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 and redirect to Doug Guetzloe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Network[edit]

The Phoenix Network (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)

While Guetzloe is notable, this network of his appears not to be.

Most of the references are either unreliable, primary, not actually about the network, or point to totally unrelated articles.

The meat of article seems to focus on Guetzloe and a weird section about a fund for a missing person that seems to have no relation to anything. Ridernyc (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Doug Guetzloe, it's entirely unclear there's anything here worth saving - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Any radio show that's syndicated at all will, by definition, always have its own ad hoc "network" of stations that carry it, because that's what syndication is — but that fact doesn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on that "network" per WP:NMEDIA. The sources here support Guetzloe's notability as an individual, but most of them completely fail to even glancingly mention the existence of "The Phoenix Network" at all — and the one non-primary source that does mention it is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. None of this is remotely enough to make The Phoenix Network independently notable as a standalone topic. Redirect to Doug Guetzloe. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (after delete) to Doug Guetzloe. Not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 28 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 Deleted after I tagged this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trollbeads (Troldekugler)[edit]

Trollbeads (Troldekugler) (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most links are no longer reachable, but from their names, the sites don't appear to have provided independent coverage in the first place. ubiquity (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied - this was pretty blatant - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 26 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 nomination withdrawn as a commenter found proper evidence to support a redirect instead. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2218[edit]

VF2218 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. For reasons I've explained in other recent AFDs, VF stations in Canada are no longer granted the same presumption of notability that full-power radio stations get -- and in this case, even the CRTC's website has no record of any decision notices about it even before this class of station became mostly exempt from CRTC licensing, making its operational status even more unverifiable than usual. A station in this class of broadcasters could still have an article if it could be sourced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to one whose only source is inclusion in a directory. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My own search of the CRTC's website produced this decision that, amongst the authorization of several television retransmissions, also authorized what seem to be the two radio transmitters this article is about (since it essentially covers VF2219 as well as VF2218). (The REC database, using Industry Canada data, mentions a CRTC decision number of "930434" for both VF2218 and VF2219, which probably corresponds to the "93-434" number on the CRTC decision itself. The decision also seems to say that the transmitters were licensed to Shalalth, as opposed to Seton Portage as shown in more recent data; the two communities neighbor each other) As the decision mentions, the 103.5 facility — which would be VF2218; CRTC decisions for brand new stations rarely if ever mention the likely-not-yet-assigned call signs — was slated to be a rebroadcaster of CFMI-FM, while 106.1 — VF2219 — was to rebroadcast CBU-FM. I haven't found anything more recent than that 1993 decision regarding the two transmitters, but I suspect that they are still rebroadcasters. VF stations don't get the presumption of notability for broadcast stations as it is; rebroadcasters simply aren't notable at all if they have never originated their own programming. Barring any evidence suggesting otherwise, the VF2218 page should redirect to CFMI-FM. It's either that or deletion; there is no reason why VF2218 or VF2219 need a separate article (that will never be more than a permastub anyway, since there's not much you can say about a rebroadcaster, which is why they generally aren't supposed to have their own articles). (Note that neither VF2218 or VF2219 are presently mentioned on the articles for CFMI-FM and CBU-FM, but that might not mean anything.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; being licensed to Shalalth is why I missed that decision (as I had searched on "Seton Portage"). But yes, it confirms that this was a rebroadcaster rather than an originating station — which isn't all that surprising, because even for the licensee's other radio or television transmitters in the area that I was able to locate on the CRTC website on my own, "community owned rebroadcaster of something from Vancouver" is what every last one of them was too — so I'm going to withdraw this and go straight to redirect. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 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  18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF8004[edit]

VF8004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. While Canadian VF stations formerly had to have a conventional CRTC license, making them eligible for inclusion on the same grounds as a full-power station with a real CXXX call sign, they have since become exempt from CRTC licensing -- with the result that their operational status is no longer verifiable at all because the CRTC doesn't have to publish any decisions or notices about it anymore, and thus stations of this type have now been deprecated as not satisfying WP:NMEDIA anymore except in the unlikely event that adequate media coverage can be located to get them over WP:GNG. But even the one other source here, its history page at the Canadian Communications Foundation, gives the station's original commencement of broadcast operations as "undated". Which means proper RS coverage clearly doesn't exist, if even an internal project of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters can't locate the launch date. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this is yet another religious VF station that exists to broadcast church services and little else, and thus have been exempt from CRTC licensing since 2013. The presumed notability for broadcast stations does not extend to these stations, and they don't have (and generally aren't going to have) the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. I'll note that most if not all of the Canadian Communications Foundation histories for these church stations (including the ones associated for stations whose articles have already been deleted at AFD) follow the same pattern of listing the original licensing, an undated "began broadcasting", and the effective-immediately 2013 CRTC exemption. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 24 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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Kitchen[edit]

Wildwood Kitchen (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:NCORP and WP:GNG. Small restaurant chain, only claims to notability are that the CEO's family founded other, notable, restaurant chains. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. A couple of restaurant reviews provided, the companies own website and a link to a Daily telegraph article about another company that happens to have a one line mention of it. noq (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of several chains in the Tasty Group run by part of the Kaye dynasty which has started numerous restaurant chains like ASK and Zizzi. Altogether, there's plenty of notability and, while there might be some scope for merger or restructuring, this should not be done by deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The chain already has 12 restaurants, which makes it significant. And it has substantial backing, and will very likely expand further. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG, 12 restaurants and growing. Joseph2302 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-known chain in the UK, even if I haven't got round to eating at one yet. I've added some sources from a range of reviews in different newspapers. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Problably notable restaurant that passes GNG and will likely expand its bussiness. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I ask the keep advocates to actually show how it passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP rather than just asserting it. There is nothing in the article currently that satisfies that and I am not seeing any significant coverage on google. Is 12 locations automatically considered notable? Why? Could someone identify who the Tasty group is as I can't find anything about it. Tasty PLC is the small company that owns the Wildwood brand. The fact that other family member run notable businesses does not automatically make this notable. Speculation about expansion is just speculation. The current references consist of the companies own website, what appears to be a directory listing, an article in the Telegraph about other members of the family that makes a passing one line reference to it and a local newspaper article about a promotion. Nothing significant there at all. noq (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Someone has just added some more local restaurant reviews as references. These are not considered as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. noq (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misreading of WP:CORPDEPTH, which states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Even if none of the sources are as in-depth as one might ideally like, there are several of them, and thus we satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out the bit about "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

