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 references point to university publications or political history. This reference points to the letter of the President of Estonia Konstantin Päts to the Finnish embassy. This reference points to professor Tiit-Rein Viitso and the accreditation of Finnic studies in the University of Latvia. This reference from the University of Vienna uses the term "finnic states" This reference points to a scientific conference. This reference points to a book from 1911. This reference points to a library trace of a book with the term as it's title (soomesugu). This reference points to prime minister Andrus Ansip's talk in the Finnish embassy. JonSonberg (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Four references don't even mention "Finnic countries", but are about archaic Estonian expression "soome sugu", which roughly translates to "Finnish/Finnic race" and probably means Baltic Finns. And it stands alone, not in wording "soome sugu countries" (as far I can access sources). Viitso uses expression "non-Finnic countries" and Laakso "Finnic states" and "Finnic countries". Both use those words casually, without any further discussion and it's meaning can only be guessed from context. So it doesn't met General notability guideline criteria: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and articles about phenomena are fundamentally different things. Lists just list phemomena to make them more easy to find for readers, they don't discuss subjects. Potentially it is possible to turn current article into "List of Finnic countries", but it would be rather short list and it would require criterion of inclusion, that should come from reliable source, not just be made up. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another casual mention of "Finnic countries" from 1909 book with apparently (I can't access full content) no further discussion what is meant by that. Definitely not modern states of Estonia and Finland as suggested by current version of article, because this segment of book is about prehistoric or medieval period. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia article Baltic Finns also mentions Finnic states in the abstract. Finnic states vs Finnic countries? I don't care but I personally think that "states" refer to political areas inside a federation or union. "Countries" is a better term. JonSonberg (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to write about the Finnic countries. It is unfair to tag an article for deletion a day after it's creation. They operate together in the middle east, they fund finnic and finno-ugric research together, they support the finno-ugric minorities living inside the borders of Russia, they fund joint Finnic medical research and run medical exchanges. Which can all be written about on this page. Then again "Finnic countries" is not the same as Finland-Estonia relations, because the countries also operate independently from one another, but for the same cause. JonSonberg (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before detailed description of various activities of Finland and Estonia we need to identify that there really is notable concept of "Finnic countries" and then that those activities are connected to that concept. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all university research references, the president of one of the countries using the term "soomesugu riigid" is notable enough. JonSonberg (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any expression used by some head of state can be turned into article? How exactly it passes Notability requirements? But anyway, who is this president and where he says that, so we could assess it? If it's supposed to be above-mentioned letter from Konstantin Päts, then could you please provide whole sentence where it's mentioned, because I'm not able to find expression "soomesugu riigid" not by reading nor by word search. --Minnekon (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baltic Finns, which seems to be the recognized version of this concept. I did a search of both JSTOR and Google News, and neither showed anything. Google Books showed a couple results, but I don't think those few results can demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltic Finns article itself says and I quote: "The bulk of the Baltic Finns are ethnic Finns and Estonians (more than 98%), who reside in the only two independent Finnic nation states – Finland and Estonia". Yes there should be a Finnic states / Finnic countries article. And I have also pointed to university references above and in the article. JonSonberg (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One person claiming some fringe theory is totally not enough. 100 articles about this would mean it has some value, but not now when main sources are blogs or forum entries, which are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards (this also applies to your other edits in other articles). – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Estonia–Finland relations which covers the exact same topic that this article aims to. I also couldn't find use of the term "Finnic countries" in Google, but Finland and Estonia have historically had very close relations, and many elements of their national cultures and languages are similar. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be merged as it's a concept pretty much made up by the creator of the article and just has stuff copied from other articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Estonia–Finland relations; although the name "Finnic countries" has been essentially made up by the creator of the article, the concept is essentially merely a derivation of the idea of commonalities between Estonia and Finland (i.e., similar linguistic features, as referenced to in Finnic languages, and associated peoples). Few, if any, significant academic references to the concept "Finnic nations" in comparison to the aforementioned articles. Mélencron (talk) 00:34, 29 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.
Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also, there is no lead and its a poorly constructed article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all For the above reason - but also they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that Azerbaijan performed anywhere near notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:27, 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 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.
Looks like it's been written by paid editor with perfect pic and associated company article at GM Capital. Doesn't seem to gell. Most refs point to trade sites. Possibly fails WP:BIO and the GM Capital possibly fails WP:ORG. Both the articles seem to be here to advance their business. scope_creep (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a PR piece. Everything seems so perfect in the article. His first project is not notable enough to have its own page. I find it interesting that the picture was deleted from commons due to being non-free,[2] then uploaded again the next day, as free use. lbmarshall (talk) 13:04, 31 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.
None of the sources cited are about Turner himself. The only thing in here that could potentially be notable is the tennis, but I can't find any sources to back that up. agtx22:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it should/could be a notable subject but I cannot find independent / secondary references for the significant majority of the article. If someone can properly reference the article it would be good. Aoziwe (talk) 13:45, 22 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I may well be wrong, but I don't feel that this belongs in an encyclopaedia. It seems to be a comparative list of charting products, and it is only referenced to the respective sites for those products. None of them appear to have an article on Wikipedia. One of the companies behind the products has an article (but this isn't shown in the article - the company site is linked instead). Peridon (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the author of this article has several times edited the article about that company that has an article, and that product appears to have the widest specification. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. "Online chart drawing tools" (a better title btw) is not a well-defined subject; if we include any tool that can generates drawings, the scope is way too large. For the record, there is no problem sourcing to the companies' website if the list is exhaustive and the websites unambiguously fall in the criteria for the list, but that is not the case here. TigraanClick here to contact me12:04, 22 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 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. Opinions are divided, and the collective nature of this AfD makes it difficult to discern a consensus. If this is to be pursued further, I recommend individual renominations, beginning with the persons least likely to be considered notable enough for inclusion. Sandstein 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through most of them. A number of them pass WP:POLITICIAN because they were state legislators, but others I saw don't pass GNG either and I'll nominate them later. I kept focused on 2016 at first. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times). Severalpeople of varying political affiliations and levels of influence have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the system as it stands, and Wikipedia is a first (sometimes only) stop resource for people who are researching an issue. If, in a year or so, the relevance has died down, then deletion may be warranted. Dianaramadani (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We don't use Wikipedia to advocate for, say, abolishing the Electoral College. This is a discussion about the notability of the 2016 faithless electors, not a debate on the Electoral College. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suprun achieved notability by going public with his vote in advance; by publishing an article in The New York TImes about it; by becoming the subject of controversy himself relating to his past and the 9/11 disaster and a spotty, if not dubious, résumé; and by being the only known Republican elector to refuse to vote for Trump (the Ron Paul elector chose to remain anonymous; while a mention of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned rather than vote for Trump, is included in this entry). I agree with the above comment that "I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times)." Personally, I would argue to keep this entry and at least some of the others for the time being, particularly since protests regarding this election are likely to carry on to Inauguration Day 2017 and perhaps beyond.
Strong Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the LA Times and Politico write-ups already in the article, which are expressly about Satiacum, you have this ABC news story about Satiacum, this Seattle Times article about Satiacum and Brett Chiafalo, and additional, supporting coverage in numerous sources, including this and this and this, to give just three. Regardless of other notability qualifications, Satiacum meets our general notability standards. Just take a look through Google News.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christopher Suprun - in addition to the very extensive coverage regarding his promise to vote for Kasich rather than Trump, there is extensive coverage of the controversy over whether or not he was a 9/11 responder.
Merge Esther John into the 2016 faithless elector article - no coverage of her as an individual.
Weak keep for Levi Guerra - extensive coverage of her as an individual. However, I'm not sure, per BLP1E, that this is enough to justify her inclusion. Personally, I think that she is notable, but I also have to ensure that community guidelines are followed. There is continued coverage of the legal case involving her and the other Washington faithless electors.
Weak keep for David Mulinix - same rationale as for Levi Guerra, minus the legal pursuing.
Keep - In response to the question posed by @Muboshgu:, I would suggest keeping the entries for Robert Satiacum Jr. and Chris Suprun, and rolling the other electors, Democratic and Republican, into those two entries. Satiacum is noteworthy for his continued tribal activism and for casting his vote for two persons entirely outside the political mainstream, while Suprun is noteworthy for being the sole (known) Republican elector to cast his vote for someone other than Donald Trump. In fact, mentions of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned (rather than vote for Trump), and of the unidentified Republican elector who anonymously voted for Ron Paul are already rolled into in the Suprun article. I have already elaborated above on why Suprun has more notoriety than most of the other electors. My underlying argument, however, is to look at each elector individually rather than treat them all en banc as if they were a single common phenomenon. They are not, even though it was the Clinton vs. Trump contest that brought the different phenomena, and disagreements, out into the open.
