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

The result was redirect to Traction Labs. Consensus that this is not independently notable. Editors are now free to merge stuff from history and/or nominate Traction Labs for deletion too.  Sandstein  07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzstarter[edit]

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

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

Company has pivoted and changed names and focus. Also, page has been hijacked by a former employee. Kleubay (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Kleubay: - that sounds like an argument for bringing the article up to date (even if it's only a source clarifying that the company ceased operations/rebranded) rather than deleting. One of Wikipedia's principles is that if a company was notable once but no longer exists or has been renamed, the article should not be deleted but retained as a record of past events - that notability is not temporary. Can you clarify? Blythwood (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- advertorial content on a non-notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for the purposes of then analyzing the other company itself. Delete and I frankly consider this A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete Ad of a barely notable company. Millbug ^talk 03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/vote - @SwisterTwister:, @K.e.coffman:, I think it’s worth noting that this nomination for deletion is by the article creator @Kleubay:, who presumably has stayed working for this company through its rebranding and after its co-founder left. The company has now rebranded as Traction Labs (the website redirects too) and Kleubay has created an article on that brand name, which doesn’t seem to be notable either outside from a few passing mentions. My vote would be to delete both articles, but if we’re keeping the Traction Labs article (or consider both companies to collectively have scraped over the notability threshold) we should consider merging this content into that article. Pinging to seek comment on adding Traction Labs to this deletion discussion. Blythwood (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Traction Labs, and then consider the merged article at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually willing for this (thus I change my vote) as I concur this other company, Traction Labs, certainly seems questionable and there seems to not be any otherwise actually convincing information there. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. a suitable case for honoring the subject's wishes DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constantia Oomen[edit]

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

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

Individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines, maybe borderline at best. The author herself has requested deletion (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) in the page history. Sro23 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I know I had encountered this recently but I'm not finding exactly where; by all means there's frankly nothing actually convincing and regardless I would've PRODed also, nothing actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, please delete, old and outdated. By author: Constantia Oomen (August 1, 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThroughTheWindow (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Grossman (consultant)[edit]

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

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

Basically still an advertorial job listing since DGG nominated in January, examining this found nothing at all substantially better apart from interviews, press releases, his own authored articles, trivial passing mentions and other unacceptable sources; my own searches have also mirrored this by noticeably finding only press releases and mentions. The 2 sources listed at the other AfD were simply interviews and nothing else convincing. That also seems to the basis here, "inheriting notability" from the listed notable news sources and even the "Keep" votes were either saying "they liked his work" (the article's author) or "the article is (quote) bloated, feels promotional, probably needs much trimming"....and there's summarily nothing to suggest confidently improving and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the considerable effort involved in wading through all the references was not rewarded in any way with any sense of notability. It reads like the work of a dutiful acolyte, although I guess that probably isn't so, but it is just a puff piece.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Just a worthy but routine corporate person. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Agree previous article was bloated with cruft and promotional junk but this has been removed as per WP:HEYMANN and fixed up, and Grossman is regarded as an expert in internal corporate communications -- that is the story -- the David Grossman of Freshii is different (if you google "David Grossman" and "Freshii" with images, you'll see a different face).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the changes may be noticeable, I'm still not seeing enough to convincingly suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that Grossman is regarded as an expert in internal corporate communications? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The Wall Street Journal and Globe & Mail and Chicago Tribune and other highly-regarded publications consider him as an expert, quoting his studies about emails and inter-office communication again and again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We required multiple in-depth treatments. There is nothing on GS or GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Grossman gets a lot of ink here and almost an entire article here and here and here. There are about 16 solid references as of this revamped version. The Chicago Tribune interviews him in-depth here. Seems to me he clearly meets WP:RS or WP:BLP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feeble indeed. Just passing mentions on blogs or blurb from trade journalists desperate to salvage copy from a PR release. Wikipedia requires evidence of substantial career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Curious -- does the Sewer, Gas & Electric stuff belong on this page for some reason?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was a vandalizing IP. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable consultant with advice such as "To cope with overloaded email inboxes, Grossman does not believe in email black-outs or time-outs, but that a better arrangement is to encourage better use of email by employees." The sourcing does not suggest notability to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person is not notable in his field if the only way he can get a book published presenting his work is to do it himself via AuthorHouse. The asserted publisher of the 2nd ed., "Little Brown Dog Publishing" is an imprint owned by his company for the sole purpose of publishing his work [1] The current articles is about as much of an advertisement as the previous--the quotations in the sources demonstrate the promotional intent, and the promotional result. This is almost a G11, and I was amazed when it was kept at AfD1. The effort made it improving it was substantial, but it failed, because the article is hopeless--there is not enough notability or true non-PR sources to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources about him directly. non-notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a puff piece that would need a fundamental rewrite even if notability was not a concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrow (student organisation)[edit]

