< 12 December	14 December >

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the Deer[edit]

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

A9 declined for no reason. No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article as written is very poor, but there is reliable sourcing, and it is easy to find if one bothers to look for it. [2],[3] and many, many more. Jacona (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There would appear to be many reliable sources found by this book search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Gbook search for the name of the hymn and the author's last name does seem to show this to be a notable hymn. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JaconaFrere: @Shawn in Montreal: And these sources are just going to magically add themselves, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

of course not, User:TenPoundHammer, but in discussing articles for deletion, the discussion is not about whether the article contains sufficient sourcing. The discussion is rather, about whether significant sourcing exists that the subject matter can be considered notable.Jacona (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rephrasing slightly, it's not "Is this article good?", but "Is this subject notable?"Jacona (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator still doesn't realize after all his years here that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. He is to be applauded for his enduring cluelessness. It's actually something of an achievement, because you think he'd soak it up by sheer osmosis, if left long enough. But no. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I really hate is the endless cycle: Someone nominates an article, someone else posts a bunch of sources, yet no one ever gets around to adding the sources to the article, so five years later, the article is still an unsourced nanostub because everyone is always expecting everyone else to do it. Don't bother digging up the fucking sources and saying "keep" unless you're going to add them yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, that I can at least understand. But you don't seem to get, after all your years here, that it's a waste of time bringing articles to Afd if you can readily tell by doing your WP:BEFORE work that the thing is in all likelihood going to be found to be notable. And that no amount of complaining about it at AFD or badgering people is going to change basic policy. So this clearly isn't working as a strategy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So User:TenPoundHammer, I'm so sorry to be the awful person who looks up sources and doesn't immediately drop everything and update the article you didn't bother to look up sources for and just nominated for deletion. I admit, there are many issues on Wikipedia that I am aware of, but I have not fixed. Sorry about that! Jacona (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: is this your policy on all AfD nominations??? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not for article improvement. St Anselm (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found above - and this is why I declined A9. It's usually uncommon for contemporary Christian hymns to not be notable, as there simply aren't that many of them. The main concern for the article - that its subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia - is something that will be revealed through reliable sources or not. It's clear that those sources exist. Obviously the sources should be added to the article at some point, but it is clear that this subject is notable from this discussion and any other discussion seems irrelevant. Appable (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep personally being a Catholic its the song i hear in my church and I think it should have coverage on wikipedia too i have added sources if wrong do correct it --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a ref for the hymn's text. I'll never sing it myself but I don't see a reason to delete. Yintan 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the most notable modern hymns. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:46, 15 December 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 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denodo[edit]

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

One very specialized 2009 award is not enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank for your help and feedback. the content of the page is now edited, simplified and added a couple of references that provides further information.

Delete Agree with above comments. Light2021 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 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. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kallee[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Despite citing 8 sources that I can access, 6 of those 8 are not independent, and the other 2 are about his father, not him. Article is already nominated for deletion on the German Wikipedia. A Google search does not turn up any obvious sources to add. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. BLP gives an interesting discussion of his work on welding, but notability under WP:Prof has to be judged mostly on citations, which are not yet enough. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I prod-ed this article and was not able to find secondary source coverage that demonstrated notability. agtx 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NACADEMIC, his "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He is one of the earliest friction stir welding R&D experts, who developed this innovative process and reported about his work in papers at numerous prestigious conferences. The large number of secondary citations of his papers here and there are a clear indication about his notability within the field of welding related R&D. NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Cite in GS are far below the large number of hundreds expected for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He managed the government funded phase of the EuroStir® (8.8 Mio €) project on "European industrialisation of friction stir welding," which had been the lergest collaborative project of its kind both regarding budget and number of participating companies. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that helps. €8.8 million is a small project. agtx 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently difficult, to get a discussion running. In the field of friction stir welding, hundreds of secondary citations are actually very unusual (apart from citations of patents and books) and projects with more than 10 Mio € are unheard of. If this article was deleted, it would confirm my perception that engineers are seen to be less notable than chefs and sportsmen, because the notability criteria are arguably fulfilled, as mentioned above. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Anyway, the NACADEMIC criteria require "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". If there are no mentions of the subject in articles that are not WP:Trivial mentions, then I do not believe it is demonstrated by independent reliable sources, even if some of the subject's papers have been cited by other papers. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:59, 14 December 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. No policy based reasons for deletion. If there are inaccuracies, they can be fixed by editing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Sacred Heart, Singapore[edit]

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

Request by the Parish Priest... OTRS2016022510001865 ... Our church serves about 3000 parishioners every weekend, the misinformation and inaccuracies that the writer had insisted to put in despite our editing efforts, has brought about confusion to our visitors. The inaccuracies on the services that our provides also cause undue inconveniences to our day-to-day running.

The first para of the article reads: "The Church of the Sacred Heart (Chinese: 圣心堂) is a Roman Catholic church in Singapore. It was founded in 1910 by the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, and is one of the oldest parishes in the Archdiocese. "

Our church is NOT founded by the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. In fact, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul was founded in Singapore only in 1951.

Under the section titled "Present" were these three paragraphs:

"On the first Sunday of each month, the Church's cafeteria gives out free food to the parishioners. This day is referred to by parishioners as agape (ἀγάπη), a Greek word defined in the English language as "love" or "charity", which is one of the three Theological virtues. There is also sometimes a band which plays country music.

Every weekend Mass, except for the Masses conducted in the first week of each month, there is a second collection for the Church Community Building Fund, on top of the collection of alms, which goes towards the monetary foundation of the community building. Every first Sunday of each month, the church money collected from the second collection goes towards the Society of St Vincent De Paul.

Recently, the church began serving meals to the poor daily, as part of a programme entitled DOULOS (δοῦλος), which means "servant" in Greek. Those who go to the church for food are also each given a loaf of bread after their meals. The location at which the religious bookshop used to be also has two beds to allow for the administration of ChineseAcupuncture, as the majority of the poor who visit the church are elderly and suffer from body pains. The bookshop has since relocated to the Community Building."

These three paragraphs are not accurate. Presently, we do not give out free food to parishioners, there is no band that plays music. We do not have a second collection for the Church Community Building Fund at every weekend Mass. In addition, we do not serve meals to the poor daily. The programme "Doulos" was discontinued in December 2014. There is also no Chinese Acupuncture services in the Church.

Under the section titled "Masses and Services"

The timing the writer has insisted on are not updated timing. This cause frustration to visitors who want to come in time for services only to realise the times given are wrong.

As you can see, these misinformation and inaccuracies which the writer had put in causes confusion and even distress in some cases. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the items above may have changed a bit - the priest was a very long time coming back to me to authorise the use of an e-mail, as a "reason". As a totally unsourced article, I personally see little benefit in keeping, unless someone wants to adopt the page and do a proper job. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Fr Stephen Yim attempted to make multiple edits to this page in February, with the notation of "correcting several inaccuries"; these were promptly reverted by another, User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, with no explanation. Given the latter's industrious history on WP, and assuming the former really is the minister for this church - a presumption bolstered by the fact this is the only article ever edited by the user - the reverts likely were in error. Either the article needs deleted due to lack of verified sources, or the February edits restored. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you will please note, I am not the first to have reverted his edits. Two other editors did so before me. The information which I reverted was unsourced and not well formatted; I saw it as no improvement over what was there before. As to whether or not to keep the article, I make no judgment at this time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the information you reverted was unsourced, the information you reverted back to also was unsourced. So, while unsourced information normally is a reason for reversion, in this case I do not think it is. As for formatting: I would consider (presumably) accurate information that is poorly formatted to be superior to well-formatted, (presumably) inaccurate information. Of course, without sourcing in either version of the article, it is not possible to establish what is factual here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep The church is notable. But the information is unsourced and I understand that. I will clean it up later. This is a major problem with many article in Singapore - a lot of content but no citations. In addition, please inform the editors to discuss issues on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is possible to establish valid sources then my vote also would be keep. If not, delete. Per the conversation above with User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you may also wish to look at the alternate, but also unsourced, information that was added by User:Fr Stephen Yim before reversion. It is presumably more accurate, but without sources in either version of the article, we cannot be certain. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are probably sources for this and the information added by User:Fr Stephen Yim seems to be correct. As far as I know (from my personal knowledge), this Church is over a hundred years old and it is significant for being the first Chinese Roman Catholic Church in Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable church. If there are inaccuracies then the parish priest would be better off editing the article than requesting its deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If there are errors, the answer is to correct them, not to delete the article. Being the first Chinese Catholic Church may be sufficient to make it notable, but my initial reaction was that it was yet another local church, most of which are routinely declared NN: I wish it was otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://history.catholic.sg/church-of-the-sacred-heart/ is a site providing history of the church, including that it was damaged 15 February 1942 by Japanese shelling of Singapore. --do ncr am 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note with some concern that there is List of Roman Catholic churches in Singapore with about 1/2 bluelinks, and 1/2 redlinks calling for creation of new articles on marginal or non-notable churches. It would be better to develop the list article...make a table with photos and descriptions and such...and to redirect all the redlinks to the list-article row on each of those churches. It would be an option to merge/redirect this article to that list-article, too.