... routine restaurant reviews" - so how is it a misreading? And no-one has addressed the bulk of my original comment. noq (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've worked on many articles about restaurants – most recently Bocca di Lupo – and the idea that reviews are not acceptable is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats as may be but the guidelines do say to exclude routine reviews. As these reviews are in local papers that would over time review all the restaurants in their coverage area, the reviews are routine. noq (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not "routine" reviews. There will be large numbers of eating places in the catchment areas of those papers, and most will never be reviewed in this sort of detail. Edwardx (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the chain is generating some negative coverage as well (also local): Warm food and pest potential spark two-star hygiene rating for Wildwood Kitchen in Abingdon, Oxford Mail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Being scolded about cooking burgers until they are hockey pucks is a sign of quality, IMO. The good places use fresh meat and serve them medium so there is still some pink. Anyway, it was also interesting to see that Tasty's restaurants are on a list of chains banned from a development in Ashford. As usual in such cases – the more you look, the more you find. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Prabhakar[edit]

Lalit Prabhakar (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 apparent indication of notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 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. Didn't mean to relist the first time around, but given WP:RELIST says "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days" and that I think there is a consensus to keep, I'm closing as keep. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Park House[edit]

Worcester Park 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)

Article seems based almost completely on original research. PastScape and Historic England show no notable structures at this site. Undoubtedly there was a building here at some point but there's no reliable third-party sources to document the claims made in the article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This very detailed description does seem to match the details in the article. Other in-depth coverage exists. [1][2] Apparently James Pennethorne lived there. [3] --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly appears to have existed and would undoubtedly have been listed Grade I had it survived to the present day, so would meet WP:GEOFEAT. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was a house. It is verified independently. The references that verify it are independent. The coverage in them is significant. It is capable of being referenced further. The building passes WP:GNG. The nominator may have a point with segments of the content. Those segments can be edited. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They may have dug up the body of Thomas Pride, who died there, but that is no reason for us to behave in similar fashion. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emnix[edit]

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

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

A Linux distribution that does not meet WP:GNG, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software (linux distro) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; "product brochure" content and no claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 31 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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Storer[edit]

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

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

It's been nine years since the last afd, but the same basic concerns remain. Storer has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Possible keep? After he serves his 8 match suspension for impersonating Luis Suárez, at least in one respect: Gloucestershire Echo, June 4, 2016, Sky Sports June 3, 2016, he will continue to play for Cheltenham Town F.C. which now is in Football League Two - unless they let him go, I suppose. His contract lasts until the end of this season according to this article: Transfermarkt Kyle Storer player profile. He also has a player profile on ESPN FC ESPN FC Kyle Storer profile, whereas perhaps he did not before his team's promotion. He was and maybe still is vice captain, for whatever that is worth. Presumably he will qualify for an article if he starts to play matches for a team in the Football League and any reliable source notices. The article does not amount to much now but perhaps it can be expanded if he begins to make a record in a fully professional league. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. May be notable in the future if he plays this season, but too soon at best. Fenix down (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a low bar for recreation- note that he has a contract with Cheltenham Town which is now in League Two, a fully professional league. All he needs to do is play for them once (likely, given he's the vice captain) in the new football season, and voila, meets NFOOTY. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:54, 31 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Avezzano[edit]

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

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

I'm a Wikipedian from Italy. There are no historical documents that demonstrate that a Duchy of Avezzano ever esisted; plus the article presents inconsistent information (it reads that the Duchy of Avezzano is a noble title of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies but was established... by the Pope Pius X who was sovereign of the Papal States). Nor is true that such title was kept after the incorporation of the Two Sicilies in the newformed Kingdom of Italy. Rather, the Savoia created the title of Duke of Abruzzi for the first cousin of King Victor Emanuel III. This article sounds like a hoax. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a girl from Avezzano. This page is not serious. --Marica Massaro (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've informed some projects just to be sure but I think we can delete as well. "Duca di Avezzano" also fails the "google test".--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article could be included in Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia, and there are 3-4 minor edits of the creator that should be checked. If User:Dax11Koy does not show up, we might considering blocking him.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the face of it, the article looks reasonably well sourced to multiple offline sources. But the placement of the footnotes suggest these sources confirm facts tangential to whether the Duchy actually existed. For example, the only online source confirms that King Ferdinand was King. I can't find anything online to support the existence of the subject (but admit I cannot read Italian). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a hoax. Searching for the two words, Iezzi and Avezzano produces no results on Questia or Project Muse. Searching for Duke of Avezzano turns up nothing as well. I have seen a few hoaxes where citations are given to actual books, but if you can track them down, you find that they don't support the facts in the article. I give no weight to these citations. Since the relevant combination of words does not show up in Google, Questia or Project Muse, and surely it would a few times if the title has existed for as many years as alleged, I think it must be hoax. Also, technically, notability can not be independently verified - which raises suspicion and supports deletion. Speedy deletion even seems proper here now that the comments of several editors confirm the nature of this article (hoax). Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Clarifying edit/addition to this comment has been made to remove "likely", note hoax has been established and even speedy deletion now justified. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed three hoax edits by the creator of this page to three other articles and left three warning messages. For some reason, the user deleted a hoax addition to a fourth article. I have added the (possible) hoax template to the article. In view of the fact that the creator of the article created a hoax, the creator was not in good faith. Therefore, a notice of this AfD to the user is not required even as a courtesy as I read the AfD guidelines. I suspect we will have seen the last of this user, at least under this user name. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (cheeky)Comment, was also thinking of adding this to the "Fictional elements" afd list.... Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like a hoax, no mention of this in italian wikipedia - [4], nothing at Avezzano or any other articles, a gsearch[5] brings up nothing (there are/have been other dukes associated with avezzano but not this title). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. Zero sources on the key phrase "Duca di Avezzano". — Sam Sailor 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete hoax: a title actually exists of Duca degli Abruzzi (Duke of Abruzzo), and it is an appanage of the House of Savoy, which in 1849 was fighting at the same time both against the Pope and the King of the two Sicilies, who were separate entities with no space for the hypothesis of the pope giving away titles of another state. Moreover, since Avezzano is a town in the region of Abruzzi, there simply cannot exist a duchy inside another duchy. And there are no sources at all. Well done, but totally a hoax :-) --g (talk) 09:38, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break Your Heart Right Back (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

Break Your Heart Right Back (Ariana Grande song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no media coverage, no charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, mostly source to tweets. Content present is basically someone converting the song's credits to prose, nothing the track listing/infobox at the album article doesn't cover. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. not a single. to the best of my knowledge, not going to be a single. Delete it, do not even bother with the redirect. Kellymoat (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, if the article was kept or redirected, all of the disambiguation is unnecessary, and Break Your Heart Right Back already exists as a redirect. All the more reason just to delete this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjini Das[edit]

Shinjini Das (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)

PR for someone whose career comes with PR, searches are not substantial nor is the information (Forbes Under 30 Summit Leader is basically a PR position, no notability comes it) and my own searches are not finding better than PR and mentions. The PROD was removed simply with the this basis "other sources available".... SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This individual is not notable and information is PR, not substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golems24 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is puffery - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO. This is a weakly sourced vanity page. The subject is not notable as sufficient RS coverage is not available. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This individual isn't notable, and the article reads like their resume.Bhupsyclopedia (talk) 17:12, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Carolina-Liberty rivalry[edit]

