The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Atari ST games[edit]

History of Atari ST games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is written like a personal reflection on Atari ST gaming. It has been flagged as as not having any sources since 2007. Dgpop (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Between List of Atari ST games and Atari ST#Games, this topic is pretty well covered, but the information from this could be added to the Games section of the Atari ST page. Margalob (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced content isn't worth keeping. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the topic of gaming on the ST overtook Atari ST, this would be a credible split. However, this seems more of a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. It would be better to start over from scratch if we were going to have an article like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unneeded content fork and unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No apparent need for the subject to be broken off as a separate article from Atari ST. Also no sourced content worth keeping.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase EuroCup[edit]

ClanBase EuroCup (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 online sports competition. Given sources do not indicate notability for the subject. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation. Subject fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails GNG, not significant coverage etc. No idea why there was no quorum from the later AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Leipsic[edit]

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

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

Notability: no significant RS coverage can be found. An unremarkable city manager. Update (Aug 16, following discussions with Bearcat): The prior consensus was established with the understanding that Winnipeg was a global city (I've located the listing in the article on global cities, 2015 version). While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because Winnipeg is listed under "Category 6 (Sufficiency)". I believe this is insufficient to qualify it as a major international hub of business and political power, where a city councillor could be presumed to be notable:

1. Alpha++ cities are London and New York City, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than all other cities.
2. Alpha+ cities complement London and New York City by filling advanced service niches for the global economy.
3. Alpha and Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy.
4. Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy.
5. Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy.
6. Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as not to be obviously dependent on world cities.

For comparison, other North American cities in the last category as Des Moines, Greensboro, Sacramento. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and only something of a passing or local interest at best. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Winnipeg has traditionally been one of the cities where serving on the city council is considered an adequate claim of notability to pass WP:NPOL, because it's in the global city category (admittedly the gamma, i.e. lowest, subclass of that club, but still in it.) And since the subject has not held office (or even still been alive) since 2008, significant coverage would not be expected to be locatable via Google News — rather, improving the sourcing would require digging into news databases like ProQuest. And neither does Wikipedia have any requirement that the news coverage be current or web-accessible — we can source stuff to print-only older newspaper content. Keep, and I'll take a stab at reffing it up via ProQuest in the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following some discussion with K.e.coffman to clarify our respective issues, I see that he's now revising his nomination rationales to accommodate my primary concerns — as noted, I'm not wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors need to be kept as notable, but simply objected to the fact that some editors seemed willing to simply ignore the fact that the prior consensus ever existed at all. If any prior consensus could be erased simply by refusing to acknowledge that it existed, and didn't require any actual discussion and debate about the reasons why it should possibly be changed, Wikipedia would instantly become a giant pile of anarchy. An argument formulated this way, however, I can agree with: the "sufficiency" class of cities should not be considered notable enough to hand its city councillors an NPOL pass anymore, and Winnipeg is not for any substantive reason a city where broad national or international reader interest transcends its relatively low class of "globalness" the way a national capital might. Accordingly, I support the nomination as now formulated: my issue was the way in which the argument was being conducted as if no consensus for these ever existed in the first place, not any strong belief that Winnipeg should retain that status permanently. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete City councilors at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - barring a clear change in consensus, she was and is still notable. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Noms comment: Consensus can change applies. Also, looking at the prior AfD, it appears that the argument was that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. I just don't see those for the subject. None have been presented at this AfD either to meet GNG. No one is "automatically notable". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at Mark Lubosch, a presumption of notability remains active until it can be definitively demonstrated that improved sourceability doesn't even exist. GNG does not depend on the quality of sourcing present in the article, but rather on the quality of sourcing that it's possible to locate — and in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies, Brenda Leipsic gets 176 hits, which is more than enough (half of that would have been enough). And finally, as I also noted at Lubosch, while it's true that consensus can change, it changes by virtue of a discussion which establishes the new consensus, not by virtue of one user simply decreeing that the old consensus never existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only for NYC and Chicago have we considered them necessarily notable, because of uniqueky large political roles in those two cities. There is no general consensus this applies anywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus has never been that these are permissible only for New York City and Chicago and nowhere else; the consensus has always been that they're permissible for any city in the global city class. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Washington DC, Boston, London, Paris, Ottawa and San Diego, for starters, are just some other examples of cities where the city councillors do routinely have Wikipedia articles because city councillor in and of itself. If a new consensus can be established that Winnipeg should come off the list of cities whose councillors qualify, then that's one thing (and not even a thing I'd necessarily disagree with) — but past consensus was established that Winnipeg was on it, so you need to make a case for why Winnipeg should be removed from the established consensus, and can't get these deleted just by making false claims about what the existing consensus even is. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Winnipeg City Council (by nom): Per DGG, it appears that the consensus has indeed changed in the intervening eight years. Indeed, I don't see Winnipeg on the list of Global cities; here's a ranking of top 40 cities from 2015: link. And we still don't know which (if any) substantial sources are available via ProQuest; these could be routine city business related announcements. As an option, I believe a redirect may be appropriate as the subject appears on the list in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Serving on the City Council in Winnipeg is not significant enough to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Winnipeg has well under 1 million people in its metro-area. I see no reason we should consider it to be a "global city" where all city council members are presumed notable. This is just not a truly internationally prominent city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Global city" status is not, in and of itself, dependent on population per se; a metropolitan area of more than a million people can be not a global city (cf. Indianapolis), and a metropolitan area of less than a million people can punch well above its population-weight for political or economic reasons. Whether you understand why or not, Winnipeg was listed in our article about global cities when that article actually contained a list, because it was sourceable as belonging to one of the classes of cities that were listed there — a case could certainly be made that the weakest classes of cities in those lists (the ones that were classed as not especially inspiring adjectives like "sufficiency", rather than as Greek letters) should be removed from the established consensus, but that's still a very different argument than simply denying that the established consensus ever existed in the first place or misrepresenting what cities it was deemed to cover (it was "any city listed in that article, regardless of class", not any specific arbitrary population cutoff.) And yes, the fact that the lists have since been removed from the article is in and of itself a reason why we should establish a consensus to formally define a new standard for inclusion, since we no longer have a set list to consult — but because "is listed in that article" was the consensus standard the last time one was agreed upon, "was listed in that article when that article contained lists" still has to stand until a consensus is established to set a different standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Gramm[edit]

J Gramm (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:BASIC. Almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just scant mentions of his name. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Unable to confirm his Grammy nomination (though notability requires multiple nominations). NOTE: record producers are not mentioned in WP:NMUSIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The YoRapper and Complex references don't even mention J Gramm, and they are just about the two best sources in the article. As far as I can tell, the "Grammy nomination" is for Wiz Khalifa's Blacc Hollywood album... but the link is tenuous – J Gramm was one of many producers who contributed to the album, and his contribution consists of co-writing and co-producing a bonus track on a limited edition of the album that was exclusively released through Target stores. I don't believe this confers enough notability to be considered a "Grammy nominee", particularly as the nomination is for the album and the performer. As has been stated above, the other mentions in the sources amount to little more than "produced by J Gramm", and are not RS. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here is a strong pass of WP:NMUSIC (being a producer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album is not a claim of notability in and of itself, if the subject is not personally a listed nominee for the award for Best Producer), and none of the sourcing is solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lakhan (2016 film)[edit]

Ram Lakhan (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no relevant sources, crystal ball, looks as created by the production company The Banner talk 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know that it was necessarily created by them. In any case, I found mentions about a remake of the older film by the same name, but they appear to be completely separate films. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) I'm mentioning this here mostly because it would be easy to confuse the two. I myself thought that it might be the same film but with a different director brought on board until I saw the news story about the casting for the remake, which is completely different from the casting for this film. If we had a good redirect target I'd endorse a redirect, but there doesn't seem to be one - the person formerly linked to from the article is a political figure, not a director. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I'd instantly taint this with the COI brush. I initially missed the edits on Nirahua Entertainment Private Limited which, along with this article, make up the majority of this contributor's edits. That page in particular is promotional in tone. However I thought Times of India was a reliable source? Not sure how the infobox has been populated - far too much unsourced info in there. Rayman60 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NFILM. Note it mentioned as a Bhojpuri language language film as per the The Times of India this ,this and this. Note this is different from Ram Lakhan a 1989 popular Hindi film.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aras Corp[edit]