By the way I dropped assertion in the article that it was founded by Society of Saint Vincent de Paul given the priest's assertion above, but even if the Singapore "chapter" or whatever of the organization was not founded until 1951, this church could still easily have been started as a project of the world-wide organization or one of its parts. --do ncr am 00:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By no means a model article, by that is no criteria or reason for deletion in itself. Indeoendant, secondary sources have been identified by people above. WP:GEOFEAT shows us that it is possible for this to be notable, and sorces have been shown. All of that satisfies me that it does pass the GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:14, 21 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Insta[edit]

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

Clear advertising, regardless if intended or not, because if it wasn't for the fact we know the sources and information are advertising and also republished at that; searches naturally found only the same and the past deletion last year shows the sheer blatancy of wanting to restart advertising again hence WP:NOT boldly applies. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I provided good number of references and most of them are from famous news resources such India Times and many more. I won't call it an advertisement but information sources altogether at Wikipedia. And yes, may be the last time the page was made, it could come under advertisement because the startup wasn't well known at the time and there were no good references from media.UsmanKhalil_Talk 19:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not as per Wiki standards. Wiki is not Funded company directory for sure. Media coverage (i mean how it is covered) is very poor on this one. Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A clear case of advertising. CoI is a problem too. WP:COI. Ceosad (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 23 December 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) 08:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Udhayam TV (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about non-notable TV service. Created by the company themselves. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything stated above. Layla, the remover (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have been unable to find any independent reliable primary sources on Udhayam TV, apart from some blogsites indicating that the service is 'coming soon'. This is the best source that I can find (Media World Asia), which is insufficient on its own to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:28, 14 December 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 Speedily deleted due to G12. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testing vs Debugging[edit]

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

Everything is covered under Software testing, seems to be a part of several users creating new essay like articles today as well. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTESSAY. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 13 December 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. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Monitor[edit]

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

I would've honestly PRODed but it's quite likely it will be restarted as advertising once again, and it's clear tihs (along with the 2012 deleted article) only exists as advertising for the company itself since that's exactly what the information and sources emulate, not only then considering the sheer PR blatancy; also, to actually specify, the NYT is in fact a 2-time minor mention part of an investing campaign so that's all there is to say about it. When an article has to so blatantly emphasize this, especially the fact of barreling the "clients" list in the first sentence, that's damning enough as it is, worse when we apply WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mention of the clients is very WP:SOAP, and the source is a Press Release on Business Wire. As SwisterTwister said WP:NOT. Ferrari250 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - biased and disruptive nomination. Notable topic, suitable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
week delete It is one of the known platform for Email marketing though. Leave apart how the article is covered, but covered by notable media brands. It is written by close one (doubt) or the tone of article or even the intend of writing this article makes it questionable. (Changed my view on others comments). Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SPAM and nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NYT is a mention, and the WSJ item a mere notice. There is no reason to expect there would be anything significant for a company like this, and th eat is indeed the case. "One of the known platforms" is an argument from ITEXISTS. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYTimes is one sentence of coverage. The other one is a WSJ blog, not a staff report. The best I could find was this in the AFR but that is not enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachyal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't verify its notability. Last AfD closed as no responses; sending WP:APPNOTE to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's put it down for good, seemingly no references in sources and is literally 1 sentence. Layla, the remover (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and my statement in the first nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it and expand it, one sentence is just the beginning.79.238.99.2 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

79.238.99.2, why are you voting to keep? How do you feel it meets WP:NOTABILITY? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 14 December 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 Speedily deleted per G12: copyvio. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Install/Uninstall Testing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Nomination for speedy deletion under G11 was declined by @Ks0stm:. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. G11 wasn't the right fit, but clear case of WP:NOTHOWTO. Could potentially be an includible topic, but would probably be best to blow it up and start over the way the article is written right now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a majority of the article is copied directly, word for word from the "references" below, which are not properly cited in the article itself. This seems to be a string of what looks like maybe a class project of some sort today... also reads like a How-to article Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment also potentially related: Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

Loop testing - deleted twice for copyvio.
Defect severity - deleted for copyvio.
Configuration Testing - currently up for SD for copyvio.
Context Driven Testing - deleted for WP:Promo but I believe it also had copyvios but I can't see the deleted version to verify.

And another one:

Configuration/Hardware Testing ‎ Meters (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say merge to Installation testing but so much of the content is copyvio that we would be better off to blow this new article up and just rewrite Installation testing with more detail. Meters (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And with sourcing, of course. Meters (talk) 18:51, 13 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Birdland (1962 John Coltrane album)[edit]

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

Not notable. This music appears to be from a bootleg recording, bits of which have been released on various albums over a period of decades; this is one of them. Searches for reliable sources return little to warrant its inclusion. Note that there are lots of albums with the same title, including an official release by the same artist. EddieHugh (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally got no results for ANYTHING on google when I searched it. Layla, the remover (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. JaneOlds (talk) 18:54, 25 December 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Langrial clan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~I couldn't verify its notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination So sorry, clicked on wrong one. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 13 December 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 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandral clan[edit]

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to verify notability Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be discussed by any reliable sources at all Spiderone 14:47, 18 December 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. czar 07:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Srivastav[edit]

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

Non-notable person fails WP:BIO, WP:N FITINDIA (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as clear G11. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 16 December 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 Self Organised Learning Environment. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gouri Chindarkar[edit]

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

Article fails to explain why this BLP subject is notable. All coverage of her seems to be related to being inexplicably chosen for BBC's 100 Women, with a smattering of human interest-type stories. This raises obvious WP:BLP1E concerns. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable for at least two reasons - both *why* she was selected for BBC's 100 women, and *because* she was selected for that list. I don't follow the "inexplicably chosen" comment - can @The Wordsmith: explain why this is "inexplitable" please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll bite. The list is supposed to be the most inspiring women the BBC can find, with a theme this year of "Defiance". Chindarkar was not the first or only Indian woman to take part in this education initiative. A source I found indicated that there have been 16,000 participants, presumably a large number of them being women. Chindarkar attended one of these labs, did well, and went on to a University. It hardly seems unique or especially notable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on Indian education systems so I could be wrong on how important it is, but a reading of the available sources doesn't seem to portray her as particularly notable, other than getting her name in the Indian press and being selected for the list. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking for you/anyone to "bite" here. If you want to argue against the inclusion of her in BBC list, then this isn't the place to do that. If you have new sources that aren't already covered in the article, then please add them to the article! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Self Organised Learning Environment. She is already mentioned there, and that is where any human interest stories associated with this should be redirected. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge as above. She's included on the BBC notable women list for taking part in an innovative distance learning programme. That's interesting, but it doesn't make her notable in her own right, so merging seems reasonable. As I said on the creator's talk page, I have to say I also don't like creating articles on people for achievements as children and feel it's preferable to wait until they've begun a successful career in their own right. Blythwood (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I also agree with the merge proposal. I am not finding enough content to support a separate article at this time, and her notability is connected to the school.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. There is not enough information to create a biography, nor a level of notability that requires one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 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 06:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innate intelligence[edit]

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

Nominated via a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_intelligence. Since all sources are chiropraxy-related, one can forget about GNG, let alone MEDRS (and the article is dangerously close to making medical claims). I suggest a very selective merge to Chiropractic#Conceptual_basis, extending a bit the summary offered in Chiropractic#Straights_and_mixers ; if your opinion is to merge, please specify its target and extent. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete good lord this article has existed in this sorry state for 11 years. If it is not a WP article by now it is never going to be one; right now it is mostly WP:OR and non-independently source in-bubble nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main Chiropractic article is more than sufficient to cover this particular brand of green-ink nonsense. Whatever material might be truly indispensable -- somehow -- can be put there. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:36, 19 December 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) 08:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AliSQL[edit]

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

No evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources are a couple of sites where one can download AliSQL, and a page on the web site of a business which uses features from AliSQL. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSOFTWARE, not seeing any coverage in the press or technical literature. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only notability it contains is Alibaba else nothing serious to be encyclopedic. Light2021 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising so WP:NOT applies alone, let's use it as we always have. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 19 December 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) 08:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bush Party[edit]

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

I have been unable to find even one reliable, independent, published source to add to this article. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's such little coverage of this subject, at least that I can find, that it's barely distinguishable from a pure hoax. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an old promotional article about a band that no one knew about Layla, the remover (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Oh my God, is this an old article. How has it lived for so long? Layla, the remover (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, this was created at a very different time in Wikipedia's history; there was a time when all it actually took to get a band's article kept was the ability to nominally verify (e.g. via their own primary source web page or a fansite) that they actually existed and weren't a total hoax — but we didn't yet know what we know now about how some people created primary source webpages to "verify" the "existence" of a hoax. WP:NMUSIC quite rightly has been tightened up a lot since then, however, and nothing here meets the standards that apply today. (To answer Layla's question, lots of old articles are lingering around that fall on the wrong side of the inclusion rules as they stand today — but they can't actually be listed for deletion until somebody notices them.) In a ProQuest search, I found zero reliable source coverage to salvage this with; the only hit I got, in fact, was referring to the generic concept of a party in the Canadian bush, not to a band named "Canadian Bush Party". And WaybackMachine appears to have archived only the front splash page and not any of the site's former content — so there isn't even any content there for us to run through the bullshit detector, such as "the band toured across Canada as an opening act for Young Canadians" or some other statement we could empirically test for verifiability. Under NMUSIC as it stands in 2016, there's just no notability here regardless of whether this was a hoax all along or just a local band that never achieved anything noteworthy — if they did exist, then it's not our role to rectify the historical undercoverage of under-the-radar bands in under-the-radar genres if we have to rely on deadlinked Geocities fansites as the "notability" because real media coverage just wasn't there, and if the Geocities fansite was bullshit all along then it's not our role to promote or aggregate hoaxes. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 13 December 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) 08:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Springs Aikido[edit]