Coastal Carolina-Liberty rivalry (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, non-notable rivalry. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I Googled and couldn't find any sources with anything other than passing mentions of it being a "rivalry." I'm open to being convinced if someone can provide them. Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any sources either. Maybe it's a rivalry to some of the students, but it fails GNG by Wikipedia standards. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Little content, no sources. Margalob (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable supposed rivalry. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:21, 30 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 Snow delete without prejudice against recreation if an Wikipedia-compliant version can be created. We judge deletion on what the article in question is, not what it has the potential to be, and there is no realistic possibility of this article in its current state being improved to Wikipedia standards in the week this AFD has to run, so the result is inevitable barring an unlikely miracle. Given that the fact of this AFD discussion even existing is causing intense debate which is taking up a lot of editor time, keeping it open just to go through the motions serves no useful purpose. If the article creator (or anyone else) genuinely believes that they can rework it into something which meets Wikipedia's rules in terms of encyclopedic content, neutrality, and reliable sourcing while avoiding synthesis, I'm more than happy to restore it to either draft or user space to allow them to work on it for a reasonable time. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control (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)

Prod removed by the author. Article appears to be an essay or original research that is not written from a WP:NPOV. While sources exist, this would be more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Author has claimed he needs (a lot) more time, but I don't see this heading towards anything encyclopedic. Just because someone supports individual components of an essay with sources doesn't mean it's still not original research. ubiquity (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could see that this was shaping up to be a massive wall of original research, but in the interest of assuming good faith I tried moving it to draft space where the author could work on it at their leisure. But given that the author is persisting in working in mainspace (apparently because WP:ITSIMPORTANT), I have to evaluate the article as it is, and at best it is simply not ready for prime time. And while I tend (sometimes to a fault) to stick with assessing the current state of an article as opposed to what will be there or what could be there, it doesn't look promising for all the reasons given by the "delete" !voters above. --Finngall ^talk 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. This article is original research in the way that this is defined in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not like academic papers, they do not draw arguments together to make a conclusion. Wikipedia article report on conclusions that others have made and published and report that without interpretation. The content may be admirable but in Wikipedia terms, not notable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pure WP:OR and not wirtten neutrally. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Bear Brewing Company[edit]

Boxing Bear Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivial awards. No first place national award. The references are local papers, and therefore not sufficiently discriminating to be reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local business with expected local coverage in home city. Not notable. Article created by SPA, clearly promotional. MB 21:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the awards are non-notable; the coverage is strictly local. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and the nomination is exact with shoeing these concerns, none of it escapes the areas of PR and unconvincing information and sources, there's nothing to suggest even at least convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 29 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 merge to Highland Village Museum/An Clachan Gàidhealach. czar 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Drochaid Eadarainn / The Bridge Between Us[edit]

An Drochaid Eadarainn / The Bridge Between Us (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 notability. Marked as non-notable since April 2013. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Highland Village Museum/An Clachan Gàidhealach, the organisation that launched the web site. It does not appear to be independently notable, but would be a useful section in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 12 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Manouver[edit]

Swift Manouver (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)

Doesn't seem notable... Kernosky ^talk2me! 08:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Literally one hit on GNews - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:BAND. I found this source, but additional available sources are only providing mentions (e.g. [6]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 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. Discussion indicates that the neologism doesn't have enough material/sources to have an article. There was also support for redirection, but since there is no agreement on the target, deletion prevails - I believe this is the normal method to handle conflicting redirect targets. If I am wrong, please note so on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big labor[edit]

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

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

Article about a neologism. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, any coverage of the term would most appropriately be in the article Opposition to trade unions. Graham (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Might this article be improved? The current version doesn't cite any sources and reads like a dictionary definition, but based on the links to the search results on google scholar, google books and news, it seems like the concept passes WP:GNG. —PermStrump(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  As WP:NEO discusses, it's not enough to find a great number of uses of the term when the sources are not discussing the term per se.

  In addition, I think we have to consider WP:NOPAGE. Even if the term were notable in itself (which is an argument I don't think would be reconcilable with WP:NEO), WP:NOPAGE tells us that sometimes "it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." Even if detailed standalone works could be found about the term big labor itself, it would be best covered in the context of opposition to trade unionism more generally. Graham (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to opposition to trade unionism or trade unionism. The term appears to be in fairly frequent use in the U.S., though I'm not familiar with it. Thomas A. Kochan's 1979 article, "How American workers view labor unions", seems to be the only serious study relating to the term which gets cited in the academic literature; I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If the article is redirected, my preference would be to redirect it to Trade union (unless, in the future, Opposition to trade unions specifically discusses the term). Graham (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Should be included in the general article on trade unions, and a redirect to that article created. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:24, 30 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. Consensus for a particular action has not arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAON[edit]

AAON (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 company -- only local references DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N.CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- It's a $1B publicly traded company, so WP:LISTED applies. Online overage seems to be mostly local (Tulsa) + earning results, but reasonable for a regionally important company. The company was profiled in Fortune in the Fortune 40: The best stocks to retire on list and in TheStreet.com 's Top 5 Small-Cap Stocks.

I also located brief discussion of their strategy in Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. This is a college textbook, so meets RS criteria. Here's some more: International Directory of Company Histories (1998), which seems reasonably in depth from what I can see. The company was mentioned in Business Week in 2001 link and 1994 link. It was discussed in another textbook Strategic management: a cross-functional approach.

So I think there's plenty there for expansion and improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LISTED, and the advice given there about locating sources for listed companies. A quick search finds http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/local_business/biz-briefs-aaon-wins-at-dealer-design-awards/article_924ab073-9a90-5c27-971c-2b9813413958.html, and many others. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed applies to NYSE not NASDAQ. A tulsa source for a Tulsa company is unreliable for notability -- especially in a section of the newspaper entitiled "Local business". I'd even say there putting it there proves lack of encyclopedic notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I hope this can at least be relisted because I honestly disagree with these Keep votes, the coverage is still not to the levels of substance and convincing; the nomination analysis is exact with shoeing there's still noticeably localized coverage including of which consists expected business activities. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep mainly per K.e.coffman's argument and additional non-local sources provided above; as I noted in the first AfD this company and its predecessors have long been leaders in their industry, and I would like to see more content added about the corporate history going back to the John Zink Company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:LISTED says "...listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE..." which NASDAQ is. There's coverage in BusinesWeek and then the local coverage, and to those who deprecate this as merely local, the Tulsa metro area has more people than Luxembourg or Iceland or Montenegro and is comparable to Estonia or Cyprus, and is an economic powerhouse to boot. It's local, but its not local to some podunk town. Tulsa is huge. 1400 employees, $1B company, major player: can we not find room for articles on entities like this among our D-List entertainers, video game characters, bar bands, ballplayers with 3 games played, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Baltz[edit]

Travis Baltz (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)