Keep Robert Satiacum Jr, Delete all of the others. While I agree with the arguments for deleting the articles on most of the individual faithless electors, as they are notable for only one event, Robert Satiacum Jr is also notable for his radio show "Tribal Talk" and his activism. Satiacum also received coverage prior to the election for stating his plans to vote against Clinton,[6] and as NicholasNotabene stated, his votes were for people entirely outside the political mainstream.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All - These should be component articles in a piece called Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election, not individual biographies. Each and every one is deletable under BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BLP1E, including Suprun and Satiacum, on the basis that other biographical details regarding Suprun and Satiacum are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate their notability independent of their role as faithless electors. Mélencron (talk) 00:26, 29 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google such as 1, 2, 3. - TheMagnificentist06:41, 22 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.
Appears to be an Esperanto semi-translation of the existing article WSPR (amateur radio software). Since the title is not a likely search term on the English Wikipedia, probably qualifies for speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10 as a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Possibly the editor intended to post this on the Esperanto Wikipedia, where there's some existing related articles such as eo:WSJT (amatora radio).--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 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.
Weak deleteWeak Keep I am seeing a lot of sources, but not many that would pass RS, can someone provide some evidence this is a notable journal?Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would reject Bauer out-of-hand as he seems to make common cause with pseudoscience and the book he wrote about Velikovsky, while better than others, does not rise to the level I would like to see in a reliable source. He is too credulous when it comes to obviously incorrect claims such as those offered by Velikovsky. Other than the Gordin source, all the rest of the truly close to WP:FRIND sources are just offering passing mention. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be an association fallacy? Like trying to connect Newton to Occult studies, Nobel Prize winning physicist Hannes Alfvén to Plasma Cosmology, and Einstein to Pole Shift theory? The kind of sources I had in mind directly suggest that Bauer is unreliable, like we can do easily with Velikovsky (eg. "One can indeed legitimately call Velikovsky a pseudo-scientist in the sense that ..", Bauer 1984, and others too numerous to mention), although I am not aware of any of them retrospectively applying that to Velikovsky's earlier work in psychiatry. --Iantresman (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be association fallacy if the journal in question wasn't promoting pseudoscience. Bauer's promotion of pseudoscience makes him a WP:REDFLAG source for a journal that is promoting pseudoscience. If only pseudoscience-promoters seriously discuss a source, we generally rule that this does not qualify as a notable subject for an article at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The WP:BURDEN per WP:CHEESE is not on the person who points out the problem with the source to find yet another source that discusses the source. If the person who writes a book is a pseudoscience promoter, that's simply what they are. We aren't writing an article here, we are evaluating sources. jps (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a horrible article! Not only peppered with Prof. This and Prof. That, but also quite a lot of OR (I really laughed at ref 6) and then a whole load of "references" about an AAAS sumposium, without any evidence that this journal was even mentioned. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find the following independent reliable sources. I've included Bauer on the following grounds that (a) reviews of the book are generally good (b) his views on Aids are irrelevant to his book on Velikovskianism, otherwise we'd have to question Newton for his views on the occult (c) I asked whether Bauer would be an issue, at WP:RSN and others thought not. I also declare that I am under a topic ban, and while I thought that "broadly construed" did not appear to extend here according to guidelines as no part of the article includes the banned subjects, another admin thought that it did, but let it go[8]. I also need to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I sell access to the contents of this periodical via my website catastrophism.com, though I have never made a profit, and it makes no difference to the sources provided. --Iantresman (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Gordin, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, "Chapter 6: Strangest Bedfellows", University of Chicago Press, 2012 (Amazon) Numerous mentions
Waldron, Ann (1980). "Velikovsky Lives!" Science Digest Special, Sept/Oct, p. 94. (sorry can't find an online link)
Michael W. Friedlander, "At the fringes of science", Westview Press, 1995 (Book is considered notable, according to his article)
Keep -- Sure, the subject matter is rubbish, but Velikovsky's views have been much discussed and WP needs to reflect that. It is possible that the article has been improved during this discussion, which makes some of the tags no longer appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It is possible that the article has been improved during this discussion...." No one has edited the article through this discussion. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notability as a journal is not limited to journals that support the scientific mainstream. I'f even argue that there's a special need for good NPOV coverage of the ones that do not, in order that people who encounter them will have objective information about their nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not show that anyone cares about the person, it is meant to be a listing of everything, including many uncredited roles. Capra has never been a director, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 22 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.
In the absence of any references, and in view of the fact that this team is not yet playing, and is not in the MLB organization, does not appear to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. A minor league team that has yet to take the field is not as notable "as any other professional baseball team". An organization's own website is irrelevant.--Rpclod (talk) 21:21, 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.
In the absence of references and in the absence of additional information other than the league (which is not part of the MLB system), does not appear to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to agree with Spanneraol and Eggishorn. My only additional comment is that, even if and when a team is formed, suitable notability criteria must be met.-Rpclod (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes no sense to delete the page of an announced team in an established league. Either additional information will be coming soon or the team will fold and the page can be deleted then. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:25, 27 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 BLP1E and BLPDELETE. This stems from a 2001 lawsuit initiated by Tom Cruise over an article in which the subject allegedly made certain claims. The subject denied having made those claims, and Cruise won a judgement but probably didn't pursue it. It could perhaps be added to the Cruise article, but that's a separate decision—it definitely should not be a BLP. I'm deleting under BLPDELETE because this is a BLP1E; the sourcing is tabloid news or other news organizations repeating tabloid news; and there is no good version to which I can revert. SarahSV(talk)19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a biography of a living person which fails WP:PORNBIO. I have removed multiple unreliable sources from the article, including tabloids, what appear to be self-published blogs, and IMDB. I have also removed information sourced to dead links. What's left in the article is information about his lawsuit involving Tom Cruise. It frequently refers to tabloid journalism such as the Actustar, and there is little information about his professional career -- we have to consider WP:BLPGOSSIP as well. The subject has not received any industry awards or made any "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". There are a few articles included in the article from BBC and CNN, but the BBC article also refers frequently to tabloids and the CNN article is more about the Cruise lawsuit, not the person. Mz7 (talk) 18:33, 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.
Delete - The sources has usual announcements and coverage of what an organization would do in its day to day running rather than anything remarkable and notable to have a Wikipedia article. Lacks WP:RS to establish notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 06:50, 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.
KEEP The article asserts notability based on his military service and career in Film and Television. The article makes several references to reputable sources (and has been updated with additional sources). He is a generally recognizable public figure and an decorated US service member. List of Military decorations based on a post to his personal blog and instagram (added source in article). Military records are not generally publicly available but it is a crime to claim some decorations under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 so it is unlikely the post is inaccurate. I'm sure the article will be populated with more information and sources unknown to this editor. User talk:Delta24519:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE article does not assert notability. He's a stuntman, a bit-part actor, and was in the military. Is that list of medals unusual? How would the reader know? I'd change my mind if it cited WP:RSs saying his decorations are sufficiently WP:PERSON ... richi(hello)20:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the non-primary sources are about his brother Casey Neistat (a popular YouTuber). - TheMagnificentist18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is simply not correct. There are 2 references to his brother on the page and 1 of 13 sources listed links to a specific video brother's Youtube page that Dean helped create. The NY Post source reference gives credit to all 4 people involved in that particular video. User talk:Delta24515:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability as an airman under WP:MILPEOPLE, with a highest rank of captain and...fairly normal awards for a lot of service members after 15 years of war. Nothing approaching the nation's highest honors. Many small roles, but nothing to indicate he is more than simply a working stuntman. His brother...means literally nothing.