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

Non-notable single Aikido club. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG, reads like a a business listing/about our company section and the references are not actual references (in fact, one is a link to the google play store, what is the policy on that particularly when it has only a loose relation to the subject?) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this school. I suspect a COI from the SPA who created this article. Papaursa (talk) 04:26, 15 December 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. Although the nom has withdrawn I can't really close as SK/Withdrawn due to the delete !vote present, Anyway sources have been provided which everyone' happy with so am closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReCharge Collectible Card Game[edit]

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

I can't find any sources other than retailers, doesn't seem to have been very relevant anyways. Layla, the remover (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short lived failed card game with basically zero coverage. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Failed, unnotable game. I can't find any real sources for it that talk about it in any depth, and the only links provided in the current article are defunct. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep per the sources provided by Odie5533 below. Nice work! 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect to List of collectible card games.~~ I found this reliable review about the game (link is only the beginning of the article, rest was published in the magazine). It seems likely to me that CCG mags (InQuest, Scrye) from 2001 ran articles about the game, materials which aren't currently digitized. Previews did run features about the game back in 2002, but I'm not sure if they were all just solicitations or also articles/reviews. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some searching on Archive.org I am changing my recommendation to Keep. Here is a very detailed article by ICv2 on the game. Here is an advance review of the game by author and comic writer Eric J. Moreels written for the Cinescape Magazine website. And here is evidence that Scrye (#8.7, October 2001) ran an "in-depth analysis of the game" and here is evidence that Scrye 8.8 ran an article on the game too. The Cinescape Magazine website also has many other long articles written about the game. I believe the game meets WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Odie5533. BOZ (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great job, you found some life saving things for the article! I didn't think anything could be found, good job. Layla, the remover (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layla, the remover, would a keep from the nominator be the same as a withdraw? :) BOZ (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Odie5533. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ Yes. Layla, the remover (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and Layla, the remover: A 'delete' opinion is supported and hence withdrawing is not applicable. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:40, 20 December 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) 08:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranyal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. 1st AfD attracted no responses. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons above Layla, the remover (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These clan articles are not notable, and hardly have any citations. Fails WP:GNG, must be deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:14, 13 December 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. Clear consensus to delete. Mentions in a google search does not imply that it meets our notability standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson XX[edit]

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

Notability tagged since March 2009. No discussion on ANN outside of a basic Encyclopaedia entry and it being mentioned in a question for "Hey Answerman" (but not mentioned in the response). It was reviewed on a now offline site that is available archived but I don't see anything suggesting it's RS - only 3 articles use it on Wikipedia according to an advanced search. No sings of a license in English or Europe. Entry in Anime Encyclopaedia 3rd edition is minimal and make no comments sufficient for reception. LBGT isn't a subject I have expertise in so perhaps that community will have some ideas. I haven't come up with anything through a general search. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an entry in MADB [4], and the Anime Encyclopedia is promising, but there isn't much to write beyond the dictionary definition. Possible redirects to Ei Onagi who is the manga author but no article there, or Tokuma Japan Communications which is the producer, but the Tokuma article is too general for the company to have a list of works. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite enough mentions of it, while searching in google. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are not a sign of notability, Especialy as the results here consist predominately of user edited databases, blogs and copyright violations. Google is useful for finding leads to suitable sources and evidence, but in this case the results returned are not helpful.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent sources to establish notability. Also I want to say that while google is nice you have to keep WP:GHITS in mind as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in either Japanese or English. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:52, 23 December 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. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwajeet Patangrao Kadam[edit]

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

~~I feel that he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN due to his loss in the election. Although, he has been covered in some reliable sources.~~ Marvellous Spider-Man 12:46, 13 December 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 Augustana Catholic Church. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irl A. Gladfelter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Searches are only providing passing mentions. There's a paid obituary linked in the article that provides significant coverage, but this is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep -- The fact that he retired and is now leader emeritus of this denomination should make no difference to his notability. The question is whether having been the head of what is probably a small splinter denomination is enough to make him notable as a bishop. That really depends on the size of the denomination. If it has only a few churches, this would amount to being the minister of a local church, and probably NN. However, the head of a moderate sized denomination will have episcopal oversight over it and may thus be notable. Unfortunately, the article on the denomination gives not indication of its size. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vote amended in the light of evidence that this is a small (but not negligible) denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Gladfelter left the denomination for Roman Catholicism, I think "leader emeritus" is not the right term, plus he is now dead. That said, per the denomination's website [5] it has a membership in excess of 60,000 in 12 countries. This is way more than the under 18,000 in the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan, yet we have an article on the head of that diocese, over the under 13,000 in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, the head of which merits an article. Take a look at the article on Stephen T. Lane, whose Episcopal Diocese of Maine has less than 12,000 members. I actually think it is high time we question weather the heads of organizations with less than 12,000 members where the articles are only sourced to organization publications are notable. Yes there are Episcopal bishops who receive widespread coverage in the media, but I think it is high time we question weather that makes every current and past episcopal bishop default notable. However I think Gladfelter is clearly notable and no where near the bottom of the barrel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Augustana Catholic Church, where he is already mentioned in the list of leaders. Although he is discussed in on the websites of the several denominations with which he was involved, the only secondary source I can find is an obit [6] in the The Daily Star-Journal, a WP:RS, but for notability I would expect to be able to find some additional secondary sources for his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Good compromise solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm fine with a redirect to Augustana Catholic Church per the notions presented above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Remsen[edit]

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

As the article itself says (!) she only held minor roles in films; not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in any depth. In short, fails Wikipedia:Notability. GRuban (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "know only as a bit part actress" means "no significant roles" which means does not meet the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She had appeared as Pamela in 65 episodes of Tribes. A major role as one of the leading actors in Appointment with Fear. A significant part as Taffi Fisher in Dreams of Gold: The Mel Fisher Story, one of the leading actors in Smart Alec as Samantha. She was one of the main actors in Ghoulies II, playing the part of Nicole. She had a decent part in Two Moon Junction as Carolee. She was also a significant cast member in Pumpkinhead playing the part of Maggie. She also had some good roles in various television series like Family Ties and Doogie Howser, M.D., etc. No problem giving a Keep vote here but I have to say that it doesn't come as any surprise that this attracted an AFD nomination. The article is a shabby mess! Karl Twist (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I would like more than to save this article, but can you find anything more in Wikipedia:Reliable sources than a list of roles? A news article about her? Even some interviews? Honestly, I looked, and all I could find was a podcast interview on some guy's blog, hardly the most reliable or notable of sources. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor roles that go no further than 1995. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when her roles finished or she stopped working. She worked for 14 years from 1981 to 1995. She had more than a good handful of significant roles. The article page has had no thought or organization in it's creation that's all. Karl Twist (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's still a work in progress. From this here to this. I'm far from finished. Karl Twist (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I would request the closing admin let you finish... however, for now, it looks like you're just adding lists of roles, either very minor roles, or moderate roles in very minor films (most of the "one of the group of teenagers killed by the slasher" type). --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, while some of the roles I have added are minor or moderate, some of the others are major roles and she has been female lead at least two films as well as major supporting actress in three others. Three of the horror films have significant cult following and value. Already as a recognized actress in the 80's horror genre (Pale in comparison to 60's and 70's horror IMO, but each to their own), her characters are recognized and remembered. This is why she is included on the bonus-features for the "Ghoulies / Ghoulies II" Blu-ray Review. When this article was nominated for deletion, it consisted of nothing more than a C&P of IMDB listing and just 2 lines of intro about he. All of that was written in a messy misleading way. It resembled something the dog or cat had thrown up on the kitchen floor. Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination, or, if I can't do that since others have opined to delete, then Keep. Karl Twist's work needs to be rewarded; this is now a very thorough article. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 16 December 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Riddell[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for either MMA fighters or kickboxers. He also doesn't seem to have the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to kickboxing or delete as not notable yet. J 947 19:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for kickboxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 23 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Michael Linsner[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The subject of this article has recently been blocked for WP:NLT so I looked at the article and its history. Most of what you see here was not created by the subject, but equally it has no reliable independent sources. The only cited source for most of the article's life has been the subject's own website. There are plenty of articles that offer insight into his career that are verifiable and third-party the mainstream media and press. No doubt he's associated with some notable works, but that doesn't make a comic book artist automatically notable, that comes from WP:GNG, and this is a fail on that score. His depictions of anatomically improbable female pulchritude seem popular with fanbois, but I can't find any substantive sources to add. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, with next to no sources (and I cannot find any), fails WP:CREATIVE. Obviously you have not looked very carefully for substantial work. Just being an artist, drawing some comics (or writing a few books) is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. I find it amazing that someone's career is not worthy especially one being a game changer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that some of the edits in the past are by an IP with similar edits as the named account that has disclosed to be the subject. Note also that the biography is currently offline on their website (404 in my case) and that the website overall is a placeholder for an announcement dated 2013, promising things to 'come soon'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason for the consideration of deletion primarily due to the lack of a current website? The subject has a long (25+ year) career in the comics industry having done work for all the major publishers in the field. It seems odd this entry is in danger of deletion. This is not a case of vanity publishing with no ready audience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acax72 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Acax72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. My first impulse was to nominate this article for deletion, too, but Linsner seems to be higher profile than I thought. For example, his work has been reviewed several times at IGN: [7], [8], [9]. @Acax72: we need coverage by professional journalists in reliable sources. For example, a profile in the Los Angeles Times or The Comics Journal. We need a professional journalist to stand up and say, "Hey, this guy is important. Pay attention to him." Good places to look for stuff like that are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- Yes, a search at newsArama alone yields 53 results of Linsner's comics output, also a few at The Comics Journal. An ebay keyword search of his name under Comics yields close to 2500 listings of published items including comics, trading cards, books, etc. This is clearly a professional with an actual audience out there. Acax72 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to be from a professional journalist who is writing in a work known for editorial control and fact-checking. That means that eBay searches aren't useful. Newsarama is listed on the WikiProject Comics list of vetted sources, so anything they say would likely count to establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I do not feel that this page is properly submitted for deletion. I added an external link to a vetted source The Comics Journal article from 12/2013 titled These Past Weeks In Comics - Tuesdays In Retrospect Acax72 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel that your very first edit was to this debate, and the subject, who has shown more interest in the article than anyone else, was recently blocked for legal threats. Odd, that. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: OK. Having now been cited with a WP:COI from User Talk:JzG for editing MY own page to add links to vetted sources to try and improve it -- I should let everyone know I strongly contest this deletion of my page and I only edited the article to include the following links to vetted sources:

