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.
delete for pete's sake. i just removed "In June 4, 2013, the company granted a United States Patent (no. 8,455,452), for a "Composition and use of a long-acting oral bioadhesive endoparasiticide gel based on doramectin"." and reduced the body of the article by a third. for pete's sake; how weak and promotional can you get? Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the concerns already noted. There aren't any inline sources used in the article currently, with some of this company's own websites and a patent included in the external links section. This company is mentioned on some websites of other companies, but I didn't come across any independent coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:13, 3 September 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.
Procedural AFD - PROD expired, but it was previously PRODed and deleted. This PROD was "Fails WP:COMPANY". I concur, it does so big time. I reference-checked it at the time and it's got nothing to it, zero RSes (just press releases) and as it stands needs to go. I'm willing to be convinced (if their claims are correct there should be something), but we'll need RSes. David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 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.
Very promotional tone (I believe it to have been created by an undisclosed paid editor), ill-sourced, little evidence of meeting NCORP, problems in tags not addressed, Google shows very little that passes WP:RS. Recovered from PROD by editor whose challenge was their sole edit. In spite of all this it could be notable, but it would take some evidence, and I look forward to Sonnybynight bringing it - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 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.
Procedural AFD, was killed at PROD two years ago. Apparently promotional article, created as part of Gamelearn cluster (which has largely been cleared up). No evidence of individual notability as a product. Sources exist and back claims, but don't establish much notability. Text WP:PEACOCKy and reads like a press release. David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources even mention a game called "Merchants", so redirect into Gamelearn, which I believe the article for should be notable. I'm in the process of retrieving the article, which had been deleted by WP:PROD.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:50, 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 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.
I am not convinced that the winner of a national teen pageant is default notable for such. I am willing to assume that we can dig up enough information on Miss American and probably Miss USA, but I am not convinced with Miss Teen USA. Doing the actual source hunt on Addis supports my views. In the article we have an IMDb link, but IMDb is not considered a reliable source. We have a link to an autobiographical article by Addis, but the link does not work. Even if it did, she is writing about herself, and that is not secondary or third party. I found online a possibly different additional article by her on her. I also found a picture with caption from the local paper in Muscle Shoals when she won, not even an article, just a picture with caption. Then I found a book that has a bunch of stories about fishing where it mentions she talked to the judges at the pageant about how she likes noodling, which is the act of fishing for catfish with only ones bare hands. The book is entitled Fishing's Greatest Misadventures and mentions Addis for half of one paragraph in a 420 page book, that is not at all scholarly. The passage that mentions Addis is actually lifted (possibly with attribution, I have not read the whole sites, but it word for word the same for multiple paragraphs) from the book oodling for Flatheads: Moonshine, Monster Catfish, and Other Southern Com by Burkhard Bilger published by Simon and Schuster in 2001. This 256 page book mentions Addis in one paragraph on page 21. A 2006 article in the New York Times attributed the number of 2,000 noodlers just in Missouri to a professor who studies the sport. However somehow the 2006 article focused on Misty McFarlin, while admitting 17-year-old girls in the sport are extremely rare, and her father Lee McFarlin. Lee McFarlin was Bilger's high school classmate, and is also the noodler he focused on. My next find is her being mentioned in this interview [1] with Miss Teen Mississippi USA in 2014. None of this seems to be substantial enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she won the national Miss Teen USA title, I do not think this is a title of the level that confers notability. Just because a title claims to be for the whole USA does not make it notable. In almsot all competitions, titles limited to people who are minors are considered to be less notable, and rarely enough to make a person notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA per WP:BIO1E and not well known one at that. Nominator's analysis of available sources is compelling and shows that this level win does not lead to notability. The newspaper coverage is all about the win, with no substance as to the subject herself, which illustrates BIO1E well. Cited material can be moved to the Miss Teen USA article.