A lot of the sources are poor quality: his vlog, his brother's subreddit (which means less than nothing), his IMDB (probably completed by him). A lot of actual sources seem to be just passing mentioning. I'm not finding anything better myself really.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article has been speedily deleted previously under CSD(A7). The author has then recreated the article, identical in every way - including the CSD template - and nothing has been changed. It's an article about a non-notable company and all references/citations are from blogs and Itunes. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt if recreated again. Subject appears to be the dreamings of a kid who just graduated high school, considers whatever it is he is making in his dorm room a "studio album", and who credits himself on his blog for contributing to "the core sound of the genre". There barely anything online besides self-published material to indicate that this act even exists. The real shame here is that he put in all the effort to write a 4k word article that doesn't, and may never have a place on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete/Counterclaim I find the comments listed here to be appalling, condescending, and just downright disrespectful. Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? And by the way, there are LOTS of musicians, entertainers, and people who have pages who haven't graduated high school or have any education at all, so it is inappropriate to diminish notability based on education level. The genre was created by HIM so OBVIOUSLY he is the only one who could have contributed to the genre at this point. To say this article may never have a place on Wikipedia when it has obviously verifiable material when there are hundreds of articles on this website with a substantial lack of information and no sources whatsoever. If this page is deleted for "lack of notability" then it must be brought to attention that this website depends on user contributions and donations (including those of my own) to run. It would be different if this were an invite-only place like HuffPost, but apparently there would be no effort to even create a Wiki page if it were not notable in some way. Who are you guys to say what is and is not notable? Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable. So this page does NOT deserve to be deleted. Timkjones (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am very willing to change my !vote here, but obviously only if there is sufficient evidence provided. I have seen no sources that the WP:GNG - which is the overriding policy for notability of all articles. If you can show me some significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources of course, I will change my !vote. It is solely based on policy and what I have been able to find. WIth regards to the assertation of Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable I would ask you to read WP:WHYN. Notability here is not inherited - see WP:ITSA - we need evidence. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? Yes, that is exactly what I think. It's not a decision for all of time. If the artist manages to continue his fledgling career, and gain significant attention outside of his own social media, there is no reason he can't have an article eventually. But we do not make or keep Wikipedia articles based on our own subjective expectations of a person's potential when that potential fairly evidently hasn't yet come to fruition. TimothyJosephWood13:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Counterclaim This quote from the guidelines: "Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" supports my claim. I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. This article was created to give people information about the artist, which all other Wikipedia articles are. It's not for promotion, this artist has obviously been promoting himself before the creation of this page. This article is still in the making and is continuously being edited/expanded.Timkjones (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you looked at the wrong guideline first - the General Notability Guidelines are effectively Wikipedia's Golden Rules. If the subject of an article doesn't meet them, the article will be deleted. That doesn't mean there can't be an article about you in the future, it just means that as of right now, it's too soon. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from User:Timkjones: I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. shows to me that this is a non-notable topic - at the moment. WP:TOOSOON definitely applies. To be notable, reliable coverage in major outlets is normally preferred. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:07, 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.
Non-notable politician (party functionary) who failed to get his party's nomination for parliament. Non-notable former lecturer. Non-notable newspaper columnist. Acts as an (official?/unofficial?) party spokesperson on talk-shows.
Article was speedied by JamesG5 for failure to credibly indicate significance. Article author removed the speedy against instructions. PRODed by SwisterTwister, "Absolutely nothing here for WP:POLITICIAN." Promptly deproded by author without explanation. Tagged for notability by myself, a tag the author or an IP have removed four times in 48 hours, again without any explanation.
The first three cited sources are written by the subject. Then come primary sources, talk-shows on which he appeared. Finally there are reports that range in depth from merely saying he was at an event ("discussion was attended by", "spoke at roundtable", "who took part") to a brief sentence or paragraph quoting or paraphrasing something he said. It's unclear what makes the author think this guy is notable. Spokespeople for government or companies are often named in news reports. That doesn't make them notable. It's the organization they're speaking for that is notable. Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is an automatic pass of our inclusion standards for political figures, and the sourcing isn't strongly enough about him to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 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 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.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google search fails to find reliable sources for 1950 film. It finds the 1979 film, but that is not the same, and it finds the 1950 film in IMDB, but that is not a third-party reliable source. As a result, does not pass film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found (by searching google/books 'Magroor, 1950 film') this which has the film title, director and year matching the article. Nothing from a reliable source that appears to satisfy WP:NF. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the update. The new source, cinestaan.com, and HindiGeetMala.net both appear to be indiscriminate collections of film data similar to imdb. Because they will include any film they contribute very little to notability. What they contain about this film is just basic film facts plus video or images. No plot summaries. No critical commentary. The third source, memsaabstory, is a personal blog which is not considered a reliable source. A stated goal of the blog is to cover films that have received little coverage elsewhere. Not a helpful policy for showing notability if it was a reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for a helpful reply i just added another link plz do check it. regards
Comment The new link is to osianama.com which has collected art connected to films in a database. Seems to be another collection of every film that has associated art (posters). Inclusion of a particular film would not an indication of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:48, 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.
Delete (and thank, @Peridon:, for AfD). It's crosswiki spam, Ol cswiki deleted. The person is insignificant. + bad name (I'm from Czech Republic), good is Ondrej. OJJ (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. There are three external links provided in the references section but they do not prove the person's notability. The first one is the IMDb database, which is unacceptable as a user-generated source. The second one looks like a fashion page and does not contain anything on this person. The last one is an interview in the Czech newspaper Lidové noviny, which is a primary source. There has already been a severe debate on cs.wiki, where the contributor who tries to push this promo onto Wikipedia has tried to intimidate users who objected against his article with various ridiculous threats including legal threats and was blocked for personal attacks. She has tried to push this person onto Czech Wikipedia for several years (since 2012), using several Wikipedia accounts. She even sent a scan of a British newspaper title page with a photo of this person to a cs.wiki admin, but the scan was photoshoped. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't notable in any way. This article was pushed to Czech Wikipedia using several accounts (namely cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/Audrey~cswiki, cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyGH, cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyGrant and cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyG.Independent (as far as I know the newest account)). All of this accounts has at least one deleted edit which was relevant for this problem. If needed I can publish deleted edits somewhere. The only Czech reliable source I found is [10]. Looking at some profiles in Czech internet all of them was created by somebody with similar nick to AudreyG so I think we can't accept them as reliable sources. We asked for reliable sources several times. Our request was never fulfiled. Only one attemt was British newspaper (but surely it was a fake made using Photoshop) as written before. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is all lies. I proved 2 articles in independent newspapers and 1 on internet. I would like to report and complain that people in czech wikipedia was trying to demolish this article. It is unacceptable, They try to limit my freedom of expressing myself. I consider this behavior as outrageous audacity, Which should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudreyG.Independent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Coverage in at least three secondary sources. (Also a little concerned when the *first* thing a new account does is propose an AFD.)Naraht (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the subject is controversial and the article may readily be interpreted as WP:PROMO, there has been quite extensive debate in recent months with underlying positions by editors on WP:N and WP:V, but the article seems stable now. His company, Young Living, remains active and is controversial itself as a purveyor of botanical products that are arguably steeped in quackery. Whatever one may feel about this man and his company, they are out in the public and attract news and debate. I also have concern that new user Truthbene23 begins WP editing with this proposal and may have other motives for the deletion request. --Zefr (talk) 16:00, 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.
De-prodded with following rationale: "Karen faye is popular make artist she has worked with lots of notable artist and she was in lots of documentaries". However notability is not inherited or transferred. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me14:15, 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.
Looking for Horng Fong gives not a single result which is older than the Wikipedia article, and all (few) more recent ones seem to be based on our article.
Delete - I searched and found nothing authoritative or that appears to pre-date the Wikipedia article.
A text called "The Esoteric Codex: Cryptozoology" which purports to be "curated articles regarding cryptozoology" appears to contain the same content as the Wikipedia article. The text does not indicate whether the Wikipedia article is the source. However, the date listed for the "codex" (9 Apr 2015) is much later than the Wikipedia article's creation date (2 Nov 2008) so presumably the "Codex" article is based on the Wikipedia article. Either that or both articles are based on a third article and then the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation. This "Codex" lists one external link, http://geology.com/news/2008/pygmy-dinosaur-inhabited-bristols-tropical-islands.shtml, which is a dead link. However the URL suggests that the geology.com article was created the same year as the Wikipedia artice. This suggests a hoax. The "Codex" lists one reference, http://books.google.com/books?id=on2ShbwVzp4C, but that apparently is for the front cover and not the content.
Delete as apparent hoax. In addition to the other evidence above, note that this article is the creator's only-ever contribution to Wikipedia, which in the case of a suspected hoax is always a very bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 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.