Baltz never actually played in a game for an NFL team. His college career was not of a significant enough level for him to pass the notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was somewhat intrigued by the external links, as bio pieces in papers like The Washington Times would possibly meet WP:GNG if they were substantial and went beyond coverage of the team, but those links are dead and we can't guess at sources we don't have in front of us. No evidence of notability as per WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, or GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found the links earlier. Here they are just for the record. [7] [8] [9]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Baltz was a first-team All-ACC punter in 2008 (here), a freshman All-American in 2007, a four-time academic All-ACC player (here and here) and was the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources such that he passes muster under WP:GNG. Examples of the significant coverage include the following: (1) "Anthony Wayne's Baltz gets kick out of life", Toledo Blade, Oct. 12, 2006; (2) "Anthony Wayne alum a top punter nationally, Toledo Blade, Nov. 6, 2008; (3) "Maryland's Travis Baltz talks about the lonely life of a kicker", "The Washington Post", Dec. 10, 2010; (3) "Travis Baltz Pulling Triple-Duty, May Just Take All Three Jobs", Sept. 13, 2010, SBNation; (4) "Baltz steady under pressure, The Diamondback, Oct 17, 2007; (5) "Freshman Baltz kicks for two spots", The Washington Times, April 18, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting on the sources provided above: The awards don't reach the level required by WP:NCOLLATH, so they only matter so far as they got him significant coverage that could allow him to pass WP:GNG. A small hometown paper running a story on him doesn't count for much; it's expected even for players that never amount to all that much in college. As such, I don't put much stock in 1 or 2. The Washington Post article numbered 3 (there were two 3s) is just a video, not an article, and it's filed under "voices.washingtonpost.com". If you go directly to that domain, you discover that's where they host their blogs, so no credit there – not a reliable source. SB Nation hosts blogs which aren't considered reliable, per multiple past discussions at WP:RS/N, so there goes the second #3. The Diamondback is the University of Maryland's student newspaper, so it's hardly independent. That leaves the Washington Times piece, which is substantial coverage. The Washington Times is local to the University of Maryland, so it's just regional coverage of a college athlete by the local regional paper. I don't think that passes GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake in the article, but I think you're misconstruing the sources here. First, the Toledo Blade is not a "small hometown" newspaper as you call it; to the contrary, it is a respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, metropolitan daily newspaper. The articles in the Blade plainly represent significant coverage in a reliable source. Second, The Washington Times is also a reliable source (another metropolitan daily), and the profile therein is significant coverage. With the depth of significant coverage in the Blade and the The Washington Times, the requirement of GNG is satisfied IMO. The others are gravy but further support the conclusion. As a further example, your attempt to discredit the Washington Post piece is flawed. Blogs are not per se unreliable. To the contrary, you have to look at the nature and expertise of the blogger. See WP:BLPSPS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are_weblogs reliable sources?. In this case, WaPo is one of the most respected daily papers in the world, and the video was a companion piece to an in depth feature article about kickers here. WaPo's coverage of Baltz further supports his notability. As for the in depth profile of Baltz in The Diamondback, I believe it fair to include because the Diamondback is, as reflected on its masthead (and in the text of the wiki article), an "independent" newspaper. As for SB Nation, your point may be well taken, but could you provide a link to the discussion holding it to be unreliable? I had thought it depended on whether or not the writer was an SB Nation staff writer and whether the piece was subject to editorial review. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to me to pass WP:GNG based on the sources provided. I am interested in the outcome of the SB Nation discussion, but I don't believe that would change my position. Washington Times and Toledo Blade are sufficient.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - barely clears the GNG bar with the Washington Times and Toledo Blade articles, which are reliable sources and far more than local hometown newsletters carrying a "local boy makes good" story. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with coverage in multiple sources as mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:54, 27 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 Zimperium. Preserving history in case someone has material that could be merged over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Avraham[edit]

Itzhak Avraham (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)

Avraham is a non-notable businessman John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zimperium. Founding a multimillion$$$ tech company does confer notability, but since, at this pont, I don't find sources for an independent article, name should be redirected to the corporation he founded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zimperium, as above.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to Zimperium, since it's his only achievement as for now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect as I'm not seeing how he can honestly be independently notable anytime soon thus I'm not comfortable with keeping this if the essential parts are simply the company itself thus delete and link there. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly promotional. The subject is not independently notable per available sources. Then redirect to Zimperium. I'm not sure that the latter is notable either, but that can be dealt with separately. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 27 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. There is no agreement on whether the sources present are enough to write a good encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toast, Inc.[edit]

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

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

They may possibly be notable, though almost all the references are either from their website or press releases or notices but this is too thoroughly promotional to rewrite. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is y good reason for deletion. 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 DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples below, which consist of bylined news articles written by staff writers published in independent sources (not republished press releases) and not always about funding announcements. Edited to remove press releases published by the company itself and removed promotional wording and content. Happy to pare down even more if necessary. Originally the page was modeled after Shopkeep and Revel Systems, other point of sale companies. Abarkth99( talk ) 10:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - notable according to Wikipedia standards. DGG has once again brought in their own false assumptions in an attempt to rewrite "case law" for company notability. Any promotional concerns can be easily fixed by stubbing the article with the independent, reliable references left intact. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I'm not sure why and where the criticism of the nominator's exact and specific analysis comes from, when the exact article itself still only consists of funding and financing activities along with other coverage consisting of that; there has been exact consensus at AfD that this alone cannot be sustained for notability thus, with nothing else, there's can't be anything else better for a substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Also meets WP:AUD per having received coverage outside of the Boston area, such as in the Telegram & Gazette. Source examples include, but are not limited to the bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources listed below. 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 06:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable for an encyclopedia article. The coverage presented at this AfD is mostly local and / or PR like, such as WSJ (funding news); or Boston Globe -- interview with the CEO and preview of the app. Telegram & Gazette does not qualify as out of area coverage as it's a Mass. newspaper.

In the same vein, eMarketer is PR driven, as it's a citation to Toast-issued report: "Toast, a restaurant point of sale (POS) company, revealed that almost three-quarters of US restaurant industry professionals plan to upgrade their restaurant technology within the year. ..." (i.e, this is a routine mention which does not add to notability).

Overall, coverage is rather trivial and insufficient at this time for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I also concur about the analysis about, it's nowhere close to actually becoming convincing substance because it's all entirely trivial and local PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 26 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 by DGG per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crestron Electronics[edit]

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

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

While acknowledging Crestron's importance in their field, we all should know importance is not the determining factor for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is. The applicable notability guideline is CORP, and after BASIC, I don't see it for this company. The Forbes story already on the article appears to be all there is for this company. There were 2 very similar (leading to the conclusion that they came from a press release) articles in Dallas area media about an expansion made into that area, and a few namechecks in other reliable sources. Other than that, no mention outside of trade publications. Trade publications tend to be not independent, as they are usually generated from press releases. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage in Forbes and in "Crestron fully automates homes and offices" from Globes are just some of the examples of the specific coverage in reliable and verifiable mainstream media sources from around the world about the company establishing notability. It's disappointing that the nominator arrogates the authority to simply dismiss trade publications, the type of media most likely to be writing about a niche technology company. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: The article discussed here is a red llnk showing the following 06:32, 26 August 2016 DGG deleted page Crestron Electronics (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)). It also shows that this article was restored on 16:08, 22 August 2016 as a result of WP:REFUND by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and before that on 09:40, 5 January 2016 DGG deleted it after it was wp:PROD ed.