Article on CNN Dragon*Con brings out enthusiasts' inner geek
CBR 9-20-2016 article- HARLEY QUINN #4 (preview) [http://www.cbr.com/harley-quinn-4-2/
CBR 10-19-2015 article- DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #5 (preview) http://www.cbr.com/dawnvampirella-5/]
Search on CBR yields several (12) articles on subject Joseph Michael Linsner http://www.cbr.com/tag/joseph-michael-linsner/]

User Talk:Joseph Michael Linsner (Copied here from talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Le sigh. He just added another WP:LINKFARM. He keeps doing that. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Guy. No, I added that. Not Joe. And it seems that it is an impossible feat to edit or add the links to prove vetted sources. Why is that I wonder? I do not think that this page, with it's history of being on Wikipedia since about 2005(?) should suddenly be in danger of removal. I will point out that you removed my first edits which added the following links to vetted sources:

CBR 9-20-2016 article HARLEY QUINN #4 (preview) [10]
CBR 10-19-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #5 (preview) [11]
CBR 6-22-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #4 (preview) [12]
CBR 2-16-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #3 (preview) [13]
CBR 11-17-2014 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #2 (preview) [14]
CBR article 9-8-2014 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #1 (preview) [15]
Search on CBR yields several articles on subject Joseph Michael Linsner [16]
Search on Marvel Comics Creators for LINSNER [17]
Listed in the Marvel database fandom powered by wikia here [18]
Comic book database - Chronological listing June 1991 to present [19]
1997 WILL EISNER COMIC INDUSTRY AWARD NOMINEE (for best painter) [20]

User talk:Kristina Deak Linsner —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Kristina Deak Linsner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete due to lack of substantial independent sources. I also could not find any valid sources, and almost all of the sources mentioned in this discussion only describe comics the subject has worked on. These sources are not specifically about the person and do not describe the subject in any detail outside of a name credit or brief mention. The award nominee link might be ok, but that alone is not enough. A valid source needs to describe the subject in significant detail.

As for the article being on Wikipedia for several years, Wikipedia is really big, and many articles on Wikipedia exist that should be deleted. If you encounter one, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia does not grant it protection from deletion. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: ZettaComposer (talk) Some of the links do describe more than just the credits of the comics worked on, and include reviews of the comics which describe the way in which the subject worked on them. So do you mean an article with an Interview? Such as the Westfield Comics Interview [21] or else a direct interview with LINSNER here such as this Newsarama interview on the CLAWS2 (featuring Wolverine/Black Cat) ? [22] Several articles and interviews can be found in magazines which are not online, but instead printed on physical paper as the internet was not yet as available to all users back then, nor as popular as it is today.

Aa well there is this article on Illustration Age celebrating him as Illustrator of the week. [23]

And I see there has also been a link added to the page for TCJ - The Comics Journal [24] here. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Kristina Deak Linsner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting that this named account has a COI similar to the subject itself. See http://multiverse-magazine.com/tag/kristina-deak-linsner/ --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Note The Kristina Deak Linsner and Joseph Michael Linsner accounts are Technically indistinguishable.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts on this matter: Unfortunately, as "fans" are logging in to simply read his article, they see the link about it being "nominated for deletion" at the top of the page--and the prompts to comment on the discussion page. Hence, the entires I imagine here to this discussion thread resulting in "Strong keep."

I sat down with Joe and I asked him "Do you really even NEED a Wikipedia page?" and he stated "No, I don't essentially." As it was never authored by him in the first place and hardly portrays what we would like to about him and his career. He merely edited it to include links to more recent works and update his photo. (the previous one was from 2007) Which are the edits he made recently and what started this whole mess in the first place.

Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history. Comic book authors and artists mainly write, draw, pencil, and ink a lot. (Joe even colors his own work 80-85% of the time) They spend so much time behind the drafting table that they don't really have lives which can be reported on via any other source than links to their visual or written work. Which in and of itself, does not leave much time for articles to be written about whether or not they "had a great golf game" or "enjoy long walks in the park" or "what their influences are", etc. so ultimately, we will just accept the decision whatever it is and move on. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not protected, so taking out the edit-request.

@Kristina Deak Linsner and Joseph Michael Linsner: I see you said this earlier, and are repeating this here: "Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history". There is no requirement on Wikipedia that an article that is/can be used as a reference is available online. If you could provide us with definite pointers to those articles (generally: name of periodical, date/issue/etc., pagenumbers), then those could be used to assess notability (even if that means that interested people would need to go get the originals). It does however seem somewhat strange that there is nothing more recent that is available online. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I would also like to add a vote to KEEP this entry up. I'm a fan who happened to be checking some info on comics artists I enjoy and was very puzzled by a suggestion to delete Linsner's page. The subject has been working in the industry (for all of the major publishers in the field ) since the early 1990's. He has done work for DC Comics on Harley Quinn and work for Marvel on Wolverine, 2 brief but very high-profile examples among dozens upon dozens of other assignments for major industry clients. I can not see any logical reason for a deletion here. Acax72 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Acax72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is interesting to see that fans and editors clearly close to the subject/being the subject themselves do not come up with better sources than the linkfarm that is posted above, claiming even a wikia entry to be a reliable, independent source. Being included in a database isn't cutting the deal either. It must become much better than that, hence delete. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is certainly to keep this entry. Linsner has a 25+-year career as a notable writer and artist in comic books, working both independently and for major publishers. He is arguably a major figure in independent publishing. —Jim McLauchlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD99:2170:C62C:3FF:FE36:6370 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — 2602:304:CD99:2170:C62C:3FF:FE36:6370 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank You JIm McLaughlin [25] Please read Jim's bio. He is a journalist for those that do not know that. As was suggested "We need a professional journalist to stand up and say, "Hey, this guy is important. Pay attention to him." by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) I appreciate the helpful suggestion.

Joe's website and his bio are currently under construction which is why you see the 404 error on his bio and the old placeholder upon viewing it. Crime??

And as to the accounts being Technically indistinguishable. If what you are getting at is we have the same IP address? Yes, we live in the same house and use the same IP address and computer. Is that suddenly not allowed on Wikipedia? So many rules to slog through when you are a newbie. I already know better than to ask any Editors or Admins for help -- (see Beetstra and JzG). As I see how hostile they can be by how my husband was treated. This is now bordering on bullying. The conversation which I feel ignited the entire nomination for deletion of his page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beetstra

And a WI:COI for me too? I can assure you that I have only worked with Joe the last 6 years - but if that means I am in violation, so be it. It seems NO ONE can successfully edit this page to include links, or or to navigate through to find Independent sources and add them without being thwarted with some kind of citation from either JzG or a comment of accusation from Beetsra. I wonder why this is? As I said I am a newbie to this and Wikipedia takes time to learn. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: No, that the website is under construction is not a crime. It is at the moment however the only reference that is there (and a primary reference as such), which means that the only evidence we have that something is true is because the subject says so. That is not the best argument, is it? And 'currently', the state of the homepage suggests that it is under construction for 3 years now (it is a placeholder for a 2013 announcement). But all of that is not the biggest issue, the issue is that there are no independent references (and note that an interview with a subject is not really independent - the interviewer asks questions, and the subject is answering, that is still not independent about the subject). That you can buy the comics on e-bay is also not enough. We are not finding evidence for existence, we trying to find what other people, totally independent of the subject, find notable.

Regarding conflict of interest - WP:COI starts with 'Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself', family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships' (my bolding). You sharing the same name, the publishing together (as per the link I provided), makes you closely involved with the subject of the page (you now are saying that you are living in the same place). That in itself is not a problem (as long as it is honestly declared) when it is not influencing the neutrality of the article, and the editors are (more) strictly adhering to the policies and guidelines of this site. And you do have an advantage, which I hope you will use. Being so close to the subject (or being the subject yourself), should enable you to provide us with properly independent references. And as I say in my !vote, such sources do not even come from you (they are all trivial, showing that the books are sold on ebay, and that people have interviewed him, and that he worked with distinguised companies - I can argue the same, that does not give me the right on a Wikipedia article), suggesting that there is indeed not much that has been independently said about the subject. Can you provide such references? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete article Cy-Fi (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Cy-Fi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Copied from talk page by Meters[reply]

Delete I was holding off on my decision while I looked for more sources, but I'm just not finding independent reliable sources to show notability. I'm leaning to "Delete" but I admit that this is not my area of expertise. so it's possible I'm not looking in the right places. I'll be happy to change this to a "Keep" if someone can find good sources, but the fan sites, blogs, and comic previews that we've been shown so far don't make the grade to show the notability of the artist. He's been around long enough that I think there's a good chance this can be saved. We need solid refs about the artist, not about the comic strips he draws. Meters (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - knowledgeable editors are currently digging out some references (which are mostly off-line). I'd suggest adding a bit of time to this discussion to see what is coming out of that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but when the "references" include Wikia sites, there's a definite problem. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The secondary sources just aren't there. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think a misconception exists among some users that a deletion result means the article will never be allowed on Wikipedia. This is not always the case, and definitely not the case with this article (it does not contain copyright infringements and it is not an attack page).