this article is not notable. there is nothing about it on the german wikipedia despite it happened in the german speaking part of the world. you can also try to test where it ended up with what references and try translating it - arabic, azerbeidschan, armenian. and compare the number of total articles with articles about topics like this one on such wikipedias. a pity if wikipedia would be reduced to report persons hurt by shots. wikipedia is not a "crime database". the perceived motivation, in this case disliking a foreign culture, should not be used to construct notability, and enter the incident into wikipedia, and with it make it notable, a notability it would otherwise not have. the text as well is really crap quality, mixing up guyana with ghana, dübendorf with uster, and so on. also the cited german media are of low quality. to give you another example: a year ago a turkish person killed 5 persons. it was reported in newspapers, sources with right tendecy critised that the case was "made smaller" by the newspapers. if you search for "blutbad würenlingen" you find many references, from notable newspapers as well. these notable newspapers would report with one or more articles about every single crime where persons die, at least in switzerland. the main difference is that donald trump woke up in the morning and decided "ah this one might be about foreigners, lets tweet about it". wikipedia does not yet have a criteria "made notable by donald trump". we have our criteria, not the ones of donald trump. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously I'm partial, since I wrote much of the current article up to this point. The murder and shooting in Zurich obviously isn't the biggest news story of the day, but it did get picked up widely and I think there is value in recording what happened for present and future interested readers. Obviously, the NYTimes, Guardian, USA Today, CNN, and others in the international press thought so as well. Would it have been as big a story without the coincident timing and terrorism fears? Perhaps not. Though with only 41 murders per year in Switzerland (2014 stat [13]), and even fewer mass shootings, this event was always going to attract a lot of local attention. We can't cover every crime, but Wikipedia is not paper and we can cover a lot of crimes, provided reasonable sources are available (as they are in this case). Dragons flight (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On its own this would be a relatively low-key shooting, as these things go, and probably on the border of WP:NOTNEWS. But the coincidence with the other attacks of the same day, and their linking by such figures as Donald Trump, have led to the shooting receiving international media attention. This probably merits retaining an article, if only to allow readers to assess this case in context with the other two attacks. Sandstein 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is a dependable way in which Wikipedia decides whether the larger socio-political context renders otherwise routine events notable, and that is whether they receive coverage in reliable sources, which this seems to have. The German Wikipedia is also less than half the size of the English, and so lacks many many articles that we have here, with no bearing on whether we should delete a few million English articles to better achieve parity. TimothyJosephWood16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It is an unquestionably notable topic. The nominator does not cite any actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines that would give a precedent to delete the page. Ceosad (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename - With some investigation, this is just a person with mental health issues and not much else. If indeed you want to keep it because of the one day's numerous events, I'd suggest this does not amount to a "Zurich attack" and instead call it the "2016 Zurich Islamic center shooting" or something more in line with the scale of this event's significance, which is not much. -- Fuzheado | Talk12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the name is somewhat problematic. However, I'm not sure what to change it to? Focusing on just the shooting in the title, ignores the murder. Also, none of the sources have identified the suspect as having any documented history of mental health issues. The police have naturally said that they are looking into the mental health of the suspect, but they haven't actually confirmed any current or historical mental health issues. Dragons flight (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
now i find the contents now less sensationalist, and the quality greatly improved. i do still not like the title though, tbh. "3 wounded in zürich islamic center" would be something which comes much closer to the facts what made it go through the media. i agree that 20'000 murders occurring in the world per year is not a good argument that this one should not be in wikipedia. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Sandstein's comment might have seemed justifiable at the time of the attack, but as it's clearly fallen out of public discourse since then, there's at least a degree of recentism involved in the judgement of this single attack as notable. Mélencron (talk) 00:29, 29 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 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.
Does not seem to meet any notability guidelines and seems to be an autobiography. The page creator removed the CSD template put by another editor, which was restored, but an IP address removed the CSD again, so here we are at AfD. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would suggest a XfD here. It reads like an advert, which should be treated accordingly per this policy. Also, there is no attempt to establish notability, and there are no secondary, reliable sources. The only sources I have found on google, are mentions of him - like [goo.gl/K1l4jy | this]]. There are no reliable sources that are about him, as is required. It therefore fails WP:BASIC, and should be deleted.TheMagikCow (talk) 12:07, 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.
Subject of the article fails notability requirements for biographical articles, having no sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. He was outed, and killed himself 3 months later, with no coverage before or after. Additionally fails notability for WP:CRIME due to never been convicted and the actual law violated not even established. Wikipedia is not a pillory for shaming of individuals. There have been several articles in the past just like this one and all have been deleted. Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was in a report on ABC7 in November 2012, and english national newspaper The Daily Mail wrote an article covering his death in mid-2013 (Which was under suspicious circumstances as stated in the article), 3 months after he died, so saying there was no coverage before or after his death is untrue. There was also lot of local and national sources inbetween these dates. Passes WP:GNG because he has had coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events for 2 years AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain what you mean. Are you saying this article might have met GNG, but it's a biography so GNG is not enough, and it has to meet BIO criteria?Legitimus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For this discussion, primary sources are the contemporaneous journalistic sources. Secondary sources would be academic journals or independent books written years after the fact that really examine details; none of those exist for this subject yet. The subject therefore meets GNG but not BIO. So far as I know, any given article would only have to meet one or the other. If there was a consensus that biographies had to meet BIO then huge subjects including Kim Kardashian wouldn't be notable anymore. (Except for maybe NACTOR there's not a criterion beyond GNG she could pass.) I totally support that interpretation but that's not what I've seen the consensus to be. I don't intend to take a position on this nomination for that reason. Chris Troutman (talk)08:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on that and the fact that complying with the rule would make Kardashian no longer notable sounds completely reasonable to me, and is rather telling about modern culture. In my opinion some people are best ignored and forgotten about, which I confess informs my opinion on this article we are discussing (as well as the ones like it before that were deleted).Legitimus (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to close this as delete but I felt compelled to also highlight WP:ONEEVENT. I see no WP:LASTING consequences to this event that would preserve this individual's notability in a wider context. Mkdwtalk17:42, 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.
Does not appear to be a notable academic. A search failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. However, as the subject of the article is from Pakistan, it is possible that sources might exist in Arabic and Urdu; if such sources are found, please ping me. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/weak keep. (1) Formerly Head of the BBC Pashto Service - citation. Non-English sources seem more likely to be found in Pashto than in Arabic or Urdu. (2) Claims of academic importance seem to rest on this paper, written in collaboration with the two people who did the work. I don't think it adds anything to notability, which if there is any derives from her broadcasting career. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 11 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.
Non notable neologism. Google searches only find 26 hits - almost all by a single author. Facebook, linkedin, blogs, mailing lists but no significant coverage in reliable sources. No hits on google scholar. noq (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a term only used by one person who I suspect is involved in the project referred to in the Decca Chronicle article - it does not appear anywhere else without the Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy name being mentioned. Only 26 google hits make it unlikely to be used by anyone else. noq (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think its just an application of Hydroculture where plants would be grown using water only and would have some floating devices along with them to enable floating in larger water bodies. Pinging editors who might help here @Shyamal and AshLin: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:19, 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.
Keep: The British Museum reference in the article says "Description: A woman's blouse, a 'chaubandicholo'". Even conjecturing that some translation misunderstanding had been introduced in that acquisition, Google Books is returning quite a number of snippet views discussing this garment. (See also this book page discussing cultural significance.) These indicate some potential for expansion and seem inconsistent with the "Obviously made up by the creator" suggestion in the nomination. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good nomination, but I think enough authoritative sources exist to make this notable. They are difficult to find however because apparently a popular musical group uses the same name. I edited the article and added some sources.--Rpclod (talk) 22:37, 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.
Delete - well-written article, but there a zero references, let alone any authoritative references. Nothing suggests that this subject is actually notable.--Rpclod (talk) 23:51, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable film. Article was created before principal photography commenced. Therefore fails WP:FILM. A Malayalam movie with a similar (not same) title and an entirely different cast and crew was made later. Most of the references are bogus as well. Nothing has been heard of this movie since 2011. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:01, 6 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.
Unsourced article on a very obscure locality for which I can't find any reliable sources. Can't even identify where it is – the location details given ("west of Springburn, south of Balornock and to the north-west of Barmulloch") contradict each other, and bear no resemblance to the coordinates either. Jellyman (talk) 12:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reliable independent sources are cited, and I did not find any to add. Most mentions are blogs and other sites run by Esperanto fans, but none of them seem to have the features necessary to make them WP:RS, and none establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect. This article has no sources whatsoever, and barely any content, it makes eminent sense to restore it to a redirect as it was previously unless and until a proper article with proper sourcing can be developed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems emininently sensible for Wikipedia to define what this is. Redirecting to List of primary statistical areas of the United States doesn't make sense to me, because that is a list of all bluelinks linking out to articles about the statistical areas. Clicking on one of them randomly, i find that the Hartford-West Hartford one redirects to a section in a Greater Hartford article that gives detailed information about the statistical area. I would not object if someone wanted to create or develop a similar section in the Seattle metro area article, and redirect this to there, but they can do that without having an AFD. Or someone could develop this more. A 4.2 million population area is important. --doncram23:44, 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 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.
Article does not establish notability under WP:COMPANY. References are not to secondary sources and content only serves as advertising. Some content is cut/pasted from another site. Company logo uploaded to Wikimedia by article creator is possibly also a breach of copyright. Parkywiki (talk) 23:05, 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.
I still confirm my PROD here as any "existing news coverage" is not actually staying how and why it would amount to actual notability and whrther or not it's simply entertainment gossip news. SwisterTwistertalk17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple apparent Turkish-language sources but I can't evaluate WP:RS or independence of said sources. WikiProject Turkey seems basically dead, is there any other measure to reasonably attract Turkish-language experts to this discussion? Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)02:02, 30 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.