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The discussion is happening here, and there is no indication that the consensus would be that a Miss Teen USA would be considered notable. Thus I don't believe that suspending this AfD would serve a useful purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I am not going to present that a "one time wonder" deserves an article going against current policy and advancing a lifelong stub. Otr500 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one's national and a major pageant. Also, from the pre-Google era, so it will be tougher to find news coverage, as it would have been in print newspapers. Montanabw(talk)18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The newspapers are searchable with Google's newspaper search, and all the articles that come up are about the event (the subject's win or crowning of the next year's contestant). I don't see anything about Ms Addis herself. This is a WP:BIO1E situation, and deletion or a redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP1E says there are three criteria to be met, one of which is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ". It cannot be argued that that applies here, therefore you cannot argue to delete under that. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand why this is in play. One of the three conditions to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The Miss Teen USA pageant is a significant event, thus this does not apply. I agree with Thaddeus' reasoning herePageantUpdater (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by this when envoking BIO1E:
"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."
Further comment: while Miss Teen USAseries may be notable; I'd argue that Miss Teen USA 2000 and so on are not well known and significant events; I live in the US, for example, and I've never heard of Miss USA, let alone Miss Teen USA. I was aware of Miss America though; but I did not know that there were several competing systems. I'm a sample of one, obviously, so take that with a grain of salt. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well they were able to attract 98 Degrees and Westlife to perform. I haven't searched for that so won't give you an estimate off the top of my head but 1987 has hundreds of news articles from all across the US --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. WP:V and WP:RS go back to the beginning of time. We can't have an article - especially a biography - about a subject that has not been substantially covered in reliable independent sources; in this case there is no coverage of the subject, only the pageant. That invokes WP:BLP1E. I am concerned that people are misinterpreting a a guideline that says people are likely to be notable if they have won a major pageant, as meaning that are notable. On Wikipedia, notability comes form depth of sourcing, not from box-ticking. And what constitutes a major pageant is contentious: as far as the real world is concerned, only Miss World gets any serious mind share. Miss Teen America is $RANDOMPAGEANT as far as most people are concerned. Bring me sources that are about the subject and go beyond the pageant. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory, of pageant winners or anything else. Hotties are not inherently notable. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"hotties are not inherently notable" shows utterly disgusting bias and you clearly haven't read the article because the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th articles are specifically coverage of the subject not the pageant. I'm sorry if you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com but it's otherwise difficult to research a subject whose notability came about 20 years ago. Also evidence you haven't read the article properly - it has nothing to do with Miss Teen America. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKatie Blair and Tami Farrell, Miss Teen USA titleholders from the 2000s, both recently passed AFD with no delete noms, source of their notability being Miss Teen USA in both cases. I don't see why this one should be any different, if anything the news coverage here was more significant. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:28, 5 September 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.
I'm still adding information to this article and it is still a work in progress. This is my first article. Still learning. Please do not delete it.Nishael (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment -- not sure, but it appears that there's some walled garden going on with Databricks. I was going to comment as "Redirect" to Databricks, but it appears to be a non-notable company itself, along with its founders. I tagged Databricks for "Notability" and PRODded one of the personnel articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Sorry for the format. This is the first entry I added. This guy is perhaps the most influential in the Apache Spark project, which is the largest open source project in big data. He has been cited by a lot of media in the enterprise data space. Just some examples I found via quick Google News:
Well, I'd like to see at least a short article, couple paragraphs anyway, in a major daily paper. That, or a full interview or mini-bio in a less notable venue. Not seeing this. There's a mention here in notable Wired... he's quoted, a couple sentences, which is a start, but... WP:GNG wants "significant coverage", defined as that which "addresses the topic directly and in detail"... I'm not seeing that. On the other hand, we are not slaves to WP:GNG, and there're a lot of mini-references which result in a reasonably-detailed, reasonably-well-ref'd article. If pressed I would say the article is maybe worth keeping. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 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.
Delete there's definitely mentions in books and coverage by local Brandeis University press... Just another example of someone who's interesting and accomplished but doesn't quite meet our basic criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not notable solely as an administrator, the collection of coverage of that role and the dozens of pubs covering her involvement with the REM folks, inspiring the Rockville tune (coverage spanning over 20 years) and her battle with cancer (Boston Globe) add up to passing WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This really looks like a WP:BLP1E situation to me. The only credible and well-sourced claim to notability that I can see here comes from her having been the girlfriend of Mike Mills and having inspired the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville song. That information is already adequately covered in the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville article. The cancer story from Boston Globe is not really about her. The story is about cancer patients turning in growing numbers to alternative medicine remedies. She is just one of the subjects they used for the story. I don't think this kind of coverage contributes to notability per WP:GNG. Similarly, if after a natural disaster, such as the current floods in Louisiana, some national newspaper decides to run a story of how that disaster affected the lives of several ordinary people, that kind of coverage would not contribute to their notability, IMO. So at the end of the day this case still looks to be a WP:BLP1E one to me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; music trivia mention as to a REM and their song can be stated in their article. Kierzek (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:BIO1E. The sources by Brandeis Univ. Press are not really independent for the purpose of notability. The reason why the subject is notable is because of the song which is adequately covered in another article. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 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.
Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a youth league, or even a league at all. And it's not a local affiliate of a national organization. It's a development academy. If nominator thinks development academies are not notable, he can say so, but no accurate reason was offered. I agree with Fenix down that redirect is preferable to delete, but I think keep is preferable to both. Smartyllama (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. Article in its current state lacks references but it's trivially easy to turn up many on Google. ATraintalk23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I largely echo the above. This has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a youth league and youth leagues are not notable. The problem is that it is not a youth league, so the nominator's criterion does not apply. The other criterion "individual chapters of national and international organisations are usually not considered notable" also does not apply as this is neither an individual chapter of an organisation - it is a significant element of the organisation itself, and not a chapter in any way - nor is Vancouver Whitecaps a "national or international organisation". The nominator has recommended this for deletion on the grounds that this program is like your local branch of the Scouts, or the Scouts' local Saturday football league, but that is a substantial misunderstanding of that this article is about. Since the nominator's criteria for deletion can be seen to not apply, I'm not sure what case this AfD has to answer. Falastur2Talk22:25, 5 September 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. Neither of the keep arguments are particularly persuasive. Smartyllama states that this is an academy of a major soccer club, but it's not clear how that make this notable. And ATrain asserts that there is online coverage, but doesn't cite any specific sources. -- RoySmith(talk)15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a youth league or a local affiliate of a national organization. It's an academy of a major soccer club. As neither reason specified in nomination is actually true, I don't know what there is to discuss here.Smartyllama (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. Current references in the article are, unfortunately, all to 1st party sites but there's absolutely no shortage of coverage of the team and its players online. ATraintalk23:08, 4 September 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.
Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination is absolutely irrelevant, the club is not a local affiliate of anybody. It's an independent club in a league where every other independent club that has played games so far has its own article. And the NPSL isn't a youth league, anyway. It's semiprofessional. It's recognized by US Soccer, but that's not the same as being a direct youth team of another club. Being affiliated with US Soccer doesn't make it a "local chapter" any more than all the other clubs in the country, which are also affiliated with US Soccer officially. Weston FC itself certainly isn't a youth league since it isn't a league at all. Neither reason specified for nomination is accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fourth-tier team. Not a player, but a team. Fourth-tier teams in the American soccer pyramid are notable per consensus. Especially if they're independent teams. And per WP:NFOOTYCLUB, clubs in notable leagues are notable, with the NPSL considered a notable league. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 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.
Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Major League Soccer team academies can't be considered to be part of a local youth sports league, but I suppose you can't call them a completely professional development team either. It's somewhere in between. Any useful info could be merged into the professional team's page, but I would point out that there are many Wikipedia pages for the academy programs of European teams, which could be considered for deletion as well (unless they're considered more notable although a quick glance shows most of them are about as informative as the pages for the MLS academies). Lhts120 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that issue, I've seen a lot of media coverage over the years about the academy, I didn't attempt to dig any of it out, as I assumed this was such a cut-and-dry case. Do we really have to go down that road? Nfitz (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a youth league, not a league at all, and not an individual chapter of a national organization. I don't know what nominator's point is. In any case, it satisfies WP:GNG per Nfitz. Smartyllama (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. ATraintalk23:11, 4 September 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.
Keep. This article is perfect and accurate. It is difficult to find sources for such a magazine when it is internally produced by a state agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.64.8 (talk • contribs)
Delete and I wish I had commented sooner because the 1 Keep vote goes against everything of what Wikipedia actuslly is; their claims alone are not what's saving this article, because, frankly there is nothing for substance here. SwisterTwistertalk23:49, 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete As this article lacks an unbiased presentation of the topic and became a battlefield for different companies producing the obfuscation software. The reader may be misled by the article. eg (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Egubenya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The content is not unbiased. Based on research it appears to favor specific offerings and is not an objective discussion of the overall software technology involved. There does not seem to be a way of addressing the objectivity issue without veering into marketing speak. I also think we're better off without it. - Bctwriter —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I can see the value of this list and feature table to .NET developers. However that's not an encyclopedic value, it's transitory trade-press news reporting. I hope this finds a home, but I don't see that home as being on WP and with the unsourced state of this article, I'm not inclined to be lenient.