If the result of this discussion is to delete the article, an admin can be contacted to Userfy the page, allowing a person to take their time, get this article updated to the strict Wikipedia standards for living person articles, and move it back into main article space (perhaps through articles for creation which I recommend due to the person working to save it having a COI.) Since harder to find print sources might exist, I think userfication works as a better long-term solution to see if these sources can be found.

I say all of this because many people on Wikipedia favor deletion of these sorts of articles because the initial view is that this sort of article exists only for self-promotion, regardless of whether or not that was the intention by the article creator. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, my "delete" !vote isn't intended to mean that I think this article should never exist. On the contrary, I would be interested in reading it when it returns full of reliable sources, created by an independent person. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hoping we can save this article. If it's just a matter of locating appropriate reliable sources that we believe exist then we should hold off on a decision while the article is improved, or userfy the article if it's taking too long. Meters (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Joe Linsner has done prominent work for all major US comic publishers, including Marvel, DC, Image and Dark Horse. He was hired to illustrate two miniseries/graphic novels starring Wolverine [26] (Marvel's second-most-popular character after Spider-Man), several issues of Harley Quinn [27] (the breakout character from the 2016 film Suicide Squad) for DC, multiple covers for Conan the Cimmerian for Dark Horse [28] and art for multiple issues of Vampirella for Harris and Dynamite. [29] [30] In 1997 he was nominated for an Eisner award for best painter.[31] He has been profiled in and painted multiple covers for Wizard Magazine. [32] I see from the discussion above that some proponents for deleting this page feel that simply illustrating popular characters may not make Linsner himself noteworthy, and that many of the interviews and articles about him are not available online. Here is a list of selected print articles focused specifically on Linsner himself, with links to online scans of the articles:

Wizard #120, September 2001. Article: "Cup of Joe" (profile of Linsner and his work) by Jim McLaughlin. Also, Linsner's character Dawn is on the cover.
- cover, page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5

Capital Comics Internal Correspondance, May 1995 issue. Article: "A Sirius Interview; With Two Sirius Guys" by Tom Fassbender. Linsner's character Dawn also on cover.
- cover, indicia, page 1a, page 1b, page 2, page 3

Sketch Magazine #32, features cover art and a feature-length interview with Linsner. [33]

Wizard #92, April 1999. Article "Red Dawn" (Interview with Joe Linsner) by Jim McLaughlin.
- page 1, page 2, page 3

Wizard #49, July 199. Article "Dawn of a New Era" by Matt Brady. [34]

Wizard - How to Draw Heroic Anatomy, Volume 1, ISBN-13 / 978-0-9818389-7-7
- page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8, page 9

Full disclosure: I am friends with Joe Linsner and hired him in 1995 to paint two covers for my short-lived comic book 'Coven of Angels.'[35] Kristen Brennan (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not sure how much some of the people voting to keep are using the helpful search options at the top of this page, so I'll summarize a couple of things. When looking for reliable secondary sources, usually the best place to look first is the newspapers. There, I am finding nothing for NYT, nothing under the newspaper search, while I find sources under "news", they are not mainstream news - that tells me that he has a great following in the comic book world, but is not meeting WP:GNG requirements for notability because he's not hitting mainstream press at all from what I can tell, but definitely not with significant coverage. There are three items in HighBeam, but they are passing mentions, and not a comprehensive article about him and his career which occurs with people that are notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. In the custom google search, once you look for mainstream news sources + consider the use of independent sources, there is one article from CNN that pops up, again a passing mention.

So, I get why people in the comic arena are very interested in his work - and do see lots on the web - but, they aren't the kind of sources required to prove notability for an encyclopedia article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the artist is not yet notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Henson suggests that while Linsner "has a great following in the comic book world" and "people in the comic arena are very interested in his work," "usually the best place to look first is the newspapers," so the absence of newspaper stories about him means that "he is not meeting Wikipedia's requirements for notability." However, Wikipedia's official guidelines to the most reliable sources are explicitly *not* limited to newspapers - in fact, newspapers are only #5 on the list while magazines are #4.[36] Wizard_(magazine) in particular had a monthly circulation of 100,000 [37], more than many newspapers.[38] Linsner has been widely profiled by Wizard and many other comic industry magazines, as documented above. Kristen Brennan (talk) 00:20, 24 December 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 per WP:SNOW. It looks like this was something that this one group came up with one day, so it could have potentially fallen under WP:G11, but this way makes it a bit more permanent. It's extremely unlikely that this specific concept will ever become notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scare factor (ClosingLogos)[edit]

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

Can't find the proper CSD label so bringing it here. Incoherent text about logos and/or the "scare factor", something Google has never heard of. Could be original research, definitely unsourced, and totally unclear. Yintan 09:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but no evidence to article The Scare Factor should be search from these article Scare Factor clg. ^[1]. Declared dead or else bare link to this article. Sorry abut that. Open Source 2.0 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Open Source 2.0 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly incomprehensible. Sario528 (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, it's gibberish (with an incomprehensible keep rationale from the article creator, above, as well). Someone possibly the article creator has a wiki page (link below) where they want to get a discussion thread going on how much different logos scare them. I also see from the user's talk page that he or she added a welcome message on the usertalk of a veteran editor. I daresay we're dealing with a mental competence issue here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gibberish, although scary logos might be notable, this factor isn't. I'm not sure about mental competence but general competence is a serious problem here. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete 'Tis the season. Also this is in no way remotely salvageable. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't merge Decline afd. 175.158.224.193 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, you said 'keep but don't merge'... and then your only other action was to attempt to redirect it to the top-level article Film. Which makes no sense. Are we dealing with the article creator editing as an IP? I'd be inclined to open an SPI but none of it, none of it makes any sense. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrm Infrastructure[edit]

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

Blatant advertising with nothing but blatant advertising sources, and worse, the advertised accepted it themselces instead of having it reviewed, showing exactly the blatancy. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest accepting against WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. They got into a local newspaper for building five units. Think about it after reading that a few times. That is lower than run of the mill. There is a 32-story building with 100's of units being built right up the street from me. Please, we are not a webhost for every dinky developer. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete per WP:GNG. From my study of WP:GNG, I believe the article passes the criteria. A check on Google.com news showcases lots of news-related references that are verifiable according to WP:GNG. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong. I also believe the article is neutral and non-promotional. Please keep. The deletion tag is uncalled for.Mmesoyaba (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article includes: "Karrm Infrastructure designs and creates affordable housing for Indian developing residential communities with the view of enhancing better living standards and ending housing insecurity across the nation" -- such content belongs on the company's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per WP:GNG. Promotional content seems to have been removed. Besides, there are lots of news references that supports the notability of the write-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krawtani2600 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 December 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. AfD with multiple relists and no objections is treated as an uncontested PROD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Walls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 16:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music1201 had closed this a minute before I !voted[39] so I've reverted the close and have !voted, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:54, 20 December 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. No discussion after two relists (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable music band. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 13 December 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. No new comments in several days so a third relist seems unlikely to be of much use. No prejudice toward a new nomination. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steptoe & Johnson[edit]

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

Fork of deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, written by paid-for editors, the latest of which is working on User:JoeE PPC PubAssist/sandbox (through that editor has disclosed his COI and his draft is not subject to this deletion - I am just noting the general trend). The article has plenty of referenced puffery, but it is the case of Wikipedia:Bombardment - very few refs are about the company, and most of those that are mention it in passing. The company has won some niche industry awards, but it is hard to say if they are serious or given to anyone who pays registration fee/etc. and none are notable and defining. The best ref I see is [40] and it is just a short paragraph in a trade journal, and frankly, all it says is that the company is doing ok, but nothing more. It is not the largest or the anything, it is just one of many mid sized legal businesses out there. Nothing encyclopedic here. Fails WP:NCORP as far as I can tell. Just like the previous deleted draft did. Thoughts? (See also WP:CORPSPAM). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 both are highly competitive rankings utilized by corporate counsel in making hiring decisions (as legal journalist Dominic Carman explains here), definitely not pay-for-play. Further, the firm and its lawyers are regularly mentioned and quoted in connection with current national and international legal, business and political issues, recently including LGBT representation in the legal profession and digital currencies, among other things. Satisfies WP:NCORP, surely as much as, say, Arent Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark412 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — Spark412 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- the company may or may not be notable, but the article fails WP:PROMO, which is a fundamental policy. The content opens with:

... an international law firm recognized^{[by whom?]} for advocacy^{[peacock prose]} in complex^{[peacock prose]} litigation and arbitration, representation of clients before governmental agencies, and guidance in business transactions. The firm has more than 500 lawyers and other professionals in offices in Beijing, Brussels, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, Palo Alto, Phoenix, and Washington, D.C.