Delete The comparison with Ke$ha aside, AllMusic.com and iheart.com are not suitable evidence of notability. Neither is a reference to a high school's web page, nor is the assertion that he is a "future writer". Once he has become notable, we can have an article on him. Nothing here demonstrates that, and as a Google search conveniently turns up only one result— this very Wikipedia article— I only find myself wondering why this didn't get yanked as a CSD under A7. KDS4444 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD(A7) - Once again, repeated deletion of a CSD template by a page creator has led us here. No reliable sources, all self-published or don't even mention the subject of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 22 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. If more information becomes available that better shows notability , then an article can be started in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources can be provided, usually with no problem. But why would the fact that his award not being the highest award be relevant for deletion? The Purple Heart is not the highest award in the US but if a soldier received it because he threw himself on a grenade, losing his life to protect the lives of fellow soldiers or civilians any less heroic? Just something to think about. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Postcard Cathy - That sounds like an issue for WP:WikiProject Military History. There are probably tens of thousands of acts of heroism in the armed forces of the world in a given year. We have to have a standard of who is and who is not notable. If the soldier in question received the Medal of Honor for the act mentioned above, he is notable and gets his article. We can change the guidelines, but, for now, they are the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that. But for now, I would like put this discussion on hold to see if anyone can find out why the original editor thought he was wiki worthy, incorporate it in the article and source it for good measure. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this before passing judgement Hello, I'm the original author and very new to wikipedia (please don't hate!) H.G.V. Roberts in my opinion is wiki-worthy and I have a mountain of information I'm starting to publish - remember the information we are sourcing is dating back over 100 years. Not withstanding his Military Cross (which is the 3rd highest honor and on its own shouldn't preclude him from being considered notable according to wikipedia policy) he also received numerous other awards I'm currently researching for citations for in the London Gazette. Colonel Roberts served across both WW1 and WW2 and was the Commandant of the Small Arms and Mechanisation School, Ahmednagar, India during WW2. Colonel Roberts was killed during WW2 but the cause at this stage is still a mystery, we have a date but not a cause - we are still actively researching the events around his death. We have had confirmation from London that his WW1 service records were part of the famous 2-million records burnt in London during WW2 as a result of the bombing campaigns of Germany, however I have managed to track down some that survived and have a researcher in London at the National Archives assisting us as well. His WW2 records are classified as "secret" and we have applied to the Ministry of Defence in the UK to have them released, however this is a very lengthy process to go through and can take up to 18-months. Aside from his military career other points of interest worth noting is he studied Theology at Kings in London where he gained the Jelf Prize for Dogmatic Theology, Wordsworth Prize, and Barry Divinity Prize. Colonel Roberts originally wished to pursue a career in theology and aside from his studies he was a part-time member of the Territorial Army with the Middlesex Regiment. During his early years his father died of unknown causes. Following his Father's death and at the outbreak of WW1 he was mobilised from the Territorial Army for service in the Egyptian theatre of war, then served on the Western Front where he won his Military Cross as a Captain, followed by additional M.I.Ds awarded twice for action on the Western Front while attached to the Machine Gun Corps. Towards the end of the Great War he was Officer Commanding 40th and 30th Machine Gun Corps. The Machine Gun Corps was the foundation for the new mechanised fleet of moving heavy guns (tanks), and during his service with the the Machine Gun Corps Colonel Roberts helped pioneer the use of the early tanks and was a founding member of the Royal Tank Corps. During WW2 he served in various senior headquarter and officer-staff appointments for the Royal Tank Corps including Commander and his final posting at the time of his death was Commandant of the Small Arms and Mechanisation School, Ahmednagar, India. Can feedback please be provided here as to whether this person would meet wikipedia guidelines, I'd hate to go to all the effort of publishing a page, adding images, citations, awards etc. for it to just be deleted. I want to contribute to the community based on this research we are conducting on this Officer and the role he played across 2 World Wars but won't publish it on wikipedia if it's not welcomed. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwallace50546 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) The General Notability Guidelines require Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources. Contrary to what people often say, it is not that difficult to find this sort of coverage - I've been able to locate reliable sources from the 1850s, after all - and the information would definitely be available from the WW1 & WW2 periods. I'm a member of the Military History WikiProject and I need to point out that there are strict notability criteria for Armed Forces Personnel - in this specific case, Horace Roberts would have needed to be at least Brigadier rank, or to have earned the Victoria Cross, to meet these guidelines but that can be overruled if it can be shown that the General Notability Guidelines are met. What I suggest is that you (straight away) copy this article to your Sandbox and continue to work on it there, and then submit it for review when you're finished. In its current form it's definitely eligible for Speedy Deletion and that can happen at any time without warning. The article doesn't mention a lot of key facts and it definitely will need citations and references (they don't have to be Online sources, they can be published books for example). As a further suggestion, once you've saved the article to your sandbox you might want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history - you'd be able to post a request there for assistance with your article and I've always found the editors there to be very well-informed and helpful. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete Thank you for explaining things. Now I understand the process better, I'll leave any page regarding H.G.V Roberts off wikipedia. There are many reliable sources that cite facts supporting what I have explained above and more (e.g. London Gazette, National Archives etc.), however it seems to me as though this could become an extremely bureaucratic and painful process to have anything published or agreed upon. I'll leave that to others as it's certainly not my domain of expertise.
Comment - don't be so hasty! Yes, it might seem bureaucratic & painful at times but with a bit of work, you should be able to produce a well-rounded article for submission. Don't give up at the first hurdle - I've had articles deleted before & I'm still here! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I second @Exemplo347's comments here. I notice that this is your first Wikipedia article and existing frequent editors, at least in principle, try to be supportive and welcoming. Major/Brevet Colonel Roberts almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria of distinction required for an article of his own unless your research at the MoD yields fruit that ultimately is published. (I note that the London Gazette states that Roberts went on half-pay while remaining employed in 1937, implicitly within the MoD, supporting your contention). While an M.C. is an award of great distinction, I note that fully half the majors in the R.T.C. in 1930 had been awarded an M.C. (though I fervently hope that neither of my sons is ever in a position to earn the equivalent of an M.C.). Furthermore, I could find no other coverage of the man in non-military sources that give any indiction of distinction. Anyway, please don't feel discouraged. Find another article idea, take a look at the WP:GNG guidelines, research your cited sources (which don't need to be online!) and start typing. For instance, you could add to the existing articles on the Royal Tank Corps of the inter-war years. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for an article to meet the general notability guideline and have an article. At present this article has just one citation to a primary source. As a colonel awarded the Military Cross, he also falls short of WP:SOLDIER, as he was not a general officer, did not command a division or formation of similar size, and was not awarded his country's highest award (VC/GC) or receive multiple awards of the next highest (DSO?). By all means, keep looking for reliable secondary sources, but on face value, he doesn't meet the GNG. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Exemplo347 that if there is a basis for his notability, the article should be worked up in a sandbox before bringing it in to mainspace. As it is now, it doesn't seem to be even a close call. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:49, 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.
Keep I don't know how we can any longer call the article creator an WP:SPA when he's clearly branched out to write about notable (in my opinion) American tech startups and Internet entrepreneurs with no relation to one another, other than perhaps that they have been incubated in the Boston area. Why would we want to discourage this with WP:BITEy behaviour? Plus, this isn't an example of WP:PROMO, it's a neutrally well-written article. And while Philo is hardly a household name, we do have enough coverage to meet the criterion of multiple reliable sources, in my opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article meets WT:NOT, WT:ORG, and WT:RS. @SwisterTwister: are you also suddenly going after all my pages? How is this an advertising campaign? Please, I encourage you to show good evidence. You have provided no argument whatsoever. How is this article "clearly" part of an advertising campaign? Andresramon (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Comment - Simply for the sake of this AfD, I will state that an article caring to specify its clients in the first sentences and with its company activities is clear advertising and it gets worse when the PR award is listed, followed by the PR sources. WP:NOT is therefore violated because all of this is only suitable for the company website. SwisterTwistertalk23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course you are gonna have PR as listed sources --- why are there so many NYT articles cited in wiki? Why is it that a link to NYT is placed at the top of an AfD? These are reliable sources that are used over and over again to show notability and encyclopedic content. Now tell me, @SwisterTwister: how is Foursquare's first sentence any different? I'll copy and paste it: Foursquare is a local search-and-discovery service mobile app which provides search results for its users. By taking into account the places where a user goes, the things they have told the app that they like, and the other users whose advice they trust, Foursquare provides recommendations of the places to go to near a user's current location. The first fragment describes what it is, a search-and-discovery service mobile all. It then states what it does for the user, to use your phrasing, the "clients", with the phrase by taking into account the places where a user goes" ..etc etc. Now, just like Foursquare's first sentence summarizes what it is, so does the Philo's first statement. I have now, changed the first sentence to seem even less than Foursquare's. In fact, it just barely contains the necessary information for a reader to skim.Andresramon (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Delete. Promotionalism is all by itself a reason for deletion. A $20 million internet company is very unlikely to be notable, and in fact, there are no substantial sources. As for Foursquare, see WP:Einstein. Someone writing an article on a very minor company who thinks it compares it with a leader in the field shows a lack of proportion that typically goes with promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now at 14 references total including NYT, WSJ, and Forbes, compared to seven when nominated. Toned down overall. Now fairly run-of-the-mill for a mid sized tech company. When founded, who invested, what they do, etc... TimothyJosephWood16:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the company has not achieved anything remarkable so far apart from raising money and planning to "complete the integration of streaming service, HBO Go by January 2017". Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable tech startups even if they get WSJ to write about them. See WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A significant part of the article focuses upon funding, which some view as promotional, so this is a bit of a weaker keep. More information about the company itself, and its previous incarnation as Tivli, as reported in reliable sources, would improve the article. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. North America100007:24, 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.