This might make a WP article if it was turned upside down. Turn it into an encyclopedic article on obfuscation for .NET, use the quite good explanation sections and then use the comparison table as no more than an illustration. It would need the technical features and aspects of .NET obfuscation to be sourced though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been keeping this list in as good a shape as I can, but the total lack of sourcing and the fact that none of the entries have any independent notabilty is making it very difficult. I think we're better off without it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the previous AfD. Lists can list non-notable things, as long as the topic in general is notable per WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) --How is the editorial guidance to be interpreted? WP:CSC suggests that a few non-notable items may be included, not virtually the entire the list as is the case here. "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses."EdBlatt (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't agree that none of the entries have any independent notability, see Dotfuscator for instance. Hancox (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Hancox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . PS it's curious that the person who nominated this page for deletion is the same person who restored some content that was deleted a few days ago for being non-notable.[reply]
Delete This list mixes obfuscation techniques with other unrelated techniques including virtualization, merging, compression, etc. Importantly, there are no references on the page and it has been a free for all of commercial interests with non-validated claims. Gmt767 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Gmt767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Upon review, there is enough misinformation here that makes it appear it would be impossible to keep this up-to-date. It has already fallen far behind reality. Deletion is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.186.2 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know there appears to be a lot written above, but once you discount all the SPAs and transient IPs (on both sides), there's not actually much here. Even the nomination is by a SPA. So, hoping another week will attract some more experienced editors. -- RoySmith(talk)12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk)12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete. This listing sorely lacks reference information. Previous incarnations of this list have been appropriately deleted. For example see User:Scatophaga/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. Important note: The article below was not written by me. It was deleted (what a stupid action! This contains relevant information, at leat for me, seeking for something like this for a while) due to the following reasoning "This is an orphan article (So? Just because is "orphan" doesn't mean it's not interesting! Why those guys who delete other's work, are around? Bacause of this, I quit to create Wikipedia articles. I'm tired to see others change what I write, just because they don't understand, or they don't like the "style"), and it is simply a list displaying a grid.
Delete Attempts to present a coherent article have been thwarted by commercial interests. Sadly the page includes many features that do not relate to Obfuscation (software) and almost all assertions are unreferenced (and based on my review, frequently erroneous). EdBlatt (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen this page come and go several times already and it is not improving. When the latest version was resurrected it seems its author did not bother to disclose that the prior version was deleted? The descriptors on this page are loosely explained and I started to build in better information. Now I see the article for deletion notation is up again and in considering the sorry state of the article, and in particular its continuing degradation the basic principles of wikipedia should be weighed, and there is no reason to retain this and many good reasons to delete it again. The primary reason I see is that the most all of the entries are not representative of a modern day obfuscator and the definition of the obfuscator is so contorted in the article components that it is potentially confusing to users.WindRest (talk) 02:39, 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.
Keep 'honour killing' in Pakistan is a social issue. After the death of Qandeel Baloch it is a second high profile murder in Pakistan. Such killings has compelled the Pakistani government to make a law against honour killings.[1] Wide Media coverage of Samia killing not only in Pakistan but across the borders proves that it was not A ROUTINE MURDER.Sneha Hurrain (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article quality is poor, but notability guidelines are not based on that. per sources that I can find this honour killing has received plenty of media coverage. also per bigger context of honour killings. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move To the killing of Samia Sahid she is not notable except as a victim of a crime. The only reason the crime is notable is that Pakistan is actually changing laws based directly on this incident and that someone was arrested for threatening an MP over the incident.--Savonneux (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is lacking, but that is not a reason for deletion. There is more information available in reliable sources online, and the article should be improved based on those. CrispyGlover (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I added new reference. she was raped before murder. This is a new angle in honour killings case investigation. The follow up of this case in main stream media shows that this page must not be deleted. [1][2][3]Sneha Hurrain (talk) 10:07, 3 September 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.
Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; Subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER the award is in dispute and cannot be confirmed with archival records.
This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.
Delete The de-Nazification continues. Without evidence the subject received the Knight's Cross the subject isn't notable. I look forward to seeing refunds when proper sourcing can be found. Chris Troutman (talk)00:28, 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.
Fails WP:GNG; I could not find any significant media coverage of a Plumbus. This fictional item does not inherit notability from Rick and Morty either. The article also does not distinguish between reality and ficiton; it describes a Plumbus as a real item. Sunmist (talk) 18:20, 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.
Non-notable EDM duo. No sources other than Soundcloud and Facebook. Small social media following, no third party coverage, no major recordings or appearances or collaborations. Page is clearly promotional and, at best WP:TOOSOON. JamesG5 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - Neglected to mention that the account name that created the page clearly belongs to one of the members of the duo, and the account that's been editing it & removing tags & templates is a single use that's editing no other pages. JamesG5 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided references are useless for indicating notability. Needs independent, third part coverage in significant quantity to merit serious consideration. ShelbyMarion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 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 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.
Keep. Pure mathematics is a low-citation field, so the citation record doesn't tell us much, but I think the EMS Prize is enough for WP:PROF#C2 (it's about major national or international-level prizes, and this one is international and major). For instance our article European Mathematical Society lists many EMS Prize winners who have gone on to win the Fields medal, the top award in mathematics. Additionally speaking at the ICM is a significant honor, perhaps not enough by itself but also indicative of importance as a mathematician. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that the following argument is invalid, but here goes, anyway: I've heard of the guy, and skimmed things that others have written about stuff he's discovered, so surely he can't be that obscure or non-notable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with David Eppstein that invited participation at ICM plus a prize by a major society (I wouldn't call the EMS congress "non-notable") is largely enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly to the opinion voiced by 67.198.37.16 I know of the guy's name through seeing it on many seminar or conference posters and presentations though I don't work in the field (as they said this is not a valid argument for inclusion but certainly it points to there being more correctly sourced stuff to add later to the article: since I think notability is already established I think this is a point that deserves being made). jraimbau (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One should be careful with "I remember hearing his name" arguments. Kuznetsov is not that uncommon a name; Yu. A. Kuznetsov and maybe N. G. Kuznetsov are both mathematicians with more established reputations than this one. So one should be careful to make sure that one is rememberlng the correct Kuznetsov. But of course the possible notability of those other people is irrelevant to whether this one is notable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 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 speedily, as the article consists substantially of copied content which appears at www.linkedin.com/in/ali-hamedani-a3b484127 and www.facebook.com/bbcalihamedani/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item&tab=page_info with no evidence of copyright release. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 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.
Weak keep. The nominator is correct to imply that it is difficult to ascertain the degree of independent achievement with papers with such vast numbers of co-authors. However, Looking at the well-cited papers with fewer co-authors, I find provisionally that WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Possibly you are seeing something I am not. I have found few papers with fewer than ~10 co-authors. Possibly this is normal in her field but I did not see many where she was the principle author either. She is an early-in-career Associate Professor. It is highly unlikely, mired in a pack of co-authors and this early in her career, with few papers which she is principle author of, that her work has yet "made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per PROF#C1. In such a case I would expect to see some coverage in RS or major awards within the discipline rather than "up-and-comer" awards if she passed PROF#C1. JbhTalk01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is in that part of an academic career that is frustrating for Wikipedia editors. The awards are all early career awards. There is little documentation of the impact of an academic career prior to receiving major awards or getting an obituary in Physics Today. I've added her CV and pubs to the article (2 documents for some reason). She divides her publications into regular work and large group collaborations. As for papers with less than 10 authors, she published 12 of them in 2015 and 6 in 2014 if I've counted authors right. As for highly cited articles:
2013 first author of 8, cited by 106, Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy–galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7
2010 second author of 7, cited by 224, Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities
2008 first author of 3, cited by 172, A halo mass—concentration relation from weak lensing
2006 first author of 6, cited by 177, Density profiles of galaxy groups and clusters from SDSS galaxy–galaxy weak lensing
Keep. I don't think the Falco-DeBenedetti Career Development Professorship is good enough for WP:PROF#C5 (its name makes it sound like a mid-career thing rather than a higher-level distinguished professorship) but looking at Google scholar and discounting the SDSS hits still gives a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think coverage of a project she leads in a Nature news piece [3] is another indication of significance. (See also [4][5][6] for less-high-profile media coverage of her research.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 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 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.