@DGG: Why did you delete this article 3 days after it was listed here and after it received a Keep vote? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Most of the page was promotional drivel, but it may have made a valid stub after de-spamming. I am generally fairly strict with G11 deletions (and inferentially on refusing to restore PRODs citing G11 as well), far more so than DGG. I see that DGG's second deletion occurred after SwisterTwister tagged the page for deletion under G11 with the edit summary Basically a sales pitch, the Keep vote is non-applicable here as this is basically WP:TNT material, consisting only of PR information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it because it was still too advert-like (I'm not confident it would've been a confident trim) regardless of a Keep vote. Also, I had in fact noticed the links above but they were simply trivial (the 1 URL is simply above the company's services), because if needed, this can be restarted. I always trust DGG with deleting as he always makes good choices. The nomination itself noted how the article was consisting of PR. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Close? - as this is a matter for deletion review now. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 28 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. Technically, either keep or merge - there is no clear preference here but little support for deletion. A merge discussion may be initiated at the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guardinal[edit]

Guardinal (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is at least one review stating the importance, or failing that merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the review mentioned by BOZ and the Paizo (non WotC, non TSR) source indicate multiple secondary source coverage. Merge would be an editorial decision, and entirely possibly a correct one, but on the merits of this case, keep. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Boz's suggestion. I'm really not sure I understand Jclemens's comment. One mention in one review, though it counts for something, does not give us enough to justify a separate article. If there are more sources (or a reason to believe more exist) I'm all ears, but, right now, this falls well below the notability line. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BOZ.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:32, 28 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. Consensus is that the sources are not adequate to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noach Orlowek[edit]

Noach Orlowek (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 assertion of notability. Only reference on page is a link to a copy of his book. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Would have speedied this one but it's a pretty old article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible keep Sometimes with these very old, unsourced articles, it's better to tag them for sourcing, notability. It has been edited over the years since creation in 2007, which makes it possible that tagging would have inspired someone to swing by and add sources. I don't iVote delete without running at least a quick check for sources, so i checked, and added some RS to the page. Cutting out some unsourced fancruft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding those sources. In my view these are trivial mentions and I don't believe the page meets the notability guidelines. For example, the Fox News article contains a single quote from Orlowek, and has no information about him at all (beyond the blogger's admiration). FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A credible claim of notability as an author and educator, with appropriate sources to back up the claim despite the systemic bias that usually makes finding sources for such individuals rather challenging. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply being an educator or author is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. And unfortunately if there are no reliable sources with in depth coverage, there isn't much we can do as editors about that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Incidental mentions are not substantial reviews. His boks are held in very few libraries--My child my disciple is not event in World Cat. This does not altogether disqualify them from being notable within his community, but it does indicate no wider notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack the indepdent, 3rd party reliable sources that would be needed to establish notability. Some of the assertion about Orlowek, such as that he is "respected" by Jews in "Mexico and Latin America" lack any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources is essentially a community event advertisement. This is not the level of source we should be using to establish an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of the three sources, the first is an event announcement and the second mentions him only trivially. I can't access the third but evidently it's about his otherwise-non-notable publications, and even if it is reliable and in-depth it wouldn't be enough by itself for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 30 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. Possible page moves can be further discussed on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lochtegate[edit]

Lochtegate (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)