I am not that familiar with YouTube personalities these days but he does appear to be a popular YouTube personality, with over 3 million subscribers on his main account. However, despite an extensive search using both his real name and his online handle, I was unable to find enough significant reliable coverage specifically about him. Pinging Reddogsix who had earlier tagged the page for speedy deletion. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew04:12, 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.
Spectrum magazine is hardly a notable resource almost all of the sources link to the website also spectrum magazine does not get much coverage Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well first off i am thankful you are here to discuss this
since there is not much discussion i will probably add the speedy delete template--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum As a split from another article, a notability concern for this topic does not need admin tools; and as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions at AfD should be moved to a proper forum. Note that the fourth snippet in WP:BEFORE D1 Google news is from the Washington Post in 2015 and states, "...the independent, progressive-leaning Adventist magazine Spectrum." Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 28 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just a dictionary definition, falling foul of WP:NOTDICT. There are encyclopedic topics already for embryo and larva; apart from those, there's nothing to say beyond what Wiktionary can do better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a dictionary definition and shouldn't be deleted on those grounds. There may be an argument that this article's content overlaps with other articles and could be or should be merged elsewhere, but I'd like to see a specific proposal first. Peacock (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with substantial expansion, but the topic of juvenile organisms as distinct from embryos and larvae is worth an article. Admittedly this might predominantly consist of summaries with pointers to more in-depth articles. Interesting avenues would be, e.g., neoteny; post-fledging/pre-moult stage (particularly crucial in seabirds); usage and distinction of immature vs juvenile; etc. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 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 rename. This discussion really should have been closed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro. There was consensus to merge that article with this one, so that's what's going to happen. I see appetite for a merger here as well, which if anything strengthens the consensus that was found in the other discussion. It has been pointed out that the merged article would need a new name, so I'm going with Cuba under Fidel Castro, as it seems that name hasn't been objected to. If someone feels it necessary, further discussion on a new name should take place as a(n) WP:RM, and further discussion regarding the merger should take place on the talk page. --Tavix(talk)17:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main Fidel Castro article may well have to be trimmed as it makes its way towards FA. The other articles constitute a place for any extraneous information. I think that they should be kept, although a merger might well be in order. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 5 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.
Non notable mobile app. Recently launched and sourced to what reads like the same press release. Google searches not finding anything that would establish notability. noq (talk) 13:58, 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.
Comment No harm in moving the article to a draft. Unfortunately, the Spanish article isn't of much use, since it too includes no sources. The subject may be notable, but after poking around online, if they are, it's probably in non-English sources. TimothyJosephWood14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think you may have only been searching using the Latin alphabet. When you search for Абрам Владимирович Пинкензон, a great many sources present themselves, including a medium length and medium-well-sourced :ru: Wikipedia article. I've added the interlanguage links to the article - five wikipedia articles in other languages exist. I will try to check the Russian sources and copy them over to this article in the near future. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One also needs to search under the diminutive name "Муся Пинкензон" as this was the name by which he was referred to in most of the Soviet publications as well as many of the modern Russian sources. The Soviets often used diminutives for younger heroes and full names for enemies (e.g. "Brave little Donnie Trump" versus "the class traitor and blasphemer Donald Frederickovich Trump"). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspected it was a language issue. Good job to Fiachra10003 for following up on that. I suppose though that I'll note I'm !voting with an admitted bias that, if we are discussing a moderately well sourced article on a topic approaching a century old, the subject is likely notable, because otherwise we wouldn't know it existed in the first place. TimothyJosephWood13:47, 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.
Delete as trivial and unconvincing sources with trivial and unconvincing I information, none of which amount to actual substance, hence deletion is the solution. SwisterTwistertalk23:03, 6 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.
Delete. Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The article claims that "the album reached heavy rotation on American and Canadian College Radio stations in 2001, and received critical acclaim from radio and print in North America as well as Europe and Australia", but fails to provide any reliably sourced evidence that any of that is true — and on a ProQuest search, the only hit I get for their name at all is a concert listing for them playing Toronto's Free Times Café in 2001...which is right when the album was reportedly rising on college radio, except I live in Toronto and it's not a "rising stars of college radio" sort of venue. (If you're looking for klezmer, though, then there's your nirvana.) And for sourcing present in the article, what we have to show is blogs right across the board — of which the only halfway reliable one is Torontoist, wherein we learn that they got double-booked at a bar in Fredericton with an AC/DC cover band in 2006: again, not a thing that happens to "stars of college radio", because even Fredericton has a "notable indie bands" bar that isn't the same place as the "AC/DC cover bands" bar. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any band is entitled to an article just because they exist(ed) — reliable source coverage, properly supporting a claim of notability that passes WP:NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 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.
This was a redirect to Nationalization for about five years. Then an IP created this unreferenced article that is little more than a definition with an edit comment that the redirect was "improper". The lead does say that Deprivatization is also called Renationalization (which is covered in Nationalization). I don't see anything improper about redirecting to a much better article. This article should be deleted/with the original redirect restored. MB04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to nationalization. As pointed out, renationalization is talked about at nationalization. The current article offers it as a synonym for deprivatization. I found some usage of the term deprivatization but again, for the same concept as renationalization. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:17, 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.
Weak keep, or at very least merge (see below). Definitely has significant coverage, but some of the articles are really shallow in content (Elle, NY Times). Others are more about "Pop" or "Suki" or both but not their fashion brand explicitly. And then some, such as the Vogue article, have depth on the company. It isn't worth deleting outright but there is a question of whether the company would be better covered in one of the designer's articles. As for now, I see enough sources to write at least a small article, but a merge might be a consideration if no more coverage is to come. czar02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Vogue source is the best coverage, there isn't enough. Not only is it not in depth--it's basically an advertorial for their handbag. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Vogue is the best coverage, it doesn't mean it's the ONLY coverage. Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.[26][27]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.[28][29]. The other sources shouldn't be disregarded, but they just don't have much depth to offer. It could be covered within due weight in a parent article, but the question is then whether it belongs in the separate Poppy or Suki articles, and I wager that it (1) fits best in neither, and (2) has enough coverage to stand on its own as a company article rather than shoehorned into one of the aforementioned founders' articles. Unless the four sources mentioned above now count for nothing, we should be discussing merger/redirection (and not deletion) as a minimum. @DGG and HighKingczar20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The item in Vogue, as I mentioned, is basically an advertorial for their bags. The item in the Sunday Times is written in such a tone that nobody could take it seriously as a source for anything. To call it an advertorial would be an unjustified compliment. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (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.
Redirected to Mendiola massacre. There's no need for additional discussion on this, as it was a wholesale copy-paste of that article. Now can anyone close this discussion because I don't know how to? Thanks! –HTD02:22, 22 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 WP:PROD rationale that the nominator confirms here says "GoogleScholar ... found nothing". A click on the spoon-fed Google Scholar search above shows that to be completely untrue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:00, 7 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 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.
Although the company is listed on a stock exchange, I could not seem to find enough coverage specifically about the company; at most, what I found were brief mentions in articles, as well as company profiles and promotional material. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-- What is this complaint really about? Please be aware that this page was just created and that it will be completed with further information. Besides the obvious fact that the company is listed on the stock exchange with the ticker [WRE-ME], which is a big indicator of creditbility, there are several news articles on the company throughout the past 7 years since incorporation in 2009, some of which are: Nettavisen Dec 2, 2016, E24 Nov 15,2016, Dagens Næringsliv Jan 11, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C Lunde (talk • contribs) 05:51, December 7, 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a player in the highest national professional league for his country. However, this league is not confirmed at fully professional (see WP:FPL) this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT, and he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 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 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.