Aras Corp (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 myself was about to speedy as G11 but I noticed the other AfDs, which I find unbelievable that they closed as Keep considering my examinations of both the listed sources here and also the AfD simply found press releases, interviews, trivial coverage including about the company's funding and finances. Considering how we have changed since 2012 (especially about advertising), this certainly needs better attention now. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  The nomination does not cite any policies or make a deletion argument.  Is this a WP:NOT issue?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I quickly found a 2012 source on a WP:BEFORE check in Google news from the Boston Globe, [6], that states, "Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras ­software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007."  Since the nominator's preparation missed this article, and the nomination dwells on incredulity and unsourced claims such as how Wikipedia has changed since 2012, I tend to assume that WP:BEFORE was not considered to be important to the nomination.  Then I glanced at the first AfD and found mention of awards and saw an article from the Wall Street Journal, and then I opened the 2nd AfD, which is a mass of sources.  One editor there has found sources from 15 different publishers.  A glance at the article shows that the company is multi-national.  I also checked investing.businessweek.com and found [7].  The two articles I have cited are sufficient to pass WP:GNG.  I looked for WP:NOTPROMOTION without really seeing what they want changed.  If anything, company funding and finances would improve the article.  It is certainly not a deletion argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Now that this has been relisted, which it should have been, I will note that both the sources above and this article itself still have no actual convincing substance. I will note that Keep vote essentially bases that news focusing with funding and financing are acceptable, but these in fact simply emphasize PR, not substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been asked a question to explain if your nomination was a WP:NOT issue, yet your nomination still doesn't seem to have a policy-based argument.  "Substance", for example, is not a policy-based argument.  "Actual convincing substance" is verbiage for "substance".  At Wikipedia, we don't tell reliable sources what they can talk about.  This is fundamental to the way that Wikipedia operates.  Otherwise, we'd have editors arguing about what Wikipedia should cover based on their personal opinions.  One of the sources your post just panned, Bloomberg, has an army of reporters, and reliability is essential to their business model.  At Wikipedia, we consider them to be a reliable source.  The other source your post panned, The Boston Globe, our article states, "The Boston Globe has consistently been ranked in the forefront of American journalism."  Reliable sources remain reliable sources when they discuss funding and financing.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One does not have to explicitly quote policy when nominating an article to AfD (but it helps). Indeed anyone not being obstinately obtuse would read substance as more than a trivial mention (which is part of WP:GNG). It also doesn't matter if the company is multinational or whatever. All that matters is the depth of coverage. Which it seems this company has, but your line of reasoning is flawed.--Savonneux (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the evidence to support this interpretation of another editor's word choice.  This diff uses the phrase, "this article hardly had any actual substance", where "substance" is not being used as part of a WP:GNG argument (WP:PROMO was cited for a deletion argument, diff).  We should be able to agree that "substance" is not a policy-based argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Focusing on the issues: WP:CORPDEPTH, as well as WP:AUD and WP:CORPIND, is satisfied by the Boston Globe, InfoWorld, and MSI. FourViolas (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet CORPDEPTH. InfoWorld is a trade publication, potentially non independent from the tech industry. Boston Globe alone is not sufficient as "significant coverage" (one article). The article reads as an advertorial for the company; this information can easily be found on the company's web site and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pruning comment -- I trimmed the article a bit by removing unneeded section breaks and self-cited material. I also removed intricate detail cited to a directory listing (potentially non-independent source) and another's company's corporate blog: see diff. There's no depth here. Still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weaker level, per a review of available sources. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the coverage appears to be trivial; for example, the Boston Globe article appears to be based on the interview with the CEO: "Frustrated by the slow pace of business, founder Peter Schroer had a realization: "Selling corporate software was not profitable, and the scalability of the business was limited to the number of feet on the street."" Etc. The last entry, which looks like it comes from a book, is the collection of conference proceedings from IFIP PLM conference. Since none of the authors are recognized experts in the field, I believe this should be considered to be a self-published source that does not carry weight. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I myself examined these and they are not convincingly substantial. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per a handful of the sources found by posters above. I don't think all work, but there is some significant coverage here: [11], [12], [13], and [14], and [15], which is enough on its own to pass WP:GNG, and I haven't even done a google search yet. I also don't quite understand the earlier argument against InfoWorld. Seems a fine and reputable trade publication to me. Yvarta (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on the sources offered by Yvarta just above:

1. Bizjournals -- not a top tier pub at all
2. Interview with CEO
3. Same Boston Globe article already discussed
4. Retelling of a customer case study / press release
5. Very same Boston Globe article

All of this is essentially PR for the company with no substance. I don't see how this passes GNG or CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Info World article is not an interview. It has quotes, but is not entirely an interview. The Computer World article is not a retelling of a case study nor is it a press release at all. When reliable sources report about topics, it's not all automatically somehow "PR" by default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For CORPDEPTH, I would expect to see (1) consistent coverage in local press; (2) mentions in business press (i.e. Business Week); (3) financial press ( i.e. Fortune); and (4) attention from academia (ideally).

In the case of Aras, we get some minor coverage in the local press, plus some mentions in trade press, which is fluffy and is clearly PR driven. It really does not tell us much about the company, its success, its strategy, its role and position in the industry, etc -- insufficient to build an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why you're providing commentary about the notability of a different subject (AAON) as some sort of comparison, which may confuse those readers who may only skim through the discussion here. This discussion is about Aras Corp. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted above to make the comment more general. Overall, the coverage listed does not show an independent interest in the company; it's all local or trade press driven by self-promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You speculate and theorize that "all" of the sources are "driven by self-promotion", but provide little proof for such assertion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but this could also be called "editorial judgement" that we are expected to exercise, right? In short, not much of the coverage is independently verifiable. For example, the assertions, republished by Boston Globe ("Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras ­software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007") are just claims by the company. It's doubtful that The Globe got access to the company's audited financials to have been able to draw these conclusions independently. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um... like 90% of reputable articles are just journalists reporting on press releases, quarterly reports, SEC releases, and "insider" management gossip (this includes Forbes, Business Insider, and the New York Times), so in the end, are we only supposed to rely on articles based entirely on Freedom of Information requests? Because even that information is usually redacted to the point of being near useless, excluding journalist commentary. Yvarta (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, as per your argumentum ad absurdum, casting aspersions on the fact-checking of reliable sources is not a pathway to Truth^TM.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  No need for a relist, consensus has not changed since the unanimous "Keep" at the last AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer - The still questionability of all of this is still not actually substantial as all sources have essentially been based from PR and PR-like sources. Commentd suggesting this should automatically be kept is not meeting WP:CCC, thus, as always, keep votes can be disregarded if not substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Assertions of sources being based from public relations sources should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. The articles I provided above are (except for one, and the book source, which is a book) bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters#Apollo Justice. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Justice (Character)[edit]

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

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

Duplicates some content at List of Ace Attorney characters and should be merged there in my opinion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Article Creator Blocked I don't know anything about video games, so I won't just delete this article, but this article was created by an editor who has been dicking around here for a while, and who is now blocked. So there's a decent chance that it's some kind of weird fanboy vandalism. Although maybe it's a damn fine article, stranger things have happened I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're on the right track. Not vandalism, but written informally from an in-universe perspective, consisting mostly of regurgitated plot-summary, and containing zero third party references - basically the type of fan-stuff that WP:VG keeps trying to eliminate from the project for failing the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article only contains 2 references, and since the creator has been blocked, I doubt anyone is going to the time to approve it. JDDJS (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to List of Ace Attorney characters#Apollo Justice. This character exists, although it isn't particularly notable on its own. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Delete - per my comment above. "Redirect" because it is a plausible search term, but delete more because the disambiguation is both unnecessary (there's no other "Apollo Justices" to be written about) and incorrect (there's no reason to capitalize "character"). So, I'm fine with a redirect, but a redirect just at Apollo Justice (which already exists.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from Apollo Justice (character) to the Apollo section of the character list makes sense to me - I would expect Apollo Justice to lead to the video game Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, which clearly is more notable, so I'd say the (character) disambiguation is a valid search term when looking for information on the character.--IDV^talk 09:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a redirect and has been for 5 years. The article here is at (Character), note the capital C, not (character).--67.68.161.51 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I was just saying that a redirect pointing to the Apollo Justice section of the character list seems desirable, and that since Apollo Justice should (as it does) point to the game's article, one using a lowercase (character) disambiguation would be good.--IDV^talk 19:15, 20 August 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of potato delivery services[edit]

List of potato delivery services (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 that such a list has any notability. References are trivial and generally appear to be based on press releases and each seems to address only a single supplier and not the notability of the concept. List also contravenes WP:DIRECTORY. The individual entries are generally only referenced by their own web-site. Overall fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Drop this like a hot you know what. A directory of obscure companies, only one of which has an article, is a major fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Gently scrub and wash, then delete - and suggest making a draft like Draft:Potato Delivery Service, because the general PDS "industry" just might be notable according to wikipedia standards. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - whatever works. I figure we'll hash it out.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 00:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Mash Nice looking effort by the 42nd Doctor, but no. The draft idea sounds OK. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G4 by DGG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of systems biology research groups[edit]

List of systems biology research groups (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)

Per WP:DIRECTORY . all injstitiutions listed are by means of external links. No evidence that such a list has any notability. Identical ist previously deleted  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:46, 14 August 2016 (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. Soft deletion MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acidoacida[edit]

Acidoacida (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)

Tracklist with no references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2016 (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) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceived Ones[edit]

The Deceived Ones (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 significance and no sources at all. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail to notice it's a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and with that alone qualifies as more notable than 50% of Wikipedia articles. Try a google search.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DionysosProteus: The article claims that but has zero sources to back it up. As for a google search, I find a reference to the article here on wikipedia and then a bunch of links to songs called The Deceived Ones. That's all I find. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but again, it's poor research to just search for the translated English title. This is a 16th century Italian work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachmann08, using google books or google scholar is the usual practice in such instances (webpages are going to be of limited value for sources) and searching for orig. lang. and author would also be common practice. Given that you did notice that it's a source for Shakespeare, then you should be aware that a request for verification is the appropriate response, not a proposal for deletion. You waste our time, otherwise.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, I'll link to just one book ref here. It's clearly a notable work. Not enough WP:BEFORE work has gone into this nomination, I daresay. (I searched for the original Italian title, btw) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - a few seconds on Google Books finds reliable sources that confirm notability. I've added them in and put in a redirect from the Italian title "Gl'ingannati" which is a likely alternative search term. Blythwood (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, absurd AfD. As said above, it requires literally a few seconds to find tons of sources in Google Books (eg. 25 pages of analysis in Performing Theory: Gendered and Erotic Complications in Cinquecento Comedies, and Some English Reverberations by Catherine Scott Burriss, about 20 pages in Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality by Michele Marrapodi, or 11 pages on Renaissance Comedy: The Italian Masters, Vol. 1 by Donald Beecher). How being a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is not an indication of significance is beyond me. Cavarrone 12:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- several sources discuss the subject's relationship to The Twelfth Night: Google books preview. Sufficient sources are out there to improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, although having sympathies with the nom in that the WP:BURDEN was on the article creator and it has been around for five years without any references, when it comes to a book like this, WP:OLDBOOK applies and with the pedigree of being a Shakespeare source (although unsourced), a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate. oh, and it is a keep, as it meets WP:GNG, article now has plenty of references. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The main source for a Shakespeare play is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scopely[edit]

Scopely (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)