Unencyclopedic article on an isolated news event: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP concerns. More encyclopedic approach, adequate for reflecting coverage in reliable sources, is to cover briefly at Ryan Lochte (where it is already covered at somewhat excessive length) and in one sentence at those of the other swimmers concerned. PROD was declined. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is explicitly not about Ryan Lochte, but rather the scandal (this term is cited) centered around four US Olympic swimmers and that aftermath. So merging this article isn't appropriate. The incident is already covered (possibly in excessive detail) in the articles of all four swimmers, 2016 Summer Olympics, and Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics with broad and ongoing international coverage from WP:RS. The undue issues are better served by keeping as a linked, stand-alone article which is (already) well-sourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to 2016 alleged robbery of U.S. Swimmers in Rio de Janeiro - This is clearly a highly notable event, considering the massive and continuing coverage of the event worldwide. However, the "Lochtegate" title is not widely recognized and mostly tongue in cheek. I would therefore propose that the page be moved to a more widely recognized title. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would've agreed with your recommendation even a few days ago, but I've heard this term myself recently and just did a Google search for it - 949,000 results. It appears the name is going to stick; whether that's good or lamentable, I couldn't tell you. But it is certainly less wordy. ArchieOof (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, especially by United States news sources. It is definitely an emerging news story in light of the allegations, counter-allegations, and investigation by USA Today. Given the different people involved and the many places on wikipedia where it is being tracked, I say it makes sense to have one stop article like this one, at least for now. At a minimum, I recommend that people read the essay on WP:RECENTISM. This is a perfect example of a significant topic that changes rapidly. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that we can take seriously any comment that claims that notability is established "especially by United States news sources". This is an encyclopedia , not a compendium of Americana. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• point taken, but a quick review of INTERNATIONAL NEWS SOURCES also reveals that the Lochte story has traction on most continents. RUSSIA + ISRAEL + FRANCE+ AUSTRALIA + SOUTH AFRICA + VENEZUELA... would have given you all 7 continents but I am not sure if Antarctica has a newspaper. ;) Peace, MPS (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does this story really have any long-term lasting encyclopedic value, as suggested in WP:RECENTISM? To that I propose another way of looking at it: does this event deserve a mention on Brazil–United States relations? I think not. Both nations have said this event will not impact their relations, and it would be silly if either nation used this event to worsen relations. This article came about because the day-to-day developments, ie. RECENTISM, have gotten a bit out of hand. The info can be trimmed considerably and kept on the pages of the swimmers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing developments of the last day or so, I strike my delete. The Brazilians want Lochte back to testify. This has now gone beyond WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article title is putrid and should be changed, but that's another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, also by Brazilian news sources. -- Andrevruas (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Crime, the Ben Johnson case in 1988 still have a lasting effect and this compared to it is chicken feed. Donnie Park (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the biggest non-sports story of the 2016 Olympic Games. How does anyone feel this isn't notable enough for an article? The story isn't even over yet, as new articles about it continue to come out, from mainstream sources every day. There are hundreds of sources to draw from already. Deleting this article is the fever dream of an overzealous PR rep for the US swim team. ArchieOof (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Like it or not, this has become worldwide big news. And definitely defined the ending days of these games. Sadly. It definitely is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: We have an entire article on Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics?! Good grief. This is in no way independently notable; deal with it there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news story about some people who went out and got drunk one night and went on to make a silly decision that blew up into an international incident. If it ever gets into history books we can have an article, but for the moment it is obviously news, not encyclopedic content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, so you ***agree*** that there was "an international incident" but you don't think wikipedia should document it? Please clarify. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every international incident needs to have a dedicated encyclopedia article about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so what I hear you saying is you don't think this particilar incident is notable enough... is that what you are saying? (Do you think that this incident has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?) Peace, MPS (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that I had made my position clear. Everything that gets into a few newspapers has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but, per WP:NOTNEWS, that doesn't mean that we should have an article about everything that gets into the news. This is an encyclopedia that should take a long-term perspective of what should be included, not a news site that reports everything that has been in the headlines for a week or two. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. It is notable, it has got encyclopedic value on the conduct of an Olympic team’s members and for foreign people interested in the matter it’s undoubtedly something that should remain documented in this encyclopedia. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, wikipedia is not news, this is one news event but as it involves members of the us swim team it will of course receive a large amount of international coverage, a redirect/merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics would be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename and cross-link. This page is definitely needed to consolidate text from the articles of the 4 swimmers, and other pages, to avoid wp:UNDUE details in other pages, but allow separating what swimmers said versus what their families (incorrectly) assumed in news interviews. Seems some details called "false" came from family members, not from the swimmers themselves, and investigative journalists visited the gas station and talked to employees about minor damage to refute police report of "vandalism". Under Brazilian law, the event seems to be armed robbery because of money taken (with no written receipt) versus actual damage proven. All such details need to be covered in a separate page. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:25/15:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event "seems to be armed robbery" "under Brazilian law"? Are you sure about that? I've been researching this article for days and that's the first time I've seen that opinion. Do you have a source for that? Because that's something I would definitely add if I could cite it. ArchieOof (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Brazilian judge quoted by USA TODAY Sports, Aug 22, 2016 [10]: "João Batista Damasceno, a Rio judge, does not discard the possibility that the guards' actions could be rightly interpreted as a robbery. 'If they only asked for the amount of the damage, it may not be a robbery,' Damasceno said in a message to USA TODAY Sports. 'But if the amount taken is higher than the value of the damages, with the use of a weapon by the security, this is robbery.' " That was a Rio judge's opinion, in report from reporters who investigated site. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable. Significant international coverage. The article's name might use a tweak. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this gives undue weight to minor events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? It has been in the news media in basically every country. Wikipedia is more or less a source for news these days.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The people that has !voted delete or merge refers to NOTNEWS. But at the same time does not refer to the fact that this article subject has been in the media spotlight all over the world, is well sourced and does fall within NOTNEWS.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason to think that anyone, of whatever opinion, in this discussion has failed to refer to WP:NOTNEWS. We simply disagree about how it should be applied to this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This story has gone beyond "routine news" and "breaking news" as described in NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, participants in this discussion disagree about how WP:NOTNEWS should be interpreted in this case. If there wasn't any such difference in interpretation then there would be no need to have a discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No because NOTNEWS is not longer applicable for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is it necessary to have the associated category Category:Lochtegate ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was G7 deleted -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Still thinking, but I do want to bring up that the notability guideline is clear that even if topics may be considered notable under relevant notability guidelines, that does not mean that a standalone page must be created as a matter of editorial judgment. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Also, per Yngvadottir, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP definitely factor in. We must be especially cautious of recentism bias. The controversy is still fresh in our minds, and so we might be giving more weight to it than it would really be worth five years down the road. How big is this in the context of Lochte as a whole? Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is so big that it definitely was the main topic of the last days of the Olympic games. Again, IDONTLIKEIT does not trump the fact that this subject has reached the notability threshold. NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore. BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it was the main topic of the last days of the games depends on where you are sitting. It got coverage in the UK, but the main topic of the last few days here was definitely the UK team holding on to second place in the gold medal table. And please stop repeating your opinion about whether WP:NOTNEWS is relevant as if it was proven fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTNEWS is relevant in every case. A newspaper reports on events as they occur, focusing specifically on recent events and disregarding the past as "old news". An encyclopedia looks at the whole of knowledge available on a topic, balancing both past and recent events according to neutral point of view. By creating an independent standalone article, we are saying that this recent controversy involving Lochte weighs the same as the entirety of his swimming career. Perhaps that is what you really mean by "NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore"? (Not sure where you're seeing an IDONTLIKEIT argument in my comment. Yes, my personal feelings on the topic are not relevant, but the balance of coverage is.) Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because two different topics are notable does not mean they are equally notable. Certainly articles about US Presidents or World Wars are more notable than almost anything else on this encyclopedia, Lochte included. That's completely irrelevant. This still passes WP:GNG per myself and others above and below. And a merge isn't appropriate anyway because there were other swimmers involved. Smartyllama (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not different levels of notability, i.e. one topic is "more notable" than another topic. The relevant concern is neutral point of view: how we balance our coverage of different aspects of the same topic per WP:WEIGHT (especially WP:BALASP). The controversy described in Lochtegate is an aspect of either Ryan Lochte or Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. How significant is this controversy in the context of the topic as a whole? This is, in my view, the relevant policy-based question for this AfD, and I think the closing administrator should focus on the arguments that address that issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources covering this. Keiiri (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename - Per Wikid77 & User:Joseph A. Spadaro - Should be moved to something like "2016 Lochte Olympic Robbery Report". NickCT (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. This article really has no place in an encyclopedia. However, this article is more fair and balanced compared to how Mr. Lochte's BLP is written and presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Should be merged into his main article. The Title Lochtegate is a Neologism and really doesn't belong under that title. If a different title is used then Keep but it involved more that just Ryan Lochte since other olympic swimmers were involved with him. Should be something like "Rio Olympics Robbery Incident". 207.135.137.72 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate article name for the scandal involving the four swimmers and associated international fallout has been under discussion since its creation, see Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article, but is not being evaluated in context to this AfD discussion. The current title, which may change, has no bearing on whether we should have a stand-alone article to consolidate coverage of the scandal, or just support it within at least six other articles with less context. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but possibly rename. plenty of sources. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge is not appropriate as it discusses several subjects. Plenty of reliable sources and coverage for a lengthy period of time after the event satisfies WP:GNG easily. Agree should be renamed, though, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If it's notable under some name, it's notable under any name. Names don't confer or deny notability. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A few weeks is far from "a lengthy period of time" in relation to whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, rather than simply news. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Just a news story, really; WP:NOTNEWS applies.  Sandstein  18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to merging (although WP:WHENSPLIT would have to be considered if merging into the suggested Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics). Significant international news coverage, so definitely notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:58, 31 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 Redirected to Winter Olympic Games. I'm also going to protect the redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2030 Winter Olympics[edit]