Copying from the talk page: "Reasons for Deletion Request: Low importance, unreferenced and controvertial material present
Very small article should be moved to draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.135.238.200 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC) ". I have myself no opinion on the notability, merely creating the nomination page which the IP is not able to create. Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel potential COI exists: Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamitDeshmukh (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a holder of low level offices in the youth branch of a political party, this is no where near passing the notability requirements for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I guess, but I am not sure, that this article is not about a program or a TV station but about a time-frame allocated for local TV. Nearly incomprehensible, partly untranslated. Seems to fail WP:GNG due to namesakes. The Bannertalk22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Banner, please don't attack others. They have a point; you should have put up an "expand Portuguese" template on here to flag it as needing help from Brazilian editors familiar with that country's television industry, or tried to make sense of what was said rather than a direct AfD; I've done the work but whatever issues you have with other editors, keep them out of deletion discussions and focus on the articles. Nate•(chatter)20:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned long ago that expecting real action of other editors is usually a distant dream. So an in comprehensive article will be send to AfD instead of gambling that others take their responsibility. In most cases, nothing will happen at all. This article is pleasant exception on that. Nomination withdrawn as article is now readable and understandable. The Bannertalk00:25, 28 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and redirect to magmatic water just like was done with Primary water. As far as I can tell this is just the same article made again. I'd advise the author to consider giving it a rest. If a topic isn't notable per our inclusion guidelines, persistence will not fix that. This is not a fruitful use of your time (or ours). Not having your favorite topic on Wikipedia is not a big deal. If the topic truly is important, people will continue to write about it (off-wiki) and eventually there will be enough for an encyclopedia article. No rush. Ajpolino (talk) 21:17, 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.
Redirect to List of Decepticons. A very minor Transformers character, who only had a handful of appearances, and has no reliable sources discussing him in any length. It seems like the vast majority of his appearances was as a Decepticon, making it the more appropriate list to redirect to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:09, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to List of Autobots. Minor fictional character with no reliable sources discussing the him in any length. While it seems like one of his incarnations was a Decepticon, the majority of his appearances was as an Autobot, making it the more appropriate redirect. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:06, 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.
Minor character in the Transformers universe with no real-world significance. Past efforts to turn this into a redirect were resisted without comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:14, 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.
Delete for lack of notability outside of the game universe. This character completely fails the general notability guidelines. There is no independent discussion of the character in reliable sources; there are solely mentions of him in discussions of the game. There is also little to no likelihood of any future significant discussion in reliable sources. Pertinent information about the character is already at Dishonored#Characters. The Corvo Attano (Dishonored) article does not qualify for a speedy A7, because he is not a "real person". No additional redirect to Dishonored is required, as Corvo Attano already redirects there, and has since 2013. A prod is not useful, as it is highly likely that the author of this article, Chackoony, will contest it. Although the article has recently been created, in searching I found nothing that would suggest in any way notability. For example, in the single reference cited in the article, Corvo is not mentioned except for a link to a list of "Corvo's Gear". --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered amply in the main article, beyond notability, literally does not exist outside of this universe in these two games. Besides, is a disambig for Corvo Attano, which already rightly redirect to the article about the game. (Good game though. 9.5/10) TimothyJosephWood16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chackoony here, creator of the article in question. Corvo Attano is a main character in a series that is on the fringes of the mainstream, and I figured he ought to have his own Wikipedia article, especially because Emily Kaldwin, the second (and most likely canon) protagonist of Dishonored 2 has her own article as well. If you'd like to delete Corvo's article, I would strongly recommend you begin a discussion on deleting Emily's as well. I wasn't aware inasmuch that Corvo lacks critical discussion outside of the game's forums, though I believe having an article for him anyways is useful for anyone who is interested in starting that discussion, considering that the material available on him right now on Wikipedia is not in-depth enough to support people's conversations around him. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor though, so I defer to your decisions and arguments on deciding whether or not to delete this article. I feel that Emily merits her own article because she has been discussed by many as an important step in introducing strong, independent, female protagonists, and that Corvo needs his own article because we need a central article to link to when speaking about his connections with Emily and the Dishonored universe. It seems to me that regardless of the conversations surrounding Corvo, having somewhat detailed information about him is important. Wikipedia ought to have information surrounding a character who is central to a game that's sold millions of copies, one who ties in so deeply to a game that many point to as one of the best "immersive sims" (a genre of games where the player has a lot of freedom, and their choices are reflected through in-game consequences) in the modern times. A character who is like the magnum opus of Harvey Smith, Arkane Studios, etc., all of these being articles that other Wikipedia editors deemed useful to have. Corvo's just a part of the web, in my opinion, and should have an article, if only to describe how the Arkane Studios team settled on him, how they think about him, and how his actions are reflected in the Chaos system of Dishonored, and how that plays back into the immersive sim genre. The full background of where he comes from can be ignored though, such as extensive details on his homeland.
@Chackoony:, maybe the better option here is to move the article to a draft, so that you can work on it more, and maybe submit it through our Articles for Creation board. You are probably right in the sense that a well constructed article with substantial depth like Emily Kaldwin is unlikely to be deleted. But at the same time, a stub on Corvo, like this one is, doesn't really add much beyond the main article. Moving it to a draft for the time being seems like it might be a good compromise. TimothyJosephWood20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:, that sounds good, but can others find and edit the draft? I only wanted to type up the basics, then let others finish off the article.
@Chackoony:, other users can edit it, but because it will be in "draft space" they are unlikely to come across it. You will likely have to appeal for help in an appropriate forum like WikiProject Video games. I will post there now and see if anyone there has interest. TimothyJosephWood01:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Corvo Attano (over the redirect, its history doesn't need to be preserved). There seems to be ample depth of coverage of the character specifically, as with the game's other protagonist Emily Kaldwin. Some non-wiki non-blog coverage that I found: Evening Standard, Game Informer, Polygon.com, PC Gamer, Complex. This isn't my area of expertise so I don't know how reliable we typically consider these sources, but the number of them is a strong indicator of notability and this was just by page 2 of Google. I wouldn't object to moving the stub to draft space to build it out instead, it's just not really necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, considering there's only a sentence or two of content, and an obvious redirect target (the subject's game) exists with far better content already present. Write up a draft and put it through WP:AFC or a WP:VG discussion to see if a separate article is warranted at that point or not. I also support moving it to just Corvo Attano - the disambiguation is not necessary. Sergecross73msg me13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Wow! You finished it! I think we can safely say the article has enough content, and that we've determined its relevancy on Wikipedia well enough to keep it here, right? So can we end the deletion discussion yet?
Keep It's now past the 20 mark. It's probably not comprehensive, but it should be enough that it can hang out in mainspace for others to continue to work on. It definitely adds content well above and beyond the main article for the game series, and it establishes that the character appeared in two games, a comic series, and one novel of a planned trilogy. Should fairly easily be enough for WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood18:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself. Almost all of the content added to the character article mainly belongs in the game's article—it's basic gameplay that you would expect of any character. Now if there is coverage about the role of Corvo in video game culture or in some kind of depth outside what any video game character would have, then you have a case. We don't just make articles on every character of every major media release. czar18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CzarIt needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself
The GNG is a starting point (re-read the notability guideline—it even says it's not a sole requirement/guarantee). Topics are presumed to be important when sources write about them, but when they are only covered as subtopics in context of their parent concepts, we cover them in their parent articles with due weight and only split out (summary style) if warranted by the sources. I can find you a whole lot of coverage on how tracking works in Pokemon Go or on the kinds of real-life interactions the game coordinated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those concepts warrant their own articles. I can find you a whole lot of coverage specific to the Toad Rally game mode in Super Mario Run—more than that exists for Corvo—but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on it. Final Fantasy characters are subject to the same scrutiny—it's a split out from the game's article based on coverage specific to the characters, ostensibly because there is more to say about the characters than what would be due weight in the parent article. (Though I'd wager that some of those Final Fantasy character articles should be merged back too—some are kept as fait accompli and not because there is cause.) The same principle here: if Corvo is only covered as a character doing character things within Dishonored, it gets covered within the character section of the parent articles. If there is exceptional coverage of the character outside what would be appropriate to cover in the game article itself—such as how Emily Kaldwin was covered for her cultural impact as a female protagonist separate from coverage about the game itself—then there is more cause to split it out of the parent. czar19:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just let the article speak for itself. Two published books, two announced books, a comic series, and two games. If you can find a place to merge all 18k of that into, then go for it. But I suspect you put more time into typing your criticism than you did reviewing the article. TimothyJosephWood21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't count towards notability. That he appeared in media is the same as any character who recurs in a series—it pertains to a section/article about the series, not to character notability. If those pieces of media are important, they will be covered in a section/article about the series. czar03:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move the goal post a few more times?
Me: There are lots of good sources, easily meets GNG.
You: GNG is not enough, you need to show that he has importance outside the game.
Me: Look at all this other stuff he appears in.
You: Those are primary sources and don't count toward GNG.