Frankly I would like to think this is in fact actually speedy and PROD material as all of this is simply for either funding, "Companies to Watch and See", press releases and other puffery sources; this company apparently is still being funded and supported by finances because searches are simply finding exactly this, local press releases, advertorial and PR-speak, funding and financing puffery and nothing at all actually substantial outside of this. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also passes WP:AUD per national-level news coverage. The article would benefit from copy editing, because it reads as a press release in areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- that's a tough one as they are generating headlines, but CORPDEPTH is still not there: "Scopely aims to build new kind of mobile game business". Could be a flash in the pan and not sufficient to sustain an encyclopedia article. I'd say WP:TooSoon. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "aims to build" language doesn't mean the company doesn't actually exist. It's language meant to describe the goals as aspirational, not to suggest they don't actually function as a business. Steven Walling • talk 07:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was suggesting that the company would be truly notable when they would have "built a new kind of mobile game business". For now, they are just building it and aspiring to revolutionize etc etc. The coverage reflects that, i.e. fluffy pieces with not enough depth. That's why I felt this subject may not yet be ready for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the sources I have provided above provide significant coverage, which is the very basis of WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs cleanup, but clearly passes the general notability guideline and WP:CORPDEPTH in terms of sourcing. Steven Walling • talk 07:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All of the listed links are still only talking about the company's finances and investing including how it's getting its investors, simply none of that is still actually substantial and convincing. The last one, by all means is an exact interview. Also, this would not fix at all the current article which is not only still advertorial, but still too fluffed and puffed with advertising information such as its clients, products and funding.... SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The sources I have provided above within this discussion provide a great deal of background, historical and contemporary information about the company, and do not only provide only information about the company's finances and investing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- it's not clear to me why the company is notable. For example, I attempted to edit the lead but I'm stumped at this statement: "Scopely partners^[how?] with game developers and global entertainment companies to bring distribution and monetization technology^[vague] to free to play games^{[needs copy edit]}." K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Northamerica1000. Sources provided show notability. They've been getting significant coverage on their activities from RS for nearly two years now. [16] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The VentureBeat article from 2 years ago (referenced by Patar Knight) is strictly PR: "[Scopely nabs $35M to build its mobile gaming ‘touchscreen entertainment network’"; VentureBeat is essentially trade press for the venture capital backed companies, and thus fails SIGCOV as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it's all still PR from when I first saw it hence my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Morgridge[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about a member of a rich family, who engages in routine philanthropic activities, and has press releases to match, and the expectedtributes given to anyone who gives money. . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that previous AFD closed as Keep in 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo content on a non notable subject. The amount of red links is alarming :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable director of a family foundation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable person who apparently does some good work but nothing that rises to be more than of a passing or local interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not seeing anything at all for example establishing her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous sources can be found here including an interview here and in-depth here and in-depth here and getting several paragraphs and a photo in the NY Times and major coverage here and being a keynote speaker here and coverage in Public Radio here so did any of you people, like, do any research before posting Delete? Hmmmmm? Or is it more the case that you don't like her, or don't like philanthropists, don't like rich people, or just think Wikipedia has too many articles in it? I'm curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage does not appear to be substantial -- i.e. these are interviews and other trivial mentions. For example, the NPR interview is: "Morgridge spoke with Aspen Public Radio’s Elise Thatcher about whether it’s easier to say all donations are helpful when it’s possible to give millions of dollars". The subject of Carrie Morgridge is not covered in depth. If Morgridge Family Foundation was a notable organisation, I would say "Redirect" there, but for now it appears that neither Ms Morgridge nor the foundation are worthy of note to be included in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, however, that the article is sourced ot in-depth coverage of her childhood, young adulthood in articles that ran in the Denver Post, and a couple of other places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator, head of a foundation that gets the required press releases and trivial mentions. VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But these are not mere echoed press releases, They are feature stories and news stories. And they are can by no means uniformly be characterized as "trivial."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because sources exist to pass WP:GNG; New York Times; :[17]; Reuters: [18]; Aspen Public Radio: [19]; a name check in The Villager:[20]]; and CBS-News Miama because, yes, she and her husband gave money to the MiamiDade school system, [21]. Does she get covered because she is a rich philanthropist? Yes; Here's her book on a Wall Street Journal list of the 10 best beach reads for rich people: [22]; the Denver Post covers her intensively [23], and she gets covered incessantly [24]. Bottom line: she's rich (her husband is rich, the parents are rich) and they give away a lot of money. so interviews happen and article are written. But here's the thing: once the articles are published in mainstream sources, we consider the subject notable. I may have an aversion to Paris Hilton and to Keeping Up with the Kardashians, others appear to have an aversion to rich philanthropists who give interviews. But our personal preferences are not the metric of notability. The metric is RS coverage that is substantive and extensive; she has it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It astounds me how often philanthropists are dismissed in AfD discussions as people who "throw" money at causes. Philanthropic work is more than throwing money at causes and being covered for this kind of work is no less important than covering a musician, politician, etc. Philanthropy has, in fact, changed the face of the US, as any librarian would know. Philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie ensured that public libraries were built across the nation. Would anyone say Carnegie was just "throwing money" at a project? This rant aside, there is plenty of good coverage about the subject of the article. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the extent of the philanthropy. We have probably ten thousand bios claiming philanthropist in the lede sentence and the infobox on the basis or really routine charitable activities of a few thousand dollars. Even a few million dollars is relatively trivial. Endowing one college chair does not make someone a philanthropist. Probably her activities qualify for the title, but comparing her to Carnegie is an example of WP:EINSTEIN. Carnegie was one of the three richest people in the world in his time a/c List of wealthiest historical figures (modern equivalent $300 billion or 5 times Bill Gates) and he eventually donated about 90% of it, and essentially invented modern philanthropy. What's more, like Gates and unlike Morgridge, he made the money himself. He didn't just spend it. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't depend on the "extent of the philanthropy", it depends on media coverage. Wikipedia's guideline reads People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...; the guideline does not say "Let's rely on DGG or Tomwsulcer or any other Wikipedian to decide which philanthropists are notable". And Morgridge is clearly notable based on numerous sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tomwsulcer. Notability does not "depend on the extent of the philanthropy..." The extent of the Olympic career... The extent of the acting career... Or on the EXTENT of ANY career as a metric. (except, of course, insofar as longer careers attract more RS attention). Notability depends on the extent of reliable coverage of any career. We make no private exception for philanthropists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the length of an Olympic career is irrelevant, because anyone who ever appeared in even one has been considered notable here. One RS for verification is enough. The other SNGs sometimes extend, sometimes restrict. I do agree that extensive coverage of anything can produce notability --subject to the limits at NOT NEWS and BLP1E. The way that in practice we make these two views compatible is to adjust the interpretation what we consider "substantial" "independent" and " reliable". In any borderline case I can argue it either way on that basis, and most of the discussions at AfD relating to notability are disagreements about just such interpretations. In this case, promotional sources are not truly independent and do not prove notability.

I also point out the AfD is not only about notability , but about any of the reasons in WP:NOT (which., unlike notability is policy). I would not have nominated this article on notability grounds alone, but on the combination of borderline notability with promotionalism . I consider that, and many AfDs have also, as an equally good reason thanc lear lack of notability . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. In this case I have decided not to withdraw the AfD-- the2 decent sources do not counterbalance the promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Promotionalism"? There's nothing being promoted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My rule-of-thumb measure for WP:GNG is whether the article is about a subject which is the main focus of at least two substantial, reliable and notable independent sources. While I also have concerns about the fawning nature of some of the sources, that's my own problem rather than an issue with the individual at hand or any Wikipedia policy. So as the Reuters and Denver Post articles meet those criteria comfortably, I'd suggest that we should keep this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Denver Post article is discusses the subject's life (I can't really say that it's "in depth", as this is fluff piece) but it's a local paper; Ms Morgridge is a figure of local significance, so it's expected that she'd be covered there. Reuters is an interview; the subject is talking about herself. There's no independent inquiry. Separately, Ms Morgridge is not a philanthropist; she managers a charitable foundation set up by her father-in-law (he's the philanthropist in this case). She's business manager and she wrote a book; most of the coverage seems to be stemming from the book promotion. I thus confirm my "Delete" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Puh-leeze. The Denver Post is a "local" paper? It has 400,000+ weekday circulation. It is one of the top 12 newspapers in the United States. And, of course Morgridge is a philanthropist; her philanthropy does not depend on the money's source but on giving it away -- which she does bigtime. She could have spent money on yachts, excursions, shoes if she had Imelda Marcos tendencies, but she didn't -- it is a full time profession, requiring lots of work and energy and traveling and speeches -- and she's good at it, which is why the media covers her in-depth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Post is a major metropolitan and regional daily. Some major regional dailies have a series of suburban, small city, and metro editions. Coverage in such sections can be regarded as "local." But coverage in the "regular" paper is coverage in a major media outlet. It is also important to note that we are not discussing a single story, but,rather the fact that over the course of several years her activities have bee covered regularly, and in some of stories details of her personal life have been covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the extent of the philanthropy, it's interesting that the article presented Ms Morgridge as personally donating the money; please see the diff for my adjustments. For example:

• From "As vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, her charitable contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..." to "She is vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, funded by an annual grant from John P. and Tashia Morgridge’s TOSA Foundation. The foundation's contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..."
• "She gave $10 million to the University of Denver..." to "The foundation gave $10 million to the University of Denver..."