2030 Winter Olympics (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)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Don't restore the article or redirect until a bidding process is announced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VU TANG CLAN[edit]

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

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

The article does claim the importance of the subject so this should not be speedy deleted. Nevertheless, the only references are to his website, his Instagram account and two links to some of his work although neither page credits him for the photos. I was unable to find any reliable source discussing the subject in any sort of depth so the article should be deleted for failing the general notability guideline and the biography notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Commercial photographer, failing WP:GNG and all criteria of WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:ARTIST. Nothing in the way of reliable sources to confirm that they are notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:33, 29 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. Article was speedy deleted by Deb per WP:A7 and WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CellSavers[edit]

CellSavers (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)

Company is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Terrible sources showing no evidence of passing notability. Also, was created by an account almost all of whose article creations are corporate writeups with terrible sourcing, most of which have been PRODed or AFDed - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 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 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam season[edit]

2007–08 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following similar women's club season articles:

2008–09 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009–10 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 VfL Wolfsburg (women) season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 FC Bayern Munich (women) season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016–17 FC Bayern Munich (women) season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

General consensus states that all football club season articles should be about a professional football season to be considered notable. Fully professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. All these women football clubs are in the Bundesliga (women), which is listed on WP:FPL under "top level leagues which are not fully professional", and therefore not notable, per WP:NSEASONS. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is nothing in any of these articles that seems to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Inherently erroneous nomination rationale. WP:FPL is completely unassociated with WP:NSEASONS. WP:FPL is used in assessing the notability of players. WP:NSEASONS specifically refers only to "top professional leagues", there is no requirement for leagues to be "fully" professional. All these seasons relate to club's playing at the highest level of football in Germany and are therefore notable per NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league is semi-professional, and WP:NSEASONS states that only top professional leagues are always notable. Just because a team is in the top flight of their country does not mean an article would pass WP:NSEASONS. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to confirm that the league is semi-professional here. However, if there is a degree of professionalism as you have noted, plus the league is the highest level in its country then it meets NSEASONS. It is the most successful league in Europe for CL winners, and therefore one of the most important at a continental level, so I think it is fair to describe it as a top professional league for the purpose of NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned WP:FPL because of the reference it used, which states "whilst the Women's Bundesliga has a structure similar to the fully professional men's league, it uses a semi-professional model. Most players for the Women's Bundesliga must have a second source of income". I understood WP:NSEASONS to include only professional leagues, but I could be wrong. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; they all fail WP:GNG as there is no non-routine coverage on these topics. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - not a fully pro league as has already been confirmed Spiderone 06:26, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Pustelnik[edit]

Serge Pustelnik (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 long article actually fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

The entire article fails to explain what the person is.

And he neither in news, nor in books. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Seems to have had some bit part in a FINRA investigation, but neither that, nor his other jobs and events meet GNG for a stand alone article. Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete indeed, there's no actual claim of noteworthiness at all - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional CV with no claim to notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST nor is it LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable law student. He may well soon parlay this to a position where he is actually notable, but he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 28 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 withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series considered the worst[edit]

List of television series considered the worst (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 list focuses only on a negative portion of many subjects. I think it would be better if this kind of thing (talking about negative reviews) was limited to the article of the subject. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article title says it all; you're going in pretty much expecting little positive talk about these series. Also going from that first nomination this has actually had its inclusion requirements tightened; a series must have well sourced critical consensus of its ineptitude (the 240 sources show this easily), and we're not just throwing on shows without complete agreement that they belong (so that incredibly mediocre series aren't just put on to push an editor's agenda, or Game of Thrones somehow gets put on there). Go back in the article's history and you'll see that this article is definitely better than it was in the past. Nate • (chatter) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given very good sourcing and strict criteria, I see no issue with keeping this list article. However, the title of the article should be reworked to something seemingly less subjective-sounding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since when are specials, TV movies and sports coverage considered "series"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can always rename it "television SHOWS." It was only series at first before I think I was the one that added one-time specials. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the page needs a lot of cleanup and probably deserves to have several of the series listed removed (mediocre is not the same as worst-ever), there are enough sources and enough of a consensus on some of the biggest names on the list to warrant maintaining a list, just as there are articles discussing the best TV shows, provided that there is enough of a consensus for each entry among reliable sources. (I get your point, though—these types of articles, especially on a "anyone-can-edit" site like this, can draw a lot of entries from random Internet peeps who don't like a particular show and use the page to vent. Yet with proper administration, it shouldn't be that much of a problem that it requires deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: After more consideration, I do agree that this article is not delete-worthy, but it does need some work to improve it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 01:39, 24 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 phobias. with a possible merge to Specific phobia if there is any material that goes beyond a definition in a list. SpinningSpark 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaetophobia[edit]