Total mischaracterization. Appearing in comics related to the series is by no measure "importance outside the game". The Notability guideline states clearly that sources affiliated or primary to the subject don't count towards notability the same way that a school's alumni magazine doesn't confer notability on the school. czar07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or draft: Firstly, I want to say I appreciate the effort put into creating the article, as well as the effort put into expanding it. But ultimately I don't think there's proper coverage to justify an article on the character, or at least not separate from the games proper. Most sources discuss his powers which are, true, a part of his character, but also vital parts of the game -- and often discussed in terms of general game design and player expression heavily divorced from Corvo himself. In short, I would expect most appropriate analysis of his powers and how they interact with the game and are developed to be on the articles for Dishonored and Dishonored 2 -- and indeed, when discussing Blink we slip into development of it while being Daud.
The tidbit about Corvo's actions as vengeance is interesting, but I've found little else to properly expand these elements, and again it's something that's heavily tied into analysis of Dishonored's main themes that I'd probably expect to find on there first and foremost. (This article might be of use if exploring this angle, incidentally.) The discussion of his various appearances in tie-in media feel pretty weak as well. None of them have received much critical attention, whether positively or negatively or even completely neutrally, so honestly a sentence on Dishonored 2's article about tie-in media starring the PCs being made is probably enough, and if anything more than that is needed it'd probably be best suited to a general series page.
On some of the sources found so far, very little do discuss the character in depth. It's not just a matter of finding any blanket coverage: I would prefer a shorter section, if it provides genuine discussion of a character, in a larger article over newssites reporting on a trailer about the character being released. I'd like to proven wrong here and I have managed to find other articles covering the character (e.g. [36][37][38][39]), but have failed to find enough to personally justify Corvo a separate article from his games. I do see some possibility of potential that I'm not really opposed to drafting it for further development for anyone wanting to pursue it further, but it's not enough for me to endorse a "keep" here. ...Finally, apologies for the wall of text, but evidently I like to type. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded since I wrote the above, and I'm no longer necessarily opposed to keeping it, but as it stands this article still feels heavily flawed -- and certainly not close to GA status. The character's notability is barely proven; yes, the article has 50 references. As I run through them all, the majority of them are completely unrelated to the character. We have 6 that are announcements or reviews of the comic, which hardly cover the character at all. Useful for verification, yes, but certainly not notability -- the idea that a character should be notable because a review in passing mentioned the plot is laughable. The article has been refbombed -- it overloads on meaningless unnecessary citations to give the appearance of notability, when little actually prove it when properly examined. Then there's the coverage of his powers, which again I question if said coverage is actually focused on the character, when most of the attention is on the general open gameplay of Dishonored. The idea we're holding this to another standard than other articles ring hollow; similar deletion discussions are happening time and time again, and articles with improper references are almost always wiped out. The precedent, is as much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would've been to delete this article as it originally stood. The existence of many Marvel characters who lack any references is the problem, and it's a well-known and accepted one that little effort has been made on due to the immense size of the Marvel world and the nature of a wiki. Truthfully, I doubt whether Emily Kaldwin is properly notability enough for an article, but that's a matter to deal with another time. The appearances in other tie-in media is irrelevant: none of them even have their own article, nor I doubt do any of them really need them, and thus arguments that all this content here about them must remain ring hollow. Again, if said coverage is necessarily, a series article would be better created, than awkwardly contained in this article about one character.
Finally, some of the sources used I question. I don't see anything too weird, but what makes PCGamesN or Gamespur reliable? Yes, I realise that the TF2 mask is obviously true, but you may as well cite TF2 there. And while Point and Click Bait is a satire and can be assumed to not be lying about its joke, what makes their satire worth including?
I do question the removal of gaming sites as unreliable, including the removal of a satirical website for publishing a satirical story. Niche topics are covered in niche media, and it's reminiscent of the exhausting AfD for Lustboy a few months ago, where editors completely unfamiliar with the competitions and the game wanted to go so far as to question whether ESPN was truly independent. Beyond that, a satirical website as a source for its own story is very near WP:SELFPUB territory. I also find the drive by ((cn)) tagging as flatly lazy, and like the edit overall, a thinly veiled attempt to press a thumb on the scale which, admin or no, begins to push the limits of assuming good faith.
Moving to draft is more of a sentence to purgatory than anything. I have absolute confidence that the article, unchanged, would sail through AfC with a wink and a nod. That is, were it not weighed down by a prior AfD, that at some point, just became too long to attract much attention. And there here we are again.
And to be clear, where we are is holding this article to a completely different standard than scores of articles on other video game and comic characters, many of which are sourced only to the primary sources themselves (click around on Marvel or DC articles for a while). Moreso, a completely different standard than the character's daughter, whose supposed cultural impact amounts to a few sentences of oh boy, they made a girl character and didn't screw it up, and who, in every way, is objectively a more minor character in the universe than the current one.
But for my part, I'll have to bow out until at least Monday. Apparently my wife and daughter are into this Christmas thing. Personally, I think it's a fad. TimothyJosephWood15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After a shower and some thought, precisely what I am implying above is that if the user (who I assume is following this conversation since they felt the need to drive by some time later) does not feel the need to self revert, then I will oblige them a click of the mouse. Of course that is assuming they don't have a well thought out rationale for why a video game website would fail to do what little due diligence is surely required in reporting on abilities in a video game, or why a satirical website lacks whatever conceivable editorial oversight would be needed to make things up. TimothyJosephWood16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the problem here is that, like synopses for books and movies, content that is covered in the actual text and dialogue of the game, may be cited to the primary source itself. So providing a secondary source, even one you find personally distasteful, is beyond what is actually required. Similarly, in the space between WP:SELFPUB and WP:MEDRS, is a range where the quality of source must rise to meet the magnitude of the claim, with exceptionally minor claims requiring exceptionally ordinary sources. For further guidance on sourcing for video games, please see the video game reliable sources guideline. TimothyJosephWood04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dishonored#Characters (the main game/series topic), as reinforced by the elaboration above. There remains a demonstrated lack of coverage dedicated to the game's character so as to warrant a content split from the section where such text would rest in the article on the main game/series. czar18:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at this point is absurd. A 30k article with 50 references. Finish the equipment and first game sections, and find an editor with access to the full text of the comics and novels, and it's well on it's way to a GA review, not to mention that the second game was just released, and most of what will be written about the character's role in it hasn't yet been written, as well as two books set to be released next year. I would love to see someone ignore this nomination, and nominate it again, and see it get laughed out of AfD. TimothyJosephWood00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dishonored#Characters - While the work Timothyjosephwood has done on the article is impressive, his argument for keeping it boils down to the premise that any article which has had a certain amount of quality editing put into it must be kept, and I don't find that to be valid. Corva Attano is essentially just an aspect of the video game Dishonored and its licensed adaptations, and thus there's no reason why any notable content about the character should be reiterated in a separate article rather than simply included in the Dishonored article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin IIIa, My argument is very simply that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The argument from article content is not for the notability of the subject, but the practicality of a merger, that is, you cannot merge a 3000 word article into a 300 word section. TimothyJosephWood15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we bin this deletion discussion now, @Timothyjosephwood:? At this point, it doesn't seem like anyone's got any good arguments left for keeping it under the shadow of deletion. Also, Timothy has done a fantastic job of populating the page with details and references, so I see no problem with article shortness anymore.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I wouldn't count Publishers Weekly and Kirkus blurbs towards notability, especially towards NBOOK—they review titles in little depth and with little discrimination, compared for instance with even that School Lib J review. czar19:23, 28 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.
Keep Three nominations by three accounts, all of which appear to have done nothing on Wikipedia besides nominate this article at AfD? Sourcing seems fine for a niche subject. I also suspect someone needs to find a more productive hobby than nominating articles of people they don't personally like. TimothyJosephWood15:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources I recently added are full interviews directly about Mr. Dreyer and the "trivial" coverage is all from well known reputable sources. More than enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. It should also be noted that over the years digging into the history I discovered that many sources have been culled as dead links as they are no longer online. I read that notability is not temporary. A consistent history of being referenced in articles in his field for over ten years, including things like Variety, Deadline, Wired, The Advocate, feels more than enough to keep. --2605:E000:90D9:F700:FD17:9CB1:FFBC:210D (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a link to an article from December 13th I found. It's a long profile piece on We Are Indie Horror. This whole thing feels dumb. He's obviously well known in horror and sci-fi circles and the coverage, like I said above, is great because it also spills over into mainstream sources. I think this was a bad faith nomination.--2605:E000:90D9:F700:51FC:C9D8:716B:90C2 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is now indeffed for disruptive editing. It certainly appears from the content of some edits that this was a bad faith nomination, as the IP suggested. Meters (talk) 08:38, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete partly because it's not clearly notable, partly because of the copy-violations (which nudge it into WP:SPEEDY territory), and partly because the article is almost incomprehensible because of its lack of structure and clarity. --Slashme (talk) 09:48, 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 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.