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Wording doesn't matter. She's a major player in the foundation, deciding where the $$$ goes, how much, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that precisely means she is not independently notable of the organization. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that In fact, in the U.S. major donations are overwhelmingly made by Foundations, and a great many of these foundations are wholly controlled by individuals or families. There is a segue such taht some large, enduring Foundations become wholly independent of the founding family, but in general, this is simply the way charity is done. For may reasons. Note, just for example, that The Clinton family has just announced that they will actively transition the Clinton Foundation form family control to the control of an independent Board of Directors if Clinton wins in November. At present, Clinton Foundation, like Mordridge, is run the usual way family foundations are run - by the family.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the article a bit, and I'm coming to a conclusion that the article could be moved to Morgridge Family Foundation with perhaps a section on Ms Morgridge as the public face of the foundation. The biggest section in the article is about the foundation. It is also discussed in the lead. The subject does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose person X works for organization Y. There is plenty of media coverage for both. Both X and Y meet the general notability guideline. There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of saying that X must be moved into Y because of the connection. Policy suggests, then, that there should be articles on both.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think that the coverage - that it may be fawning is not relevant - makes CM notable, it is the case that she probably only scrapes in at the minimum levels that we require and that an article on the foundation might be of more use and interest. We should keep the article for now, but I can see how this course of action could occur after the AfD, though I think given the AfD it would have to go through the proposed moves process. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- On second thoughts, I'm not convinced that the Morgridge Family Foundation (MFF) is that notable. I looked at the article for the father-in-law, John Morgridge (whose foundation funds the MFF), and he donated $50M to the Morgridge Institute for Research, and $175M to the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars (of his own money, I might add). The fact that the MFF donated "tens of millions" over eight years does not seem that significant in comparison. The coverage is mostly "trivial mentions" pertaining to the donations that the foundation made, without in-depth coverage of the foundation itself. So I take back what I said about the MFF. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are plenty of secondary sources to establish her notability -- I have seen as few as two as being sufficient and there are many more than that. Anything else is personal opinion. Ngriffeth (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there are reviews of Morgridge's co-authored book Every Gift Matters by Publishers Weekly - "While Morgridge’s philanthropy far exceeds what most individuals can afford, she persuasively argues that donating wisely at any level can bring about big change. Readers will find her astute guidance a valuable tool in choosing where to give."[25], and Midwest Book Review - "An extraordinary and highly recommended addition to both community and academic library collections"[26]; it won a 2016 Next Generation Indie Book Award for General Non-fiction[27], a 2016 Independent Book Publishers Association Benjamin Franklin Award silver winner in the Political/Current Events category[28], and appeared on the 2015 JP Morgan reading list - "If you're trying to get in the mindset of business leaders, entrepreneurs and the big-wigs this summer, consider sifting through JPMorgan's summer reading list. The banking giant released its annual 2015 list on Monday, curating 10 titles aimed at its wealthy clientele."[29], so it meets WP:NBOOK (and could have its own article:)), also with this Morgridge arguably meets point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, with the article references (some but not all may be deemed trivial) she meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG so is a keep.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin (Bubbe's Boarding House)[edit]

Muffin (Bubbe's Boarding House) (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)

Just a puppet character with no sources provided, Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I'd suggest a main article for Bubbe's Boarding House if it is notable. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton (Bubbe's Boarding House) and Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song). Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The mystifying Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song) is a recorded song and can be speedied. I'm trying to now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure Ok, so Bubbe's Boarding House appears to exist as a Jewish-themed puppet show--either that or it is a very well promulgated hoax, because there's even a Rotten Tomatoes listing (but no reviews) for one of their holiday specials. I'm wondering why we have articles for these fictional elements but not the main show. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Can I just not see the deletion log as I'm no longer an admin, or did a main article never exist? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a main article ever existed, the red link would still bear an indication that it was deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for that is because it seems to have only been a Sesame Street / Muppets "special episode." Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, and per Mr. Magoo. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Naresh Jethwa[edit]

Vishal Naresh Jethwa (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:TOOSOON and WP:NACTOR: Nothing much independently in reliable sources. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i am Hagoromo's Susanoo founder of this article Vishal Naresh Jethwa. I kindly propose to the wiki administrators and users that they don't delete it as i gave reliable sources. I will also give more soon. Kindly do not delete it for sometime. In the meantime, i will try to find sources. I await your reply. Thanks and Regards, Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Hagoromo's SusanooHagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Kindly reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- As per nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milken Educator Award[edit]

Milken Educator Award (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 award. Article by ed.working almost exclusively on Milliken family articles, but with an adequately declared COI. No refs except for local notes about he award being given to a local teacher. No reason to really expect anything Part of an series of promotional POV articles about the man and his charities. I'm trying to fix what I can of them, since he himself is unquestionably notable & some of his charities may be also. This one is unfixable because the award is simply not important enough DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Numerous reliable-source articles turn up, including this Washington Post one. The award is extremely unusual because it is set up to be a surprise award, and the $25,000 amount of unrestricted funds is substantial for the teachers who are recipients. It is like their winning a lottery, because there must be a high degree of random chance in these particular ones being selected to win. This is brilliant in terms of garnering publicity, and for having impact. The intended impacts, I presume, include 1) to promote the idea that teachers (these ones, and others) are valuable contributors to society and are worth rewarding, and 2) to encourage other committed teachers by in effect putting them into a lottery each year that they might win. This seems to me comparable, marketing-wise and news-wise, to the various publishers' Sweepstakes#Sweepstakes in the United States awards during the 1950s/1960s that delivered news on TV (exciting at the time) or at homes of winners. These included awards by American Family Publishers Sweepstakes, Publishers Clearing House and Reader's Digest Sweepstakes, and were all great marketing programs but were all eventually determined to be illegal lotteries (though the marketing benefits were so good that at least one persisted and simply paid the fines that accrued). I don't otherwise know about any surprise awards nowadays. Perhaps for good reason, as bringing cameras and regional or national attention to unprepared "winners" can easily be a severe invasion of their privacy, and in fact be hurtful psychologically and literally putting them into danger of being robbed or otherwise victimized, laying them out like targets for police to enforce any prior escaped criminal justice system penalty, etc. Maybe the $25,000 amount is not so much, and maybe the school assembly-type settings here are less intrusive, so this is okay. It may be that the intended impacts, per my guesses here, are not explicitly stated, but that does not mean they are not real. It would be interesting, no doubt, to find a learned research article in Marketing Science or other academic journal which evaluated this program, but we do not need to find such an article before we recognize by our own reasoning that this is a program notable for its clever marketing.

Anyhow, it is unusual, and it is garnering frequent hits in newspapers, and Wikipedia needs to have an article explaining what this is. Kudos to the brilliant family foundation/charity schemers who back us into that position. --doncram 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anton (Bubbe's Boarding House)[edit]

Anton (Bubbe's Boarding House) (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)

Just an puppet character with no sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I'd suggest a main article for Bubbe's Boarding House if it is notable. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin (Bubbe's Boarding House) and Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song). Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, and per Mr. Magoo. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Has been rewritten close to the end of the AfD; if still deemed problematic may be renominated.  Sandstein  07:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Kumai[edit]

Candice Kumai (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 external references. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly promotional. Other than her website the only source is IMDb, this is not enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, found a review, of Pretty Delicious in LA Weekly - "This is the sort of cookbook to be approached like a blind tasting of wines with really silly labels. It might be a good book (or wine) if you could get rid of your inevitable preconceived notions when you see a recipe with a title like "dill-lite- full cucumber tea witches" or "sexy strawberry cheesecake.""[30], and The Wall Street Journal calls her a "digital influencer"[31], but more is needed for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find nothing that established notability for the subject of the article - I did a quick google search, and the hits were rather sparse in regards to the depth of coverage - her personal webpage, collections of her recipes, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook were the major hits. The article has no sources, and the primary contributor appears to be a SPA. Based on this information, I believe it it needs to be deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable wellness journalist. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LA Weekly above is a cookbook review (not about the subject) and WSJ appears to be a trivial mention. I found this from Vulture: "Where Do Most Runners-up on Reality Talent Shows End Up?: "Write a cookbook: Angelo Sosa, Mike Isabella, Hall, the Voltaggio brothers, Talde, and Viviani all have cookbooks to their name. Antonia Lofaso (season four and All Stars) wrote The Busy Mom’s Cookbook, and Marisa Churchill (season two) authored a dessert book, Sweet and Skinny. Candice Kumai (season one) has fashioned herself a health-food expert as the host of Lifetime’s Cooking Yourself Thin and author of multiple books, including Clean Green Drinks and Cook Yourself Sexy." All rather trivial. So still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Reviews do not not establish notability as they fall under WP:Routine. Additionally, even if the book were notable it would not confer that notability onto to its author per WP:Notability is not inherited. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jerem43, you are incorrect. WP:NAUTHOR states that under criteria 4c, an author may be notable for significant critical attention of their work. "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention". Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Megalibrarygirl, a review in a publication that falls under WP:Routine is not a critical review even if the reviewer is identified as a "critic". That would be the case if her books were on par with a publication like Mastering the Art of French Cooking, which is considered a milestone cookbook that altered the culinary landscape of the United States and in turn vaulted Julia Child to celebrity status. A standard, routine review in the Bakersfield Times, the New York Times or other newspaper, major or minor, by no means is considered receiving critical attention as required by part 4 of WP:Author. By critical attention as stated in that part of the WP:Notability guidelines, means that actual study of the works of the creator must be in depth regarding the work and its effects in society. While you will find lots of critical works on Ms. Child and her works, I believe you will have a considerable larger task in locating a true critical assessment of Ms. Kumai's work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Jerem43, a "critical review" does not have to be a scholarly treatment of the subject. Reviews in the NY Times for example, are acceptable. Reviews in the news, magazines or journals are hardly "routine": only books that receive significant attention for various reasons are reviewed--I know: I'm a librarian. BTW, the term "critical attention" is not mentioned once on WP:Notability, nor is it specifically defined in WP:NAUTHOR, leaving it to the AfD participants to weigh and evaluate the info provided. Anyway, that's a little off-topic, but I think important to clarify. The subject of this article passes GNG for coverage under reliable sources which I added to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here and here and in-depth here and in-depth here and here. That said, the current article could be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, since she easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would not call this in-depth coverage. These are articles related to the subject's promotion of her books, such as #1:

"Chef Candice Kumai is a health food wunderkind and the author of New York Times bestsellers Cook Yourself Thin, The Skinny Bitch, Recipe Rehab and more. She currently serves as the food-editor-at-large for Shape and Men's Fitness magazine and has a new book, Clean Green Drinks, available now. So, in celebration of all things Earth Day, we tapped Candice to dish on her healthiest (and yummiest!) juices and smoothies. Keep reading for her favorite recipes! And be sure to tune in to E! News tonight at 7/6c to see Candice make a perfect Earth Day-worthy drink." Etc. --