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

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

There is some "tossing Greek around so you know I'm edikated" reference to hair on Victorian women and maybe on visible body fur but as usual nothing except the usual list books which make up names for everything one could potentially be afraid of. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Wp:BEFORE nominating this for deletion, a quick look would have shown this term falls under section 300.29 Specific Phobia of DSM-IV and many other reliable sources. Tossing around greek is not a reason for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This does indeed seem to be a legitimate topics: aside from the DSM (which should be sufficient, in my view) there is also a fair amount of other scholarly coverage (not all of those results are great, but there's a few quite substantive ones. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One should take a look at those 17 GScholar hits, because they don't give a picture of research into an actual phobia. There's the usual list of names works, and a few incoherent cites that also always appear, and then there's a bunch of articles talking about societal or whatever attitudes towards long hair. And perhaps the DSM does provide a list, but if that's all it supplies, we're still at DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The term "Chaetophobia" does not appear in the DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR, or the DSM-5. People can have a Specific phobia of literally anything, so this is only in the DSM in that sense that "Specific phobia" is in the DSM and people could conceivably have a specific phobia of hair. That's not to say this term doesn't meet GNG. I'm not prepared to weigh in on that aspect yet. Just wanted to make sure the part about the DSM was clear before more peopled !voted based on that. —PermStrump(talk) 03:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't check if "Chaetophobia" was used in editions of the DSM earlier than DSM-IV, but I assume it wasn't and it would be so outdated that it probably wouldn't have a bearing on the decision here anyway, so I didn't bother. —PermStrump(talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There isn't enough coverage to offer more than dictionary definition. There's no indication in reliable sources that it has ever been used in a clinical sense, which is how the article presents it, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG as a social phenomenon like trypophobia or nomophobia because of the lack of in-depth coverage. The majority of the article is unsourced and I haven't been able to verify its claims in my own search for reliable sources. —PermStrump(talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even if not documented in psychological literature, this fear is attested anecdotally and in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any examples of in-depth coverage in reliable sources? I can't find anything except definitions. —PermStrump(talk) 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Permstrump, I just added several sources. Look under "fear of hair" or alternate spellings. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources had been removed as WP:OFFTOPIC by the time I saw this, and after looking them over myself, I agree that the material was justifiably removed. —PermStrump(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article needs massive cleanup in order to determine if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been working on it. Every single source that I've added specifically names "chaetophobia" or "hair loss". Some sources give significant coverage, others in passim. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the unsourced claims be removed. I requested a ref. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge after trimming out trivia and poorly referenced stuff either to specific phobia or List of phobias. We do not needs thousands of "Xphobia" articles with your favorite Latin or Greek word substituting for X.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried, in the face of vandalism and trolling to bring this article up to speed. I'm giving up. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing sysop: Now that every single sentence is sourced, and the trivia has been removed, those are no longer valid reasons to delete. If, however, the consensus is that, despite decent sourcing, the topic is just what you all feel is not notable, or that we have used too many bytes on specific phobias, or that it's just too odd even for Wikipedia, then please, go right ahead and redirect, merge, or delete it to your heart's content. But don't blame it on not passing WP:GNG, because lots of people suffer from this phobia (not me, in case you're wondering; I'm a bear in real life). It's not without precedent here that people decide they just don't want such an article here at Wikipedia, and I can live with that. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a dictionary. I think a better source can be used. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if something passes GNG does not mean it has to have its own article. Fear of hair can be dealt with appropriately in the specific phobia article which I will work on soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage the closing sysop to look at this version of the article because a lot of sources that discussed fears or phobias of hair without using the term "chaetophobia" have since been removed from the article as of this comment, we're left with only sources that provide a definition of chaetophobia. —PermStrump(talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Specific phobia from a medical perspective, this phobia is marginally notable. The one decent source here lists this as an example of animal phobias and that is one of the 5 kinds actually named in the DSM per our Specific phobias article. Given the proliferation of garbage articles about phobias and as part of our larger effort to clean these up, this is the most reasonable outcome here Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the "Specific phobia" page is for general information. It does not have detailed information on the different phobias. All the content cannot be merged into the "List of phobias" because it is only a list. QuackGuru (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, which source are you referring to? Did you leave this comment before you removed a bunch of material from the article as off-topic? I don't see one that uses the word "chaetophobia" in reference to specific phobia, animal type. I'm guessing there was previously a source that talked about the fear of hair as specific phobia, animal type without using the term chaetophobia. I'll put my foot in my mouth if I'm wrong, but I've been clicking on all of the sources at the article and talkpage and doing ctrl F for "chaetophobia" and "animal" and haven't found it yet and I'm out of sources. —PermStrump(talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • it is Gamble, Catherine (2015). Oxford Handbook of Mental Health and Nursing. Oxford University Press. p. 204-206. ISBN 978-0198703853. Retrieved August 26, 2016. - that somehow got lost and I just restored it. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Foot in mouth. :-P But it's still just a passing mention and no more than a definition, so it doesn't affect my !vote or other comments. Also, FWIW I don't agree with that author's interpretation of specific phobia, animal type and neither does the DSM-5 (or any other clinical/academic sources so far). The Oxford Handbook of Mental Health Nursing says: "Fear of animals–for example, fear of human hair (trichophobia), animal fur (chaetophobia), or skin (doraphobia)". The DSM-5 says: "Code based on the phobic stimulus: 300.29 (F40.218) Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs)" and the DSM-IV (and DSM-IV-TR) says: "The following subtypes may be specified to indicate the focus of fear or avoidance in Specific Phobia (e.g., Specific Phobia, Animal Type): Animal Type. This subtype should be specified if the fear is cued by animals or insects", so I'm not really seeing where those authors came up with the animal subtype meaning parts of animals, including humans, and it's especially weird that fur, hair and skin are the only examples they gave. Personally, I'd code someone with a specific phobia of hair as the "specific phobia, other" subtype, but that's neither here nor there. —PermStrump(talk) 03:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • yep a passing mention. this article should not exist. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to List of phobias--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just want to be clear that there's no doubt that people legitimately have a phobia of hair. It is well supported by reliable sources as a type of specific phobia. My issue is specifically with the term "chaetophobia", which as far as I can tell, is not used in any clinical, scholarly or authoritative sources that discuss specific phobias *is only used in one clinical source (Oxford Handbook of Mental Health and Nursing) where it's still just a passing mention with no more than a dictionary definition*. I'd be fine with a redirect either to Specific phobia or List of phobias, but there's nothing here to merge. As an aside, the specific phobia article could use a lot of improvement. —PermStrump(talk) 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 03:14, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hughes[edit]

Melinda Hughes (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. Article relies on self-published sources and a claim of inherited notability. CSD:A7 template has been removed by original author and a new editor whose only contribution has been to this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any inkling of notability, yet. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable for a stand alone article on her own; inherited notability, not sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent reliable coverage of subject. Doesn't meet the GNG or BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich The Kid[edit]

Rich The Kid (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, except for three short mentions in XXL: [11], [12], [13]. These XXL articles offer a thin, often trivial biography that barely support notability. The rest of the sources cited are the usual online record vendors, and his Twitter account. Also appears to meet none of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeps He passes WP:GNG, in depth coverage in: Forbes, Complex Magazine, W Magazine, he is mentioned in: Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe, Highs Nobiety, Spin, BET, MTV, all which meets number 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Also, you have failed to explain how and where does it doesn't meet WP:BASIC.Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the reliable sources significant coverage in notable magazines and forbes online identified above so that WP:BASIC is now passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable at this time. Never charted and nothing of substance beyond, local interest. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I mean, there's an in depth article here in Forbes, a highly notable magazine. This alone is basically enough to meet WP:GNG. And then there are 34 references. What do you people want. 100 references, 200? Sure some of the refs are trivial but some aren't. OK, I get that the Forbes ref was not in the article, maybe you all did not know about it, I put it in as an external link. So now there's not excuse for not keeping this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears some worthwhile work has been done on this article since nomination. While there are still some obvious problematic sources that are cluttering things up, notability is established with enough good references to indicate significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 24 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Moor (journalist)[edit]

Keith Moor (journalist) (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:CREATIVE as a journalist. The 2 sources provided are articles by the author and do not qualify as actual third party coverage about the subject. No evidence of major awards or peer recognition LibStar (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

• What about this - http://old.melbournepressclub.com/news/profiles/keith-moor Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Walkley Awards winner (1986 Print Best Piece of News Reporting Keith Moor Winner The Melbourne Herald. Can be found searching here.) Has two books that have been reviewed in reliable sources. egs [14] [15] Richardson, Owen (21 March 2009). "Crims in Grass Castles: The True Story of Trimbole, Mr Asia and the Disappearance of Donald Mackay". The Age.. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 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. —Cryptic 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nandana Lokuwithana[edit]

Nandana Lokuwithana (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)