20 Tournament 2005–06 and MRF Trophy in 2005–06... Fenopy (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons stated above:

Bradman Cup 20:20 Tournament 2005–06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MRF Trophy in 2005–06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please share your comments on all three articles. Fenopy (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. All completely non-notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to non-notability. --Roisterer (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament is notable, but this season article isn't the starting point. I'm not in favor of individual seasons being covered separately, but an article on the tournament is probably long overdue and I'll get to it soon. —SpacemanSpiff 13:04, 16 November 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. KTC (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Education Articles[edit]

List of Education Articles (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)

Pointless duplication of Category:Teaching. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I say delete because this is something better handled by a category and not the article space. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad a topic to work well as a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. A list of lists would be feasible, but not this. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 10 November 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twinflix[edit]

Twinflix (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)

Questionably notable and improvable and even speedy and PROD material with the best search links here. Pinging tagger MuZemike and also video game users Czar, Comatmebro, Bovineboy2008, SoWhy, Esquivalience, Wizardman, NinjaRobotPirate, Flyer22 Reborn, SuperHamster, The1337gamer and Salvidrim. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]