Recipes and/or interviews follow. The subject of Candice Kumai does not receive substantial coverage; these are mostly trivial mentions, insufficient (in my view) to establish individual notability and sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I wish I had commented before, all of it PR and the sources are basing with PR also, and that's expected with someone at this occupation. Nothing else suggests the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't delete because an article is "promotional." That's not what AfD is for. She is covered under several reliable sources and Coolabahapple found reviews of her work. I'll go ahead and add to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article and added RS. Please take a look. I also deleted the promotional material. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Megalibrarygirl -- the article is in great shape now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an improvement, but the coverage and achievements do not yet add up to an encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This can be revisited in a few months to determine if, for example, the incident has received ongoing coverage and analysis as per WP:SUSTAINED, or conversely, if a lack of said ongoing coverage and analysis is evident, then WP:NOTNEWS may be applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332[edit]

Note:Article has been moved by someone, now at ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the AfD to match the new title of the page. Class455 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332 (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:NOTNEWS. Minor aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No one was even injured, nor did that crash seem to pose any threat to anyone else at that moment. I really can't see how this would be notable even in the short-term. Parsley Man (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – The runway overruns are not really that common for commercial airliners. This incident is pretty similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 and Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 incidents and especially since a fair amount of damage has been sustained (possibly even a hull loss) it deserves its inclusion. cherkash (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Runway overruns are very common: TAP Portugal Flight 425, American Airlines Flight 1420, Southwest Airlines Flight 1455, Lion Air Flight 538, Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Air Canada Flight 189, China Eastern Airlines Flight 5398, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, American Airlines Flight 331, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268, Air India Express Flight 812, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Compared to the sheer number of successful daily commercial flights, any incident is uncommon. Also interesting to note: of the 12 flights listed above (TAM Airlines Flight 3054 is listed twice), 11 were passenger flights, and the other one (Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268) was a was a repositioning flight by a passenger airline. Sario528 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Totally non-notable with no serious consequences or changes to procedures, legislation etc. etc. Fails WP.GNG--Petebutt (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not significant event. -Varmapak ^(talk) 18:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Cherkash. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a relatively minor accident with no fatalities and a cargo flight with just 2 persons onboard, thus unlikely to receive a significant coverage in reliable sources. Could be merged to 2016 in aviation, for example. Brandmeister^talk 18:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry to say, but a plane with a small runway overrun with no fatalities is not going to significant to Wikipedia, especially after... 5-10 years. All other runway overruns on Wikipedia actually have a significance. Get Air France Flight 358, for example. The accident was (and still is, but in smaller numbers) widely noticed in Canada for having a serious Airbus A340 accident with no fatalities. TAM Airlines Flight 3054, on the other hand, is widely noticed for being the deadliest aviation accident in Brazil (as of 8 August 2016). However, this crash, really doesn't show significance, it's just an incident with no major significance. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This AFD was closed a few hours ago as "The result was Delete per WP:SNOWBALL". However, the consensus at the ANI discussion here is that this was premature, so I've reopened this AFD discussion. It's only been closed 10 hours or so, so I think it's fine to leave it in the 8/5 log, and not restart the AFD from scratch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this was an unusual event in Europe, not every day an big airplane lands in the middle of a highway. It could end very bad if in that time there were people in cars. Gsvadds (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the event itself should be notable enough to sustain an article as the aircraft is almost certainly a write-off. That it was a freighter and not a passenger aircraft should not be a deciding factor. However, if people do not care enough to write decent articles when there are plenty of sources available to do so, such as this article, it is very difficult to argue that the article shows said notability. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Improve - the article as it stands describes a non-notable event that fits WP:SNOWBALL. This AfD discussion contains more information about the event, than the article itself. Without any evidence or even statements backing up the arguments in this discussion (all of which are uncited), the article is an easy delete: we're not here to catalogue every low-impact excursion, especially of DHL flights. If this isn't a routine cargo flight excursion, the article is completely misrepresentative. Leondz (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - improved, well-sourced; hull loss of a major aircraft, very unusual, likely to lead to operational changes. Leondz (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (an update to the vote above) – The article was clearly created as a stub for a subsequent expansion. As mentioned, the event itself is notable enough and deserved its article per notability criteria. Mjroots has pretty much said this above. There are already plenty notable sources such as Guardian, etc. mentioning the event and its aftermath. So let's keep and expand rather than arguing that the length of the article itself is too short (this can easily be fixed, and most certainly will be in the near future, by myself and other editors). The length of the article itself should not be grounds for deletion, especially for a new article! cherkash (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition – The article has been further expanded with details added. Clearly, as the event is very recent, some details will only be becoming available in the months to come. cherkash (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You have voted twice, so I've took the liberty to strike the second vote. Brandmeister^talk 07:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve- Aircraft was written off, so seems notable to me, however it is in need of some improvement. Class455 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both as WP:NOTNEWS, and because such events are neither particularly unusual, nor particularly interesting. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable accident with no injuries, consequences, meaningful/notable changes to procedures. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - article has been improved since I commented earlier, but it could still be a lot better. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Agree, the article needs further updates and revisions, as new information becomes available. Please also note that quality of an article has nothing to do with notability; in this case, the event is notable and this is a strong enough reason to keep it, regardless of the current quality of the article. cherkash (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it does appear that the incident received some coverage in reliable independent sources, there is nothing about this event that seems to make it worthy of being the subject of a standalone article. Yes, a plane had a bad landing; yes, this was reported in some newspapers, mostly because the photographs of it appear to be dramatic. Does that fact warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? Unless the incident is being shown related to a larger series of accidents by this carrier, or someone was injured or killed, or something meaningful changed as a result, then... Why? Because it "happened"? That doesn't seem a convincing argument to retain it. KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I can see a few reasons why the accident is significant:

• There was bad weather and late at night. A lot of discussion is taking place about pilot work hours and training, both of which may (or may not) be contributors in the accident. Recording this accident is interesting in that context. It would be interesting to see the decision making.
• There was a write-off and substantial property damage. There was a significant amount of excess energy involved (stopping 520 meters past the runway), not quite a wheel coming off a taxiway into grass.
• Accidents like this are infrequent, especially in Europe. Aviation safety in Europe is generally regarded as being very good. Global aviator (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think we have to draw the line at crashes where no one is hurt. Every single fatal car crash is arguably more notable and important than this. Herostratus (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIBI-FM[edit]

CIBI-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)

The station apparently never went to air; its authorization expired unbuilt. Recent consensus seems to be indicating that stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations — and as a Weatheradio Canada station, its notability may have been limited at best anyway. The article was actually redirected to Weatheradio Canada back in 2010, but an IP editor reverted that in 2015 — and only then was it ever noted in the article that the station never launched. Not sure if restoring the redirect is best or if the article should go entirely, hence this AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:37 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks for the catch; I missed this one in my recent batch of unlaunched never-wases, as I was concentrating on Category:Proposed radio stations and didn't go through other categories to scan for stragglers — as noted, this never actually launched, and therefore fails to have an "established broadcast history" as demanded by WP:NMEDIA. In general, individual weather radio transmitters should actually not be presumed individually notable, as they're notable only as an aspect of a larger topic (i.e. the overall national weather radio service operator) rather than as individual standalone topics — this discussion last year reaffirmed that these should all be merged into a single list of weather radio transmitters (either in the parent service's article or as a "List of..." spinoff) rather than existing as separate articles, per our rules about how to handle "stations" that exist only as a rebroadcaster of a larger service or network than as standalone originators of programming. I note that as of today that still hasn't actually happened in the US, and I just now dealt with redirecting the Canadian ones. And, in fact, there's a verifiability problem as to whether it really died unlaunched or not, as one very germane thing happened to Canadian weather radio transmitters between 2003 and now: they became exempt from having to have CRTC licenses at all because low-power and non-commercial, and thus now occupy a category very much like USian Part 15 stations. So the non-existence of a current CRTC license doesn't prove the non-existence of the transmitter in and of itself, but does make it essentially unverifiable regardless of whether it existed or not — so there's no value in keeping this as a redirect if we can't actually verify whether it exists or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aickarakonam[edit]

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

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

Unsourced stub. We normally keep stubs about geographical locations even when they're unsourced, but in this case I was literally unable to verify that the place even exists ---- I literally couldn't find Aickarakonam on a map. —S Marshall T/C 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agreed, there is nothing out there confirming this location even exists. It isn't even on Google maps. Meatsgains (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Punalur. I haven't been able to find it on a map either, but it does have mentions as Aikarakonam: for example this survey on iodine deficiency in Kerala and this newspaper article on suspension of school principals. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Even typing in the coordinates that the article claims this "village" is located, there's nothing resembling the name Aickarakonam at this location. The location is Punalur, but I don't know even re-directing to that is appropriate. I'm going to say Delete unless someone can prove it's a place. --Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the sources I found and cited above prove it's a place, but it's a village within Punalur. Hence my suggestion of a merge; it's conceivable someone might search for it, but there doesn't appear to be anything useful to be said about it except that it's part of Punalur. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could not find this village, or anything remotely spelled like this village, in the Indian 2011 Census report for Punalur; hence, probably not legally recognized and fails WP:GEOLAND. I looked at the English version, maybe a search of the native language version would turn something up, hence not advocating deletion due to my lack of language skills. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: Did you look at the spelling Aikarakonam? See my point above; we appear to have it at a misspelled title. If it is a legally recognised place, we are almost bound to keep the stub; it's on the assumption it isn't that I suggest a merger. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Indian Census of 2011, there is nothing reported with Aikarakonam, Aickarakonam, or anything similar. see [32], the page says its a municipal ward possibly one of the dozens identified solely by number on pages 57 through 59 of the pdf file. Even if so, it would be no more than a neighborhood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2016 (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) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Robertson[edit]

Jen Robertson (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)