A B-movie bit player, a minor jeweller and an unsuccessful singer? This looks more like some sort of attempt at promotion than a notable person. Sitush (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is entirely sourced to the subjects own websites. Even using these generally promotional types of sources we still have nothing that suggests she is even marginally notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After much searching, didn't find anything -- problem is, with a generic-sounding name like "Judy Brown", it is tough to filter out all the other JBs out there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 3 September 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 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.
This was for a while a redirect to artist, which I felt was a good idea. This doesn't seem to gave charted or attracted many reviews - everything is on Allmusic and the other source given, the obscure crosswalk.com doesn't convince me it tips into notability. Boleyn (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would need to chart in the right kind of chart, and I'm not convinced on this one (but it's not an area I'm well-versed in). TO meet WP:NALBUM it also needs more than just to chart: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person just added a couple of reviews, from a Buffalo paper and a Florida paper; they're not online but let's assume they're a paragraph long. Then there's the Crosswalk and AllMusic reviews -- longer, but in a more specialized venue. This is probably enough to meet WP:NALBUMS #1, I think. Then Billboard has a notice that it opened at #50 on the album charts (whether it went higher I don't know), so that's maybe WP:NALBUMS #2 (I don't know if "appeared on any country's national music chart" means as low as #50, but for songs it goes down to #100, and the "any country" is America, a particularly populous and wealthy country). All in all I think it meets our album notability standards. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would tend to agree that this meet WP:NALBUMS #1. There is non-trival coverage in The Buffalo News, The Ledger, Allmusic, as well as Detroit News. I don't have full-text access to that last one, but its particulars are: Henrickson, Eric (April 15, 2005). "Kristin Chenoweth, As I Am (Sony Classical)", Detroit News, p. E7. Furthermore, the crosswalk.com article was also published in print as Cumbee, Jim (June 2005). "In Review: Music – Kristin Chenoweth: As I Am", CCM Magazine27 (12): 66. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:46, 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 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.
Weak Delete per WP:TNT. The article is quite promotional, but I'm also concerned about it having been copied from the frwiki article, fr:Galerie Brame & Lorenceau, which was created as a copyvio, blanked, recreated, and modified, but still looks to retain a good amount of the same text, in addition to being poorly sourced and promotional. That said, it seems notable, so I created Draft:Brame & Lorenceau Gallery, very much a stub, starting from scratch (i.e. used none of the existing content). If this is kept, we can delete the draft of course, but the draft exists as a substitute if the content here is unusable. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:35, 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.
Gives no information. Has no references. Can't see anything other than a few social media posts around the time of the 2016 event. Not a notable event. Rayman60 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Refs seem to consist of press releases and entries in databases, no in-depth coverage that’s independent of the topic. It was deleted from wp.ru for similar reasons, and if they can’t find evidence of its notability in its home country then it probably doesn’t exist. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all comes close to actual substance, because the article only lists information wanting to clients and investors; the sources merely consist of PR or PR-like. SwisterTwistertalk22:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incredibly minor RSes (if "finance-magnates" even counts as one) are all it has. The rest of the sourcing is awful and irrelevant - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 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.
Delete per WP:PROMO; appears to exist for advertising and to stuff the article full of both notable and non-notable comedians, as strange form of coat rack or perhaps link farming? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 3 September 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 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 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 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 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.
No assertion of notability. He wasn't the only engineer on the Orion project. He has multiple mentions in the second source largely because he was interviewed for the book, not because his work was particularly substantial. Moreover, he wasn't interviewed for him, he was interviewed for the project. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 13 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 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 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.
Redirect to the band's discography. Could you maybe consider alternatives to deletion rather than creating dozens of AfDs? --Michig (talk) 20:03, 13 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 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 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.
Random list of "start pages" for internet browsers. No indication of any notability. Only references are to things like alexa that do not provide significant coverage. noq (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- @Noq: Thank you for taking the time to question the notability of the List of start page services. I, however, do not share your opinion regarding deletion. There is no Wikipedia guideline requiring all entries in a list to be notable (WP:LISTCOMPANY) and it contains some rather notable examples, to which this article provides a useful context. The list is based on that provided by iGoogleAlternatives.info. Alexa rank provides a useful indication (though not proof) of notability. Furthermore, there seems to be no guideline against these sorts of lists, which provides a useful and objective context to the Start page article.