Wikipedia is not an office directory either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The vast majority of the sources given are either not WP:RS or not independent of the article subject. What remains is mostly passing mentions or quotes from an employee/partner in the firm about some other subject. The only independent, significant coverage seems to be about the firm deciding to accept Bitcoins for payment of fees, which is a bit WP:1E. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spark412 has done yeoman work in removing the most objectionably-promotional text and adding citations to WP:RS. These are enough to show me that there is potential for improvement in the article and that the article subject is notable based on coverage. Coverage of their pro bono activities added to the Bitcoin stories eliminated my previous WP:1E concern. I am changing my !vote to Keep for these reasons. I would suggest, however, that the "History" section be more fully cited. It currently has almost none, and contains the bulk of the encyclopedic information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I made some edits to address the concerns above. The vast majority of references now are independent, and promotional language has been toned down. As noted in the new intro, the firm is the 93rd highest-grossing firm in the US, per the Am Law 100, the equivalent for law firms of a Fortune 500 ranking. Only two of the top 100 highest grossing are absent from Wikipedia (Sheppard Mullin and Ogletree Deakins). Spark412 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see being "93rd largest law firm" a sufficient claim to notability. The article is still promotional; for example, I just removed this self-cited passage: diff. The lead is still an office directory. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I removed the opening office listing, stating just that it's headquartered in Washington, DC. What remains of the article is independently sourced, and I have trouble seeing how it's promotional. It seems to me that if a company's inclusion in the Fortune 500 is intrinsically notable, than so is a law firms' inclusion in the Am Law 100. Certainly very few of the other 97 Am Law 100 entries on Wikipedia have any more than this one to distinguish them. See, e.g., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom or Crowell & Moring. Spark412 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 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. There seems to be a general consensus that there is sufficient notability for inclusion. That said, the article has been edited almost exclusively by people associated with the business, and consequently has severe promotional overtones in its content and prose. While not by any means required, it would be very helpful and much appreciated for the uninvolved editors who voted "keep" to try editing the article for tone and NPOV. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition Meadery[edit]

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

This is close to a WP:G11 as a promotional article, and is questionable as to notability. Cannot be made non-promotional without being blanked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also apply A7 as there's clear signs of no actual significance and WP:NOT applies, therefore delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the three existing references do nothing to establish notability, as the first is not independent and the other two contain no discussion. But better references exist, e.g. this. Maproom (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Also see previous comment) I've added references 2, 3, 4, & 7 to show notability and significance. 'See also' section now has two wikipedia articles linked to this one. I believe these changes should remove this article from being a WP:G11 promotional article, and is no longer questionable as to notability. I am requesting the removal of this delete inquiry or at least information as to how this article can be modified to be satisfactory. Justindevine (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the creators of this article have appropriately declared on the article's talk page that they are employees of the company, and that their purpose is to promote awareness of mead, meaderies, and this meadery in particular. However, they have provided independent reputable sources (The Daily Courier, Paste, Draft and RateBeer) demonstrating notability as an award-winning concern. The article is not worded in a promotional fashion. It does talk a lot about the meadery's awards, but this talk is well-sourced, and is also the basis for notability. Thus, I don't think the article is solely promotional, and I think the subject is sufficiently notable to deserve a place here. ubiquity (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonably well cited article on a small business which has garnered some awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I love craft beer, I kinda like mead, I am a heavy user of RateBeer, but c'mon, guys, these and a write-up in the local paper are not sufficient to establish the notability of a micro-meadery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per K.e.coffman above. Meets WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 26 December 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 The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis (film)[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Uncited article, which appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:FILM Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I initially thought that this was a hoax, but Variety did report on the books getting optioned. There's also this bit from 2014, which looks to be a press release. However other than that, there's nothing out there to show that this project is really active. Now as far as the cast list goes, that seems to be a hoax, as I can't find anything to show that any of these actors have been signed to the film. Some of them are very well known people (James Franco, Guillermo del Toro) and others are pretty well known otherwise, so it's really unlikely that there would be no coverage of them signing to a film. I mean, del Toro commands a great deal of press based only on whispers, after all. I think that this is at best WP:TOOSOON. This could probably be sent to draft or userspace if someone wanted to incubate it for a while, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Sky Studios#Upcoming - I added references and removed trivia. However, it has not received any coverage since 2013. The cast seems entirely speculative or was added by someone with inside info - there is no coverage whatsoever about who is starring, and these are some big names. It's certainly a notable film backed by big studios, but too soon. It remains a plausible search term. Once it's updated the article can be resurrected from the redirect. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if we are going to redirect anywhere surely it should be The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation as pointed out. There's nearly as much information there already as in our article, missing just the distributor (parent company of the studio) and the date change. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. If the film becomes notable in itself upon distribution, it can be recreated and anything in the page history is preserved. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capalaba Central Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. last AfD was 8 years ago but we now have a better consensus on what makes a notable shopping centre. gnews search shows very limited and routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems pretty notable might need to be kept for another month if no specific source is found then delete. BugMenn (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable is not the same as notable. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Admittedly without a thorough understanding of the notability criteria for shopping centres, I believe fundamentally the article and content has encyclopedic value that could be of informational benefit to a reader. Aeonx (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

could be of international benefit? How? You present zero argument as to how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the usual minimum size is 100,000 sq. meters, and this is one-third of it. Consistency in things like that is desirale. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Shopping centers are not inherently notable and this one is on a small size. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 14 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Tyagi[edit]

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

My PROD was noticeably quickly removed by what I presume to be both an advertising-only and COI account, because this entire article (regardless of anything or anyone) clearly only exists for advertising and that alone, so WP:NOT certainly applies. Also, as the PROD said, it's clear there are attempts to fluff-puff everything to make this seem like an entirely "informative and neutral" article but it's far from that, so with advertising and WP:NOT, it's clear. The awards, once again, are clearly trivial and nothing else would show them to be anything else, and even mentioning them is clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional spam, mentions only in passing, no in-depth sources, fails WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from what I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, I believe Sandeep Tyagi passes the notability test. A search of "Sandeep Tyagi" in Googlenews reveals lots of verifiable references. See results here https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sandeep+Tyagi%22&tbm=nws. Sandeep is a notable entrepreneur known across India and America. The references used on the article are proofs.

Secondly, the article has been neutralized by another editor after the "PROD" placed by User:SwisterTwister. I wonder why he or she decided to place the deletion discussion tag after the PROD issue was addressed. I believe this is rather discouraging on my part. I hope a wiki admin will take a look at this properly and offer the best judgement. ThanksRussiagitaa (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously solely promotional, the above keep was the article creator Layla, the remover (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough in the write-up to get past WP:GNG. I just took a closer look at the references used. The page is also factual and non-promotional in essenseGermcrow (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a closer look at the references, just as suggested, there are no substantial actual references about him. There are a few brief notices of his companies, there are a few articles he wrote, there's his name on his list, there's this self-written bio for an Emerald journal, and there are references about people of the same name who are not him. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 26 December 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jopaul[edit]

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

Although some random IP came and said to improve the article, I believe the fact this was clearly a paid advertisement is far important and a worse sitaution and therefore deletion is needed, regardless of any notability or claims of it, because as the PROD stated, this is in fact nothing but advertising and the accounts involved have all stated it, therefore WP:NOT which is policy applies, regardless of what anyone else calls it. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not written as an advertisement or anything, I dont understand what is WP:NOT , or how that is applicable to this article. This article has greater news references including from prominent Billboard and the artist clearly passes Notability from every respect. So I created an article as I am one of his fans. The article is more over not an advertisement or anything as I have referred many similar artists wiki pages to create this one. So user Swister is desperate here to clear off my article. I dont know why. I am better stopping my article writing just because of these kind of people who are desperate for deleting pages. Godisthebestone (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Its obvious that the account above is protecting it for promotional reasons, and even then this article is about an obscure artist with little sources. Layla, the remover (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. - > Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: 1. Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). 6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Here Jopaul passes not just one but many criteria. So I scream a strong keep. Godisthebestone (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No real sources to speak of, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. ^Avic _ennasis @ 15:26, 18 Kislev 5777 / 15:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note to user Godisthebestone. All the criteria you cite follows an important WP:MUSIC preamble that you are overlooking: “Musicians or ensembles may be notable…” These are not automatic qualifiers but, rather, points to be considered in determining if a subject merits an encyclopedia entry. That’s why we have these discussions. Editors need to assess the importances of the sources. The ones here are mostly junk with little editorial oversight and filled with hyperbolic claims, made by the subject himself, that are not backed up with attributions. Yeah, there’s some smoke and mirrors here. “The Chicago Tribune” would seem important until you check out the particular place where the article appears: in the Tribune’s “Community Contributors” section where users post their own articles. See: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/community/chi-community-contributors-who-are-they-20130624-story.html) . I’ll admit “Billboard” as a source initially had me thinking the subject might have some merit, until one investigates and finds it was written by the same author of the piece that ran in Respect magazine, both with similar hyperbolic language from the subjects own claims. This indicates the Billboard article is not an independent, third party opinion, but instead part of a multi-headed promotional effort. The other sources, Flex and Popular Magazine, openly solicit content from artists wishing to promote themselves. Plus, the charts cited are insignificant, and the fallacy of notability by association argument is so worn out that it doesn’t bear repeating. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding enough to meet notability guidelines.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Note that Chicago Tribune article is not an article but a "form the community" contribution, an unedited, unpaid reader contribution not useful to establish either fact or notability. I am not certain to what extent Respect. (magazine) is an edited publication (as opposed to an industry megaphone]]; the Billboard column is a source, but it is insufficent to establish notability. We need more WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)S[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 West Coast Motors. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perryman's Buses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable bus operator. There are a couple of notable (as publishers) sources but they don't imply that the subject itself is notable. Nordic Nightfury 10:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NN company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN? Peter James (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple independent sources as mentioned indicate notability, according to our guideline; there are probably more sources that haven't been added to the article, such as Transport & Logistics magazine issue 141, pages 14-16 which mentions awards. Peter James (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company West Coast Motors. Does not meet WP:CORP on its own.Charles (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Charles, One really has to wonder how in gods name the first AFD was a Keep!, Anywho fails GNG so better off merged. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to West Coast Motors, which only has passing mentions. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 21 December 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 06:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMolecules[edit]