Only one of these three dab entries is even close to the title: Jenn Robertson, the Canadian actress. The other two are OR guesses. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep disambiguation pages make sense in sorting out possible confusion of names. I would actually advise relinking everything to Jennifer Robertson, and then using that as a disambiguation page to the 4 potential links here, and just ignoring Jean Robertson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is useful disambiguation. If a person types "Jen Robertson" it is conceivable that they could be looking for any of these persons. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's the title that's wrong rather than the dab, but this was a difficult one to give a title. Jenny and Jennie are both probably Jennifer on their birth certificates, but we don't know that. I rearranged the intro to make it clear this dab is for Jen, Jennie, Jenny and Jennifers. I would recommend a move to Jennifer Robertson (disambiguation), and it could still include the Jenny/Jennies as variants of the name. I used the searchbox and dabfix and added 6 new entries. There were easily another 20meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ghani[edit]

Sultan Ghani (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)

• Keep - Sultan Ghani Ahmadzai is part of the presidential family of Afghanistan, many sources in reference to him are in Pashto ^[1]. His father has recently given him the position of President of the Ghani Group, a multinational corporation with subsidiaries located in Dubai, U.A.E as well as Afghanistan. His role within the conglomerate entitles him authority to over see Mosahib Int' Legal & Consulting Services ^[2] Ghani was also featured in GQ in the late 2015 (Sultan Ghani GQ) ^[3] Confusion arises when an individuals mix up with another Sultan Ghani, a Pakistani actor. Habib787 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NOTINHERITED applies - the article claims he is a businessman, but someone took that info off his LinkedIn. Rather, it seems he is inheriting based on his family relationships, because his company is here, and he's not on the board. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most news articles aren't related to this Sultan Ghani. Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A7. I could find no sources, reliable or otherwise, that discuss this individual. The sources cited in the article don't even discuss him; with the exception of the Afghan-Bios source, which includes a one-line mention, the sources talk about his relatives. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. If this article is deleted, please also delete the Sultan Z. Ghani redirect (WP:CSD#G8). That is currently nominated at RfD so wont show up as a redirect on whatlinkshere. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Further he is not on board in his Company.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines Diliman. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines College of Music[edit]

University of the Philippines College of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Some of this article was apparently copied and pasted from here, I've revision deleted the suspect material for now pending the outcome of this afd, which seeks to establish whether the University should remain on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The University is, I believe, notable, but not this particular college which is only a subunit. WP:BRANCH lays it out pretty clearly. KDS4444 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: KDS4444 has said it all – universities are usually notable, but departments within a university rarely are. And this one, completely unsourced, definitely isn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BRANCH, although the content (with a source) could be merged into the main article. Blythwood (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect as usual in such cases. There's enough to merge, if we properly rewrite some material added as copyvio from official site. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even giving full weight to all commenters, there is no consensus as to whether the subject's underlying notability is sufficient for an article. Default to keep, but the article could be renominated in the future if concerns about excess promotion are not addressed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ranger[edit]

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

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

Promotional article, for businessman active in several non-notable companies. The awards given do not show notability. (MBE and OBE do not show notability , though the higher ranks do; Queens Award for enterprise is not suficiently discriminate) I'm award of the honorary doctorate from University of West London--but this very low ranking university is essentially a business college & its honorary degrees should not be considered to show notability DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I looked at the above coverage and it's mostly interviews or news releases, including:

"LONDON: Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi and NRI businessman Rami Ranger have joined the UK-based Gandhi Memorial Trust as trustees.

The trust has been set up by NRI economist Lord Meghnad Desai to raise funds for the Gandhi statue to be unveiled at Parliament Square here early next year.

"The Trust is expanding its work and vision. Even after the sculpture is established we will continue to be guided by our valued trustees, especially by Gopalkrishna Gandhi, to spread the message of Mahatma Gandhi in the UK," said Desai in a statement.

• It's not clear what makes this subject notable. There are some awards, in 3rd and 5th grade, Member of the Order of the British Empire and Commander of the Order of the British Empire but I assume if this was a notable achievements, this would have been covered in publications other than London Gazette, which appears to be a primary source (a government publication). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that contain quotes are not interviews by default. I can't access the The Times of India article right now, but all of the other articles atop are not interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's just a retelling of a press release, which makes the coverage more trivial in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article should not be deleted as he is a notable figure in the UK and in various other countries. The content is factually correct and open to scrutiny and amendment in case any Wiki users believe it to be incorrect. IT is not in the interests of the wider Wiki community to remove this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure if the above vote should be counted as this account only edit the article in question, so appears to be an SPA for this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I've been watching this AfD, and still none of it actually amounts to actual and convincing substance to suggest a convincing and independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is an open source centre for information and the subject is a person who is in the public eye and the UK. There is evidence of people using search engines to find out about him and Wikipedia is a very useful source of information for such users. To remove him would be removing this and would in fact take the subject out of a field of open scrutiny and instead into a private source of information which cannot be good. The style and substance of the article can be amended by those critical of this page and should further sources be required then these can surely be provided or researched. Himanshu Darji ((talk)) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the !vote above comes from the editor who only edited the article in question, and probably should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep** the last comment states that I am the editor and I confirm this. However, you have not asked why I support the view I have taken. I am frequently contacted by newspapers and TV companies for information on the subject page and Wikipedia is an open source which can be questioned and challenged by anyone and information added as appropriate. My vote should not be discounted at all. It should have extra weight as I am directly affected by this and very much aware of the importance of this page remaining on line. Other users should empathize with this situation and the genuine benefit this page provides to all users. Harmeetahuja 13:43 12 August 2016 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the creator of the article admits to needing this page for promotional purposes. I.e. it's helpful to have a wikipedia article in responding to media requests -- ? (If I'm reading this right). The editor also created the Sun Mark article (the subject's company), so this is probably a walled garden situation as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear Sirs, I have not admitted any such thing. I have merely stated that there is a need for information on Dr Rami Ranger and that Wikipedia is a credible source for this. It is all the more credible as people such as yourself help to ensure the validity and accuracy of the information. There is no admission or discussion on self-promotion here and I firmly reiterate that the page should remain to support the availability of information on a public figure. Harmeetahuja 15:11 15 august 2016 [UTC] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basing this on the sources found by NorthAmerica (above). These aare RS in major media, some of the jurnalists interviewed the subject, others covered events (the New Year's honro lost and photo of him shakinghnds with Elizabeth II.) These are emphatically NOT press releases. An editor above appears to confuses the fact that these are the sort of things about which a PR professional undoubtedly did send out a press release, with the reality that journalists are innundated with press releases, but when they choose to respond by writing an article about the topic it is called RE secondary coverage - even though it may hve been inspired by a press release. This is NOT the same as a news google hit on a press release.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can access Times of India and the articles are (1) NRI Rami Ranger honoured with honorary doctorate; (2) Indian-origin businessman on Britain's New Year's honours list. These do not appear to be notable awards. Shaking hands with the Queen does not make a person notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2016 (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. nn spam, COI Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormalproof[edit]

Paranormalproof (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 is basically a YouTube Channel but it isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Looking for Google hits is a bit tricky because "Paranormal Proof" is a fairly common phrase but if you add the name of the show's founder (either his first name Dacomb or his last name Bierton) searches come up empty. Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as lacking assertion of significance. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Non notable, promotional and COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (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. Apart from the creator and two new accounts with likely WP:COI/WP:SOCK issues, everybody thinks this is WP:OR.  Sandstein  06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electron internal structure[edit]

Electron internal structure (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, massive NPOV problems and the very existence of the article contradicts scientific consensus on the nature of the electron. I just don't see how to keep this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, my preferred course of action is to Redirect and merge to Electron. Some of the material seems worth keeping. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point Theory of the electron is limited to three dimensions and Williamson model is in 16 dimensions, then like String theory it may be compatible. No?

On having read Dr. Williamson and Dr. Van Der Marks papers, what precise paragraphs to find objection to? Shurly you not saying that this work contradicts scientific consensus without specific points of contention when the authors seem to promoting this work as being an enlightenment to QED.--Pete.delaney (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect and Merge Quite clearly. WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (“The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature,” Scientific

American, vol. 208, no. 2, 1963.UTC)

• Redirect and marge Delete to Electron per nom. Definitely not mainstream and I can see no prospect of the creator allowing appropriate material to exist on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm trying to explain the value of this work and it's presentation on Wikipedia. I'd prefer to make a complete presentation in this article, which support from the experts that are developing it. So far I haven't even seen a detailed argument against their work. To be fair I think we owe Dr. Williamson, Dr. Van Der Mark, and Dr. Leary the benefit of the doubt and read their work before throwing stones. In the FRINGE argument I doubt our Universities frequently accept Ph.D. Dissertations on Fringe Theories without any merit. I don't see any thing in Google showing that Universities are giving out PhD. in physics on Fringe dissertations. Are there many/any? Lets gets some professionals in this field agreeing that the University of Glasglow has accepted a PhD dissertation on mere Fringe idea and why they think the ideas are so weird. My reading of their work is that it's a beautiful theory that's deriving things like the electron rest mass and charge from 1st principles.--Pete.delaney (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge found in secondary sources. It is not a forum for discussing the validity of new theories WP:No original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Pete, whether we have an article on this or not really has nothing to do with the validity of Williamson's work. He could be completely right, and we could still not have an article on it. Or he could be completely wrong, so wrong as to be ridiculous, and we might still have an article on it (for example; flat earth). Please check out The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which will help you understand what our mission is here. Also, please read the link Xxanthippe provided. It's extremely important, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence is provided that this new model has gained significant notability within the relevant scientific community. As far as I can tell the references for the new model are conference preprints, personal essays, and one paper in a journal having an impact factor of about 0.4. Not a promising start. Perhaps better citations will be forthcoming, but until then Wikipedia policy requires that the article be deleted. Useful material within the article can, of course, be ported into other articles as appropriate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic of this wikipedia page to to summarize the various theories on the internal structure of the electron. The point charge with a cloud of photons, electrons, and positrons buzzing around the charge is the most common theory. I'd like to present the highlights of this theory more. There are additional theories, for example Dr. Mills work on the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics that I'm considering. I thought I'd put the leading theories at the top of the wiki page, and have less promising theories, like Mills, near the end or perhaps not at all. I've discussed Mills theory with a Quantum Mechanic and he wasn't impressed. There are quite a few theories out there, and so far I'm mostly impressed with the Theory proposed by Williamson et.al. Perhaps you guys have some additional theories that we can discuss. Feels to me that it's worth having a wiki page that collects the various theories together, discussing their good and bad attributes. I'm discussing your Notability issue with Williamson et. al. --Pete.delaney (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Steven's external was then head of the department of Mathematics at Imperial. He was well-tested! He claims though this was as nothing to the grilling he had had the day before from Martin Van Der Mark. Tested by one of the worlds best physicists and one of the UK's best mathematicians. Must be ok then! --Pete.delaney (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just the paper John and Martin published by the Louis de Broglie foundation in 1991 has received a respectable number of citations (46). Dr. Williamson latest papers are much more rigorous. His citations in other journals they are way ahead of the journal average, even for the most prestigious journals such as Phys Rev Lett. This is how journals gain impact factor: by publishing authors like Dr. Williamson who produce work that gets lots of citations.The present work, however, is way beyond the quality (and eventual impact of those). These are very early days and it is quite normal that revolutionary stuff has difficulty at the beginning. The new theory (beyond the semi-classical model of the 1997 paper) only really came out last year! --Pete.delaney (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The new theory has inner complexity beyond current string theories it differs in several crucial ways. Firstly string theories are non-perturbative - which means that one cannot calculate with them to give such things as the electron charge. Further the extra dimensions in string theories are considered hidden, non observable then. Very convenient! Not subject to the scientific method then. These dimension are just added to deal ad-hoc with difficulties as they arise.