Delete -- OR with unclear criteria for inclusion. Sources are all primary. This topic has not been a subject of inquiry by secondary sources and therefore lacks notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 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.
Four months after being deleted via AfD, this article continues to fail WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Could find no significant secondary source to support notability. Sources cited are concert promoters or record vendors. Appears to have no works that have charted or won significant awards; nothing really to support notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an admin should remove the AfD because the reason why it was there in the first place, is now fixed. - Rizhopper (talk) 15:59, 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.
Redirect to Census of India prior to independence. On the previous discussion, I was partly thinking of an article on an earlier census that was so incomplete as to be meaningless as a comprehensive statistical source. As North West Frontier was actually the "unadministered zone", so that I am dubious that this would be complete enough to be a useful source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 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 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.
A working linked page of this band's Wiki has already been made so this one is totally unnecessary BriBoutB (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Creating deletion discussion for Live my last[reply]
Comment It looks like you're trying to change the title of the page, but have copied-and-pasted the article into a new page. This does not preserve the history of the page. I have added the ((histmerge)) tag to the new page, Live My Last (note the capitalization). Sunmist3 (talk) 13:17, 13 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 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.
Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969TT me21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This place has exactly 157 spaces. It has a clubhouse and a swimming pool. A relatively small park of a couple of hundred residents. Nothing to make it notable. If there were an apartment building, would we even be having this discussion. This is just one of hundreds or thousands of such places. MB05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 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.
Delete I was just about to nominate it myself. There are absolutely no sources available except for this which only contains a mention of the name (时光隧道). This is a Xinyao group but I don't see any evidence that it is notable. There are also very few sources available to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Me three. I initially tagged this for speedy, as did JMHamo (talk·contribs), but we were declined by Adam9007 (talk·contribs) on the basis of their charting (once, at #11) in Hong Kong. The article doesn't say how long it stayed on the charts, or, more importantly, provide any sort of source for verification, so to me this is not a very credible assertion of significance. Be that as it may, now that we have moved to AfD, I think the lack of sources is a fatal omission, especially since the article badly needs to be re-written, and this cannot be done without sources. ubiquity (talk) 13:05, 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.
I find this fractal to be one of the most beautiful fully mathematical fractals.
You really can not find it anywhere else on the internet, but it is only because I found it and have not put it anywhere else yet.
It is a fractal art with the precise instructions, how to recreate it.
On the other hand, you can check, that it is not something that goes with a different name. So it is not violating any moral or written laws, and it is helpful to people, who would like to recreate this fractal and use it to decorate anything, or to the students who might wonder, how exactly is this fractal created.
This fractal is included in the course "Mathematical Way of Thinking" in the top Georgian university "Free University of Tbilisi" (professor Amiran Ambroladze, PhD in mathematics, specialization: Fractals and Chaos). So this article might be helpful at least for them right now.
So, this article does not violate any rules, it can not confuse anybody or cause any harm, it is beautiful and it is helpful for at least some people. I do not see any reason it should be deleted :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. All the information provided in this article can be checked directly, with just copy-pasting the given code to Wolfram Mathematica, running it and observing the output. Or by implementing the described algorithm directly in any programming language.
I understand that I might be subjective on this matter, but before deleting this article, please explain to me what harm can it possibly cause, or why is this not suitable for wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Wikipedia's policy against original research. If it's research that hasn't been published in some refereed source, then for the purposes of that policy, it's considered original research. If this gets published in a journal and the paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article, then it will no longer be "original research", so there could be a Wikipedia article about it if it's considered notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 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.
Delete. The show was created and produced several months ago, but it is a musical which is about life at a particular high school, produced only at that particular school, and has not received any coverage in reliable sources outside that school. Not notable per WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:59, 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 Hyundai Portico concept of 2005 has had no published indication of intent for production beyond 2010. It is assumed at this point the vehicle's production has been cancelled, or shelved indefinitely. This article of the Portico as a production vehicle should be deleted. Dirty Blueshirt (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be possible to keep, but an article on a proposed car that ended up never being produced seems a bit minor for WP. Borock (talk) 03:23, 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.
Fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:SOLDIER as the Knight's Cross award is questionable. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.
The subject is mentioned in a book by Reynolds; however, I would consider this to be a WP:QS source, as his work has been described by historian Robert Citino as of of those that "flirt with the admiration" for the Waffen-SS, with some "[going] farther than that". Please see Waffen-SS in popular culture for more details.
Delete -- We have had considerable doubt as to whether this award confers notability. In this case, even whether the award was made is somewhat dubious. Perhaps this is a case of a man being recommended, but that being overtaken by the end of the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 4 September 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.
Keep an unusual baby produce company in including dads in its name. Appears to have somewhat of a cult following for its products, which is born out by sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 4 September 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 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.
Merge/redirect to List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen. Actually the road is a locally prominent one as it leads from Sea world to the Northern part of Nanshan ( I live in Shenzhen ). Xinhua road runs along Nanhai e-cool (a huge artisan hub). However, rather than delete the page, I would suggest merging it into the page containing Roads of Shenzhen. There are a good number of news sites that mention this road (they are in Chinese, as is most information on Chinese cities - let me try to find a few English news papers that mention it).
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 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 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 article fails PORNBIO as the only award is XBIZ Award for Web Babe of the Year in 2009, which is not well known and significant. Significant RS coverage is not available to meet GNG. Other mentions, such as Hustler Honey, are trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 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 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 sport D-Hoops has been issued a full utility patent from the United States Patent office. It is recognized as a legitimate sport / game through careful and thorough review and has legal merits. Please carefully review the wording of this patent issue prior to stating, "this sport doesn't appear to be notable yet", [19] I highly recommend D-Hoops is not deleted based on firm legal documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dischoopplayer1 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* I have reviewed the patent for #8,715,115 Disc Hoop Game and apparatus. There are 17 citations stated regarding Dhoops. To delete this article on merits of sport/game not notable would indicate defamation and bias against this sport while favoring others. Dhoops clearly qualifies to remain as a Wikipedia article based on a strong legal foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalPatent1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sport D-Hoops has been issued a full utility patent from the United States Patent office. It is recognized as a legitimate sport / game through careful and thorough review and has legal merits. Please carefully review the wording of this patent issue prior to stating, "this sport doesn't appear to be notable yet", [20] I highly recommend D-Hoops is not deleted based on firm legal documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dischoopplayer1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the patent for #8,715,115 Disc Hoop Game and apparatus. There are 17 citations stated regarding Dhoops. To delete this article on merits of sport/game not notable would indicate defamation and bias against this sport while favoring others. Dhoops clearly qualifies to remain as a Wikipedia article based on a strong legal foundation.
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, no coverage other than a local news story saying some local guy got a patent. Patented things are not inherently notable. Also, I'm a bit confused as to why there's a keep comment in the header of this AfD. Can someone sort this out? Smartyllama (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. I don't understand what the ramblings above about legal documents mean, but they don't alter the non-notability of the subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 3 September 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.
I came upon this article while browsing through page creations by a sock farm uncovered in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heathnw77. There's a little coverage, but I don't think it's enough to establish notability. The majority of sources seem to be press releases and blogs. The Wikipedia article cites a reporter's column at Cleveland.com that muses on his own career prospects, which does not seem like a good source to establish notability for his friend. The awards do not look significant, and a single review from Kirkus Reviews is not enough. It looks too soon for an article yet, and this is likely a vanity page created by a paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep as minor novelist who has gotten some prizes, press attention. There was a feature story about his first novel (The Plain Dealer, Author hailed for first novel, 3 August 2005.) a major paper, albeit in his hometown. I sourced 2 prizes to the Black Issues Book Review. Added these to the page along with his own website. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also sourced his ALA prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , 'by one of our basic principles: WP is an encyclopedia . He has a full entry in Contemporary Authors (also known as Gale Contemporary authors, and available online free through most medium and large public libraries as Literary Resource Center.[21] This is the standard reference work for recent American literature (and some other literatures also ); as the standard encyclopedicwork in the field, everyone with a full entry in it is automatically suitable for inclusion in WP. (The easiest way of determining this is to search in Worldcat--if there's a Contemporary Authors listing it will appear as one of the entries for the name. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 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.