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

Currently zero sources. There are some hits on Google News, but nothing that indicates notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed notable, eMolecules is e.g. one of the biggest data sources for ChemSpider. But the article is written like an advertisement.--TIB-NOA (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written as an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant delete. I've bought molecules from them before. Probably at least 6.02x10²³ of them! ;) But I can't find enough sources that actually cover the company in sufficient depth to rewrite the article, which is obviously unsuitable as it stands. Most coverage is routine press release stuff, announcements of partnerships and database integration, blog posts and chatter from chemists about their products, etc. This is the kind of subject where an article would be useful, so I hate to delete it, but if the sources aren't there then there's nothing else we can do. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. eMolecules is a great resource for research chemists like me. I use it nearly every day. But I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Regarding the claim above that being "one of the biggest data sources for ChemSpider" (it's actually the sixth largest source) establishes notability, if that's the best thing that can be said about it's notability, it's not notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:03, 16 December 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 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dionisio Pinilla[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO: I failed to find anything to support his role in any show as claimed in the article and his name was added in Tricky Business (UK TV series) and Packed to the Rafters by the creator of this article which is still unsourced. GSS (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references do not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all criteria of WP:NACTOR. References fail to establish why he is notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything to really support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 13 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adé Olufeko[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The article mentions him as American, but there are few sources in google news. I expect notable Americans to be covered more in English media. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep @ Marvellous Spider-Man Respectfully disagree - that is a subjective opinion as an editor. The media (which half are american based) sources confirm his nationality. The article is about an international person. See World News Network reference. Did you even look at the talk pages? If you took the time to look at the sources you would objectively know the user is indeed who they say he is. Rather that put a AFD on the article you should have removed the american references and put into correct category. Eightnisan 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightnisan (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep notable. authority control ISNI and Voice of America reference do it for me. 19:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Mnanonymous (talk)

Comment. After google.com I searched with Google Nigeria settings, google.com.ng , and the only reliable result was from ynaija.com. And the two sources had passing mention.

Social media week is also not a strong source.

Guardian source is not The Guardian source, it's a different website. And the source has a passing mention. Doesn't discuss the subject in depth.

afrolicious is user generated and the link doesn't work. 404 not found.

master plan event is a primary source and the source doesn't cover the subject indepth.Other sources has brief mention.

Voice of America. The actual source given in the article is is a video about other people. The other Voice of America link is a fake site which has no connection to Voice of America.

He is related to Visual Collaborative, which was also nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Collaborative and closed as no consensus. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Voice of America source has a direct interview with him which you have to scrub to. imho which satisfies WP:BIO & WP:DIRECTOR ? VOA uploaded the: cut video found here (editors obviously cant use a youtube link as a source). Other link is a VoiceAmerica link which is not the same as Voice of America. Two different media companies but very legit. The 404 afrolicious link you can find here: https://web.archive.org/web/20161008132429/https://afrolicious.com/the-africas-amplified-with-ade-olufeko/ numerous incoming links to the article subject will be cut. i think all the other weak sources the original editor put in can be edited out leaving the good ones. cheers 09:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Eightnisan
Strong Keep Agree with (Mnanonymous) and (Eightnisan) Usatechnologist (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two are non-neutral votes from editors editing mostly Visual Collaborative and Adé Olufeko, before voting in this AFD. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep medium ---- > article here based on google search WaleFam (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC) WaleFam[reply]
Delete. The article listed above is actually his profile on a fan page for Kim Kardashian. The hyperbolic praise in the language used makes it clear he wrote it himself. There is no other acceptable reference,either. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I comment here because of the sheer dangerous closeness we are to a Keep when it'# clear the sources are still only published and republished or complete with named mentions which are a classic example of overinflation, so it's damning we are actually considering Keep by that alone. We have explicit policies for such blatant advertising PR and this is one of them, regardless of whatever it whenever he was involved with or what he said. As it is, the Keeps above are from obvious COIs. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 26 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doval[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This singer-songwriter does not meet notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO, as he has not received coverage in recent news media Marvellous Spider-Man 05:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry fulfills at least a couple criteria of WP:MUSBIO. Doval meets MUSBIO#2 & MUSBIO#11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pester123 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The page meets criteria of WP:MUSBIO - charted artist. [[41]][[42]][[43]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanesF23 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has not released anything on a major label or chart on a notable musical chart. A radio station chart does not count toward WP:MUSBIO.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary The FMQB Charts cull their material from commercial radio stations, and is a major notable chart. The AC40 chart is not an individual radio station chart as previously stated above but a major music industry commercial top-40 radio chart. Regardless, the subject has been placed in rotation nationally by major radio and thus meets requirement #11 on WP:MUSBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pester123 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All your edits here have been on this subject. I can safely say you have bias. And I should add what these sources really are: an interview (primary coverage), a website which takes directly from his own website, a blog, a local radio chart, and his own website. Hardly meets any standard whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should further note that the other vote here was from an account solely made to stack voting. That is not allowed and will be discredited.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little difference in accomplishment between now and the previous time this article was deleted. The particular chart referenced in the industry trade publication FMQB ("Friday Morning Quarterback") is not acknowledged within the industry as a MAJOR chart (check out the mix of traditional internationally known notable artists with little known, DIY up-and-coming artists) This artist’s absence from any other contemporaneous charts should be noted. And as pointed out, the keeps and comments are from multiple SP edits. This artists existence is mostly social media/you tube/music download sites, etc., and references are self generated or with online publications that solicit self promotion. Existence does not equal notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:04, 14 December 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. "Is likely to be notable" is a weak argument, and the second "keep" opinion does not even make an argument. Sandstein 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Today[edit]

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

this article does not meet notability requirements nor does the article itself actually inform the users about the adventist today magazine Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the concern is notability; and the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia; can this be handled with discussion on the talk page of the article, and Template:RfC if necessary? Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this article does not meet notability requirements, what is the next step?...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~i don’t see why not however the talk page is not very active so but i will put the template up.~~ Jonnymoon96 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i will probably add the speedy delete template since the discussion on this talk page is not happining very much--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonnymoon96: You cannot tag a page for speedy deletion unless it unquestionably meets one of the speedy deletion criteria. Lack of discussion at WP:AFD does not even come close. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope of discussion DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely small number of significant sources available about, rather than produced by, this magazine. Searches turned up only one passing mention in an article about an internal Adventist lawsuit. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- A denominational magazine of a major denomination is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some niche segment. Does not see encyclopedic value except related to known individual. it can easily be merged but due to its promotional intend. Doubtful on that one as well. Light2021 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or wrong forum Since this is a content dispute, the remedy for non-notability is not at a forum to determine if admin tools are needed, which they aren't. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for actual independent notability, listed information is unconvincing, and that's why we take these to AfD as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 20 December 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Oghenevwegba Ogedegbe[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable religious figure, as a search for coverage only results in brief mentions, unreliable Wordpress links, and interviews by him rather than with him. The only link I could find specifically about him is this, but I am unsure of its reliability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever and the only pages edited by that IP have to do with Isaiah Ogedegbe. Additionally, the IP is coming from Nigeria. It's very possibly a self-written article. Snood1205 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take exception to the notion that an article's creator being in the same country as the person the article is about contributes remotely to the likelihood of a COI (though not being in the same country does diminish the likelihood somewhat). Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search results only bring up blog posts that looks like a WP:COI—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish subject's notability and reads like a promotion of the subject. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for articles came up with nothing that wasn't associated with him. I don't know what's to be done about a claim in an infobox that he is known for "Prediction of the 2014 Synagogue Church building collapse" while the body of the article is devoid of any mention of it. In any event, if this is truly what he's known for, then what's he's known for is unverifiable. Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 14 December 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Swiss[edit]

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

Basically most part of this article isn't properly sourced. Results bring up press releases about his EPs or songs and nothing more, thus failing WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources found discussing Yung Swiss including The Times, North Eastern Tribune, Independent Online etc. The article might need additional sources, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. Stanleytux (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided by Stanleytux do seem to indicate passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 20:03, 14 December 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 Deja Voodoo (Canadian band). MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard van Herk[edit]