• Our "extra dimensions" are just such things as elementary areas and volumes. They are all derived directly from just the four dimensions of space and time. Secondly the "inner structure" in competing theories is purely mathematical. In ours they are purely dynamical, governed by a set of first order linear differential equations just like Newtons laws, Maxwell's equations (which they contain), or the Dirac equation (to which the present approach is very similar). Quite different kind of beast altogether. This should be said, and linked to!

• Martin and John are working on several articles at the moment with a view to submitting them to prestigious journals.

• Wiki should really have some discussion about what is in the electron to give it its quantum spin and extended wave properties in atoms, molecules and the solid state. This is considered to be a hard discussion, but does not mean it should not be out there.--Pete.delaney (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, a couple things.

• First, this much text is not likely to be read by most people. Most people will see it and simply scroll past.
• Second, if this theory contradicts string theory, and produces predictions similar to it, then it is not a theory of the electron, but a theory of everything. It is, at least, a particle theory.
• Third, your critiques of string theory here are not entirely accurate. For example, you say string theory is "non-perturbative" because it cannot predict the charge of an electron. This... doesn't make sense. The goal of any theory is to find a non-perturbative definition for one thing (because that would allow precise predictions which can be tested), and for the other thing, there's no 'calculating' the charge of an electron: It's negative. If it were not negative, it would not be an electron. You may mean to say that string theory does not predict the existence of a negatively charged particle with a very tiny mass, but this would be incorrect. As another example, you said that the extra dimensions of string theory are untestable, when in truth, there is no fundamental reason why that would be so. They may, in fact be untestable, but to the best of our current understanding, that would be due to the limits of technology; a fact which which invalidates your criticism.
• Finally, the mainstream consensus is that there is no internal structure to the electron. The reasons for this can be rather complex in detail, but can be summed up by pointing out that there's only one kind of electron, hence there's no reason to suspect an internal structure. Atomic nuclei come in different forms, hence why we have searched for (and found) an internal structure of the nucleus.

This is why I suggested we merge this page to electron. I see no way to give adequate coverage of the mainstream consensus view of the electron's structure in that article with the weight it deserves. How much text can one devote to saying "there is none"? Not much. You might be able to work a 30-word sentence out of that, at best. It's just not feasible to have an article on this. Now, one could have a subsection in our electron article titled "Theories about a possible internal structure of the electron" under the "Characteristics" section that could contain a brief overview of this work. But again, it would need to be brief, and it would need to emphasize the mainstream view. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In just a few sentences, what is the internal structure of an electron according to string theory?
• I was mostly quoting Dr. Williamson, let me ask him and get back to you on that.
• The page on an electron says that but it seems to me that a point is an internal structure, thought very very simple. I thought Dirac claims it is a point, not just that he assumed it was a point. I thought this point assumption was part of the need for re-normalization. No. Want to clarify? --Pete.delaney (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (signature added by MjolnirPants)[reply]

Pete, this is now the third time I've told you that you may not edit other user's comments. You must stop this, you can be sanctioned for not respecting other editor's messages. You not only inserted your responses inside my last comment, you erased part of Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's comment. I've explained to your how to quote another user to respond point by point; you need to do that instead of editing someone else's comment. Now, as to your questions, you also need to know that this page is not for discussing the differences between Williamson's theory and string theory or the standard model. It is for discussing what we should do with the page in question. That being said, I will give you a brief answer: A structure is, by definition in both physics and common usage, an arrangement of different parts. In string theory, electrons have no structure, because they are composed of a single one-dimensional, vibrating string. In the standard model, they are composed of one single, infinitely small zero-dimensional point. Neither of those two descriptions is a 'structure'. They are fundamental objects. Now, we need to return to the topic of what to do with this page. I believe I've given my thoughts on that already. If you don't have anything to add (about what to do with the page), then I suggest we let this thread die. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:TNT - this is a work of WP:OR. I suggest the creator check out WP:EXPERT, especially the 2nd bullet in the advice for expert editors section. Writing an encyclopedia is very, very different from writing a review article or anything else that academics usually do. We generate content by summarize existing reviews created by experts in the field and that get published in the literature - we don't create reviews ourselves by summarizing the primary literature here in WP. We should not ever cite a PhD thesis which by definition has to break new ground. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If this article was review or summary of different theories postulating inner structure of electron (string theory, preons etc.) it could work but at present state it simply advocates one theory. Also in that case caveats of each theory should be mentioned alongside with good sides. When it comes to user MjolnirPants claim that there is no consensus on electron structure – that is certainly true – but one has to keep on mind that were talking about theoretical physics. The other previously mentioned issue is notability of this theory. Hypothesis/theories such as string theory, loop quantum theory have been thought by multiple authors and been referenced in others works. As an analogy it resembles corporations creating articles about their own products in advertorial manner.--Fisuaq (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That was my thinking also, and I proposed this morning to the group that the wiki page focus a lot more on the primarily accepted theory that the charge in electron is confined to a point and the tricks that Feynman et. al. had to make to deal with the divergences. I also thought the other theories of the internal structure of an electron should be presented. There are many theories on the internal structure of an electron, and it's likely difficult as the electron structure likely must exist more than three dimensions to accomplish the 720 degree spin. Also the measurements of spin seem to be unusual. requiring the Clifford Algebra that classical QED and Robinson et. al. are using as the foundation of this work. I got a copy of Stephen Leary PhD thesis today and hope to find some references in his work and understand Clifford Algebra better to better present both the Classical QED (or Quantum Field Theory) perspective as will as the rather enticing model that John, Martin, and Stephen have been developing. I agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is enlightenment and don't want to lead anyone away from the truth. I'm going to browse Stephan's work some and wait to see what the rest of the group thinks on broadening the presentation to include both the establish point model as well as other models that I've been reading about. The area seems large enough to warrant a wiki page with a summary on and reference on the 'Electon' page as well as other that refer to the point charge model. These models for QED have almost 100 years of development and it takes a while to understand them. I'll update this discussion once I hear from the guys in England this evening. --Pete.delaney (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --- There are a number of peer-reviewed published theories have proposed internal structure of the electron (most of them ruled out by data). An article that details that history would certainly be valuable but, as written, this page is obtuse and incomprehensible with occasional real science quotes and vocabulary sprinkled in to make it sound plausible. The page is definitely written to promote a particular view and it does so incoherently. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been thinking of how to extend this further to include more electron models and to present the material in a more coherent format. If you have some proposed theories that you know of that haven't been ruled out by data and I don't include them I'd appreciate hearing from you on what they are. Dr. Williamson assures me that their theory has not been ruled out by data.--Pete.delaney (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. Williamson's and Dr. Van Der Mark's 1st paper "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" has in fact cited 46 times (including self-references), see: ^[4] --Pete.delaney (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a lot of cites, really. (GS says that 33 of my papers have been cited at least 46 times and I'm a nobody.) Given the consequences this idea would have if it were accepted -- it might even be Nobel-worthy -- 46 cites is very little attention. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- I am a software engineer and studying Dirac/Clifford Algebra and I think that Williamson's group work on the internals of the electron has plenty of citations and is worthy of keeping --Arradis (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Arradis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Dr. Williamson's 2014 paper ^[5] comes up with 10 citations ^[6] on Google Scholar.--Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. Williamson's latest paper "On the nature of the photon and the electron"^[7] already comes up with three citations, but one is by John and the other by Martin, so I suppose it's only fair to count the one article by Atkins, Gauther et. al. but even that paper was contributed to by Martin and John. --Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- I am a scientist with a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics, and have published work, such as at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/508708, which involves atomic and molecular physics. A suitable understanding of the internal structure of the electron is critical to our understanding of the role the weak nuclear force plays in the early universe, and why the universe is dominated by matter, rather than equal amounts of matter and antimatter.--Niedergeislbach (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Niedergeislbach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eniko Parrish[edit]

Eniko Parrish (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)

as per WP:NOTINHERITED . All the coverage about her is because she is the wife of Kevin Hart. And that's the only reason she's famous. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even her own Wikipedia page describes her as an "aspiring model" — at nearly 32. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article admits that Parrish only reached the public eye after she began dating Hart, but does not present evidence that it has risen to the level that she is independently notable. Anything that needs to be said of her can be said in the article on Hart.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- only notable because of marriage to Eniko Parrish, in which article she is already mentioned. Possibly redirect to that page? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean Kevin Hart ? LibStar (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Deans[edit]

Alex Deans (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)

Problematic WP:BLP, with some overtones of advertorial/PR spin, of a university student whose main claim of notability is that he won a couple of youth science awards for inventing a device that, as of today, is still not actually available on the market as a consumer product. The referencing here is fully two-thirds to primary sources, like corporate and organizational press releases, that cannot support notability -- and the few pieces of reliable source coverage sprinkled in among the self-promotion are virtually all the same pieces of coverage that were deemed not enough to get him over WP:GNG the first time an article about him came up for AFD two years ago. And the other, potentially more serious, problem here is that virtually the entire substantive edit history has been at the hands of 17 newly-registered WP:SPAs (the creator, 15 more followup editors and one more who added Deans to a list of people but never edited the BLP itself) that have existed only to edit this article -- these editors almost certainly represent a coordinated puppet campaign (of either the sock or meat varieties) by one or more people with a direct conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to keep a LinkedIn-style profile for promotional or public relations purposes. It's an encyclopedia, where certain specific quantifiable standards of notability and sourceability have to be demonstrated for an article to become earned -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that the subject belongs in an encyclopedia yet, and SPA puppets don't get to make up their own special rules for their own pet topic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting read. On one hand, this person has clearly amassed a great deal of noteworthy accomplishments - at face value, he would seem to fulfill GNG. However, it does read as self-aggrandizement. This is a borderline case, but I'm leaning delete per nom. He's really not that significant in the grand scheme of things, and his invention hasn't actually been marketed for public consumption. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Interesting discussion - I contributed at one point to this page and agree that at its current state reads slightly advertorial. I also recently removed the last "media" section which seemed superfluous. That being said, I agree withKurtis that Mr. Deans's accomplishments exceed GNG requirements. This person is notable for an encyclopedia, so I vote keep, though would suggest some small re-writes in section 2014-present to align with more encyclopedic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialaee (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• • Please note that SPI/CheckUser has confirmed that virtually all of the substantive editors to this article, including Marialaee, are indeed sockpuppets of a single user and have been editblocked. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible technical reason for deletion: This page had previously been deleted twice, once by AFD, once by speedy. Given that all the major editors were sock puppets, that means that the person who created this third edition is the same as the creator of the second edition, User:Markus1463, which means that in effect he undid his own speedy deletion, which is a no-no. (Actually, there may have been one more edition than I was counting; I see that the first take was marked to be speedy-deleted, and I don't have access to information about whether the speedy was declined, or whether it was accepted, the article quickly rebuilt, and then AFD.) Perhaps User_talk:Alex_Deans should have been included in the sock investigation? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy on the first version was declined, which precipitated it being taken to AFD. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While this is burdened with promotional fluff, it's a very clear GNG keep based on sources showing. Don't let WP:IDONTLIKEIT get in the way of your judgement on the matter. Needs some editorial weed-whacking, for sure. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully two thirds of the sourcing here is the primary sourcing kind, and the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time. So where's there a GNG pass here exactly? This isn't about me liking or not liking the subject — I hate Donald Trump, but he's clearly notable, and I love my six-year-old niece, but she's clearly not notable. This is strictly about the level of sourcing present, which is simply not where it needs to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which leaves 1/3 of the sources as okay and you need 3 decent ones to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time" did you miss? There's not a single reliable source here, including the ones you point out below, that wasn't already considered, and discounted as not enough, the first time — two of the three sources you singled out below, frex, are local coverage in his own hometown, where human interest coverage of "local teen wins teen achievement award" is pretty common and WP:ROUTINE. (I was the subject of that many local media pieces in 1989 after I did well in a high school poetry contest — but that's not nearly enough by itself to make me a notable poet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Windsor Star, "Inventive Windsor teen named 'future leader' by Maclean's magazine." (2) Canadian Broadcasting Corp., "Alex Deans Wins Ontario Science Center Award...". (3) Toronto Globe and Mail: "Young Inventor Inspired to Give Back." Multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject. GNG is met, we are done... Carrite (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. The independent sources point to someone who is on the way to notability but not quite there. One of them says he hopes to be able to market his invention within a couple years. If it sells well, that might get him up to GNG. At the moment all we have is a guy with a few "he has potential" mentions trying to sockfarm an article about himself onto Wikipedia. INeverCry 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is borderline and doesn't really pass GNG. I'm also leaning delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIR. The subject is locally notable for participating in science fairs and winning awards - but quite a few kids have won such awards. The product he is working on hasn't really developed so I don't see what kind of lasting notability the subject would be known for at present. It should also be remembered that GNG is simply a presumption of notability - not a guarantee. Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs (even kids winning multiple science fairs). Neither is it a platform for promotion. The multiple bad faith attempts at trying to create this article show that the intent is to promote a non-notable subject. A clear delete from my side. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share some of your concerns (even if I have a different idea of what should be done about them) but I do want to register that I think the "Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs" is off-base for this. For one, Wikipedia actually is a directory of kids winning spelling bees, and an Intel prize is considerably more consequential going forward even than Scripps is. IMO, the problem really isn't that this couldn't be encyclopedic; it's only whether there are enough sources to develop a valid rather than promotional entry. Have posted more to sourcing question below. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a list of kids winning spelling bees. These kids don't have their own individual articles. Similarly, if the subject's name was added to the list of winners, I wouldn't mind. But I frankly don't think it deserves its own article. The facts in the sources btw are largely primary, having been gleaned from interviews with the subject and the sources are local. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Lemongirl941, and for being the recreation of a page deleted by deletion discussion that does not fix the reasons for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sorry, but I'm seeing substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, and obviously not press releases either. That sockpuppets are putting their oars in, that this was previously up at AfD, that the article was written in a promotional style, none of that matters -- those are content disputes that aren't within AfD's purview. I'm also unimpressed with Lemongirl's reasoning: indeed, the GNG is not a guarantee, but it sure as hell isn't optional, and I want rather a better reason to blithely ignore it than that some of you don't think the kid is old enough, or famous enough, or hasn't "earned" lasting notability. Baldly put, so what? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG is not really met here - quite a few of the secondary sources are local news and if we consider local news, then it would be quite easy for many individuals to have articles. WP:NOTDIR applies here as Wikipedia is not a directory of kids who have won science fairs. And WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well - the intent is clearly to promote the subject. If the GNG isn't a guarantee that indeed means that it is "optional". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree on the GNG not being met: we're not talking about local supermarket weeklies, we're talking some of Canada's most prominent papers, and there is no guideline or policy debarring local papers being used for a source. As far as the "intent" goes, you are not a mindreader, and neither am I: we have no idea, actually, whether the "intent" in creating the article was promotional or not. Your application of NOTDIR is just plain baffling: this is an article sourced to reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, and there's nothing debarring Wikipedia from having an article on a kid who won science fairs. Your argument sounds like a giant honking WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an example of "local news" in an otherwise respected newspaper. And the intent here is promotional: they have been using multiple accounts to get this article up on Wikipedia. AGF only goes so far. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You can also see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Markus1463/Archive for their intentions. Nobody abuses a bunch of accounts to productively contribute to the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody ever said local media was always inherently invalid sourcing. But local media cover local people accomplishing things of no encyclopedic significance all the time — local teen wins science fair award, local teen wins local poetry contest, single mother opens new furniture store on Main Street, city councillor holds press conference to demand new traffic lights at the corner of Dewey Boulevard and McDonald Drive, PTA president denounces plan to close local elementary school, nine-toed teen tries out for high school football team, etc. — so local coverage can be deprecated as not able to assist passage of GNG in and of itself, even while still being valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been satisfied by stronger sources. It all depends on whether the context in which said coverage is being given constitutes an encyclopedic claim of notability or not. If a person satisfies an SNG by virtue of a specific, quantifiable and notable accomplishment (mayor of a city large enough to get its mayors over NPOL, winner of a notable national literary award, etc.), then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is because that accomplishment covers off the notability question in and of itself — but if they haven't, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then localized sourcing doesn't assist GNG and can only serve as supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been met elsewhere, because local media frequently devote coverage time to local people of no wider encyclopedic interest. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm simply still not seeing enough for a comfortably confident substance for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has received significant coverage in this 2012 article in The Globe and Mail, this 2014 article in Maclean's, and this 2015 article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation among the other sources listed in the article. These three sources are all national publications, not local publications. They cover the subject over a period of three years, demonstrating that has received persistent coverage. He easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Regarding the concerns about promotion, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.

  Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The news is specifically from the "local" sections. And GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee. We often delete articles due to WP:NOT and over here WP:NOTDIR applies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The CBC source is from CBC Windsor (see the "windsor" right in its URL), not the CBC's national news division — so it's local coverage in his own hometown, where "local teen does stuff" coverage is expected and WP:ROUTINE. The Maclean's is a "several young future leaders" listicle, featuring barely 100 words about Deans, and therefore not substantive. Those sources would count toward supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been passed, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves. Which leaves us with just the Globe and Mail, which leaves us with GNG not met because one GNG-qualifying source is not enough to pass GNG. And just like I told Carrite above, all three of those sources are among the set of sources that have already been looked at and found to be not enough the first time. If you want to show that he passes GNG, you need to show new sources that haven't already been considered and discounted, not just repeating the same inadequate sources over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ongoing news coverage of him. Seems to be a leaning the youth of the subject as a partial reason to delete. I see more reasons to keep the article than delete. Karl Twist (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I certainly agree there are problems with the entry, but since "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (emphasis in the original), and I see cited sources from the Globe and Mail, the Independent, the CBC, and then here's more attention from:

1. 1. Metro
   2. GOOD magazine
   3. Bustle
   4. Upworthy
   5. The Indian Tribune
   6. Sputnik News

...I feel comfortable saying GNG is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be the first established editor in Wikipedia history to try putting forward Upworthy as a reliable source (which it's not.) Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I've taken a pass at reorganizing and cutting out a lot of the promotionalism. Plenty more where that came from, truth be told, so if anyone else wants to hop in please do! In meantime I hope it's A, somewhat improved, and B, a little easier to assess for what more legitimate aspects there might be. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear pass of the GNG. Claiming sources are "local" doesn't really mean anything to me. The New York Times, our gold standard, is "local" to New York. Should I discount the NYT as a source because its obviously local?  The Steve  07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]