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

Subject does not possess enough independent coverage to constitute a standalone article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage from the St. John's Telegram [44], [45], which show he was a Canada Research Chair, which at least indicates that he has some standing as an academic, given that right now there are only 9 of them in his field (linquistics) There's also coverage from Mashable [46], coverage of his research in books by other linguists [47], and he gets mentioned by name several times in the context of his band/labels to Canadian rock in this book [48]. My sense is that while he might not be a slam dunk for either of the two fields (though it's more likely that he passes WP:CREATIVE because of his involvement with more than one group), there is at least a borderline notable figure for inclusion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as, regardless of anything, the Professor Chair is in fact enough for WP:PROF and that's all we need. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not an expert in Canadian academics and I don't know much about musician notability, but since it has been raised here, I'm interested in clarifying the significance of having been a Canada Research Chair. I think that SwisterTwister might be getting a little confused with the WP:PROF guideline of a named chair appointment at a major institution (which van Herk wouldn't pass anyway because he is an associate professor rather than a full professor). The website says there are profiles of over 1800 Canada Research Chairs, and that presumably doesn't include any of the former chairs since our subject is not listed. I'm just curious how many of these guys there have been and how notable this is. Does anyone know? EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about the Canada Research Chair. If the subject is a Tier 2 Chair then that certainly falls below WP:PROF standards, because it is for people "acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field". We don't base notability on potential. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, I don't see how he passes WP:PROF. Being cited a few times and publishing some works is business-as-usual. I don't see awards, or anyone anywhere saying he is significant in the field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deja Voodoo (Canadian band). To be fair, this was created at a very different time (2006) in Wikipedia's history, when our standards for the notability of musicians or academics were a lot less well-defined and a lot less dependent on reliable sourcing than they are now — it used to be the case, for example, that primary source verification of a professor's existence on his university's own website, even if it couldn't make the article FA or GA by itself, was enough in and of itself to stave off deletion of the article. But that's not the rule anymore. On a ProQuest search, I get a grand total of 37 hits on his name, of which 30 are about the band and just include his name because he's a member of it — so he doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC on the basis of his musical career, because NMUSIC specifies that if a musician's coverage consists of having his existence namechecked in coverage that's fundamentally about his band rather than about him as an individual, then he gets a redirect to the band and not a standalone BLP (for example, in general the lead singer of a band is a lot more likely to satisfy the conditions if and when he releases a solo album — although there are obviously exceptions at the upper end of mainstream popular music fame, the general rule is that "lead singer of a band" does not automatically constitute grounds for a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band for every lead singer of every band.)
And of the just seven hits which are actually about him as a linguistics professor, I get three hits which are also just namechecks of his existence as a professor rather than being substantively about him, and four hits which are substantively enough about him to actually count for something toward notability but are actually just reprints of the same wire service article in four different newspapers — so per WP:REFBOMB, all four of those combine as one data point toward WP:GNG, not four distinct ones. A Tier 2 Canada Research Chair is not realistically an automatic WP:PROF pass by itself — as noted above the title represents "potential to lead in his field" rather than "already a leader in his field", so Tier 2 simply can't get the same presumption of notability that Tier 1 would get. It just can't be an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough reliable sourcing to pass GNG.
Which, thus, sends us right back to NMUSIC: if he's not sufficiently notable for other things to qualify for a separate standalone BLP, then he gets a redirect to his band rather than a standalone BLP. And, in fact, the band's article already includes a small amount of content about the fact that he went on to become a linguistics prof, so it's not like we would even need to merge much of this as "new" content — the substance of what's here is already duplicated there as it is. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I would normally consider the Canada Research Chair enough, but his associate rank makes clear that this is not the sort of distinction above full professor that we usually consider for notability via named chairs. And his citation record doesn't make a strong enough case for WP:PROF#C1. I'd be open to evidence that he is instead notable as a musician but judging from the above discussion that isn't clear either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deja Voodoo (Canadian band) where a paragraph about his post-performing career as an otherwise non-notable academic linguist can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 25 December 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) 08:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chable[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, isn't the subject of any independent coverage. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I don't think his contribution to the Tiesto album is enough to qualify per criterion #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Ajpolino (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Insufficient sources to build notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 15 December 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 deletion (G12). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 17:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultour+[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotional, unsourced Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only coverage I can find is in this paper which seems to be written by the Cultour+ folks(?). Unfortunately, the lead of the current Cultour+ article is taken verbatim from the paper linked above. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy What isn't copy pasted from above is copy pasted from http://culture-routes.net/council-of-europe/epa. Already nominated for G12. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 13 December 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Masuda[edit]

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

This biography fails WP:ARTIST. As he is residing in New York for a long time, his English name would show some sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does show sources - I suggest searching for "Cusi Masuda" through Google and observing the various media sources that appear, including New Yorker volumes, Locus and Sulfur. I am confused as to how you can claim that there are not some sources when many of them are, in fact, included in the article. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be Reliable sources not primary sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: yes. I know. Do you think the New Yorker is a primary source? Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the new yorker source? Does those sources describe the person in depth. Is there more than three source where he has been extensively covered? And I checked "Cusi Masuda" in the news after your comment. He is a living person and should be in the news. I got nothing for Masami Masuda also. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will unpack those questions from the last one, in reverse.

First: yes, he is a living person. If you have read the article you will also know that he is 72. There is no expectation that a 72 year old performance artist will still be active, and thus covered by Google News, and the BLP policy has nothing to do with that assumption.

Second, I would suggest checking in Google Books, since historical (i.e.: pre-2000 or so) news sources are not included in Google News. If you do so, you will see multiple references to works including him, although unfortunately those core works are not entirely available. One that is, however, is an issue of Sulfur, an extremely prominent art magazine of the 80s, that includes multiple discussions of his work (see here for the index). There is also this work, which references his work being included in the Museum of Applied Arts, Vienna, and a reference to his work being included in the Flaxman Library. All of these things are, in fact, included in the article, which is what makes it so very confusing that you are repeatedly claiming here there are no sources for him.

Third: the standard is not "three or more sources" it is "multiple sources". And, fourth: here.

At this point I am extremely frustrated with this deletion discussion. You have nominated this for deletion, claiming there are no sources, when the article contains three sources - two of them with web links. You have claimed that the New Yorker is a primary source (it is not), claimed that I need three sources (I do not), and asked more questions than you have done homework. You could have asked these questions on my talk page, without nominating it for deletion until you were actually sure the article was not worth including, and treated me as a competent human being. I hope you will do so going forward. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not able to view the NewYorker source. If any other user can access the source and confirm that this painter is extensivelly covered, and fulfills the number 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST, The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums., (as the criteria number- 1,2 and 3 is not satisfied) then please close this discussion as withdrawn by nominator. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You, again, misunderstand the notability criteria. Artists are eligible under both WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS. Simply establishing that multiple sources provide substantive coverage - which I have, through the book and the Sulfur pieces - is sufficient. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he meets GNG and the Gbooks results suggest to me that that isn't even the same person whose work appears in the Museum of Applied Arts, for we seem to have results both for a visual artist and an engineer, who was with or at the Faculty of Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University. I think two people may be conflated here, and regardless, the one in question fails WP:ARTIST. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I understood that meeting the General Notability Guideline was sufficient even if individual subject-area guidelines did not - am I mistaken? (I would be very interested to see the TMU result, not because I doubt you but simply because I could not find that information when initially trying to add sources to the article). Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~He meets neither, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep I seem to be able to find sources (added). Critical assessments of his work by people like Donald Kustpit and Leon Golub and inclusion in the MAK show ought to count for something. WP:ARTIST#1 perhaps: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers, or 4c: has won significant critical attention. He may be obscure or forgotten now, but this wasn't a nobody. Mduvekot (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bona fide references have been found for the artist, not the engineer, searching with the article subject's unique nickname. Striking through my delete !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 13 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuro Kiyooka[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:ANYBIO as he is not properly covered in Japanese news websites in his Japanese name. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick glance at the jawiki article shows he's covered in some reliable sources (Sponichi, for one). And the claim that "he is not properly covered in Japanese news websites in his Japanese name" is demonstrably false. A five minute quick search turned up Nikkan Sports (and a second one) as well as Nikkei. He is definitely notable per WP:N. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is what I did and google news search didn't give enough news sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many is "enough" in your mind? In order to meet notability requirements, a topic needs only two (at a minimum) reliable sources to indicate that notability. I think with all the ones I've specifically mentioned, as well as those already in the article, notability has been more than established here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources that comes in news, If one looks carefully, those matches the content, but it doesn't match the heading of the sources. The news article title was not in his name. I think you are comparing this to some other articles. I know many articles with lesser notability might have missed deletion. If I would have seen them, then nominated them also. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was on the edge with this one cause there is some sourcing, but I agree that it is not enough. -- Dane ^talk 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dane: So how many reliable sources is enough? I've listed four, plus those already in the jawiki article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 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) 08:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Loud[edit]

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

Non-notable blog lacking non-trivial, non-local secondary coverage. reddogsix (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Currently there doesn't appear to be sufficient (or any) independent coverage outside the Pittsburgh city paper article. As such, doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. Ajpolino (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajpolino's comment. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:33, 16 December 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:St Andrews Angels -- RoySmith (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Angels[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY Kleuske (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company status amended, organisation also known as University of St Andrews Angel Network and University of St Andrews Alumni Angel Network. 2.121.214.198 (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization. -- Dane ^talk 19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Hi guys, I'm the author of the article, would it be appropriate to request it moved to incubation? I can undertake the responsibilities to source and include greater references. I have found some more info. in Scottish business publications. I'm new here, so am still getting to grips with how the world of wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.214.198 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify If someone is interested in working on it, then no sense in deleting it. Maybe it can be cleaned up and better sources found. In the mean time, we can pull it out of mainspace. Ajpolino (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and recommend that user:NCourthope review guidance at WP:COI since that seems likely. TimothyJosephWood 20:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems reasonable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 25 December 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. czar 06:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Laverne Wilson[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to meet the level of notability required for an article for political figures, activists, or anything of the sort. ALPolitico (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely anything of notable or substance in the article to suggest even average coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @ALPolitico: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS on this candidate all amount to bare passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 15 December 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Powell[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. I can't find any sources other than confirmation that somebody with his first initial and last name appeared in one college cricket match. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. Has played two first-class cricket matches, the highest level of domestic cricket.Jevansen (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: How do you know? It's not in the article, and I can't find anything on Google. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does say it - "He made his first class debut for Cardiff MCCU against Glamorgan on 1 April 2014." This is verified by the Cricinfo reference provided on the article. Jevansen (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't think university matches counted. I guess I'm mistaken. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, often University vs County fixtures don't have first-class status, but these ones did. Not sure what the determining factor is. Jevansen (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - clearly passes WP:NCRIC and evidently nominated in error. St Anselm (talk) 20:34, 13 December 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.