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

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

No doubt a very worthy organisation but there is no evidence that it is notable. Both refs are from the web-site of its parent organisation and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I nearly PRODed but that would've likely been removed anyway, there's by all means nothing at all close to the needed substance and notability to suggest this can actually be substantially improved. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was created a few days ago, but the article for Anthony Nolan already has nigh the exact same information about the student branch -- and has had a mention of it since 2012. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I haven't found any significant coverage from an independent reliable source. Although a redirect to Anthony Nolan might be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barinder Rasode[edit]

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

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

Insufficient notability requirements as per WP:Politician. A municipal councillor and then an unsuccessful candidate for mayor is insufficient for a standalone biography article. She has received press coverage but not as significant in multiple in-depth sources as described by WP:BIO quotation (also read the details in the footnote in that section):

1. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Canuckle (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Surrey is not an internationally famous global city, so its city councillors are not automatically notable just because they exist (the fact that Vancouver gets the global city pass does not hand a notability freebie to Vancouver's suburbs) — rather, Surrey is in the class of cities where a city councillor gets an article only if she can be solidly and reliably sourced as significantly more notable than the norm to a readership that extends beyond Surrey alone. But the sourcing here doesn't do that; nearly half of it is primary sourcing to press releases from non-media organizations and the city's own website, and the half that is media coverage is split between purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that every city councillor in every city on the planet always gets because covering local politics is the local media's job, and glancing namechecks of her existence in non-localized coverage of Surrey politics that isn't about her. This is not how a city councillor in a non-global city gets a Wikipedia article. If the Globe and Mail and National Post sources were about her, then there'd be a case for inclusion — but they just mention her name in passing while being about something or someone else, and that's not enough to make her more notable than the norm for a city councillor. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surrey is not significant enough to make city councilors default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non-notable local politician. Coverage does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect as a week has not suggested anything else, history contents are available in the logs if anyone needs them. I would've redirected initially if it wasn't for the fact this was still questionable by itself and, also, advertorial. At least we have a consensus in case this gets moved again later (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EVRY India[edit]

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

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

Still nothing actually suggestive of the needed substance and I confirm everything I said with both my PROD and speedy. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There's this and a little more along those lines, say this, but ultimately this subsidiary of Evry does not seem to be independently notable. What can be sourced about it can well be included in the article on the parent company. Huon (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Evry, which presently has no mention of EVRY India. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consenus DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Street[edit]

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

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

PROD removed with the apparent basis "it may meet notability" (although there's certainly no inherited notability and, I'll emphasize also, that there would still need to be the needed coverage) but I still confirm the PROD as there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Note that I deprodded the article using the rationale "Decline prod. May meet WP:CREATIVE per the subject's works and career" (diff), rather than per the erroneous quote as stated in the nomination atop. Please do not misquote Wikipedia users, which is misleading. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I read that as a reasonable comment, the article makes plausible claims to notability, the editor seemed to suggest that there might be sources to support those claims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable writer, presenter and reader primarily tied to radio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete looked for sources. I found recent news articles about the activities of a Jo Street who is a "Commissioning Executive" and producer for the BBC, but appears to be a different Jo Street.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin comment: @DGG: You just deleted this AfD page with the reason "apparent consensus". I've restored it because I assume you meant to close the discussion as delete, right?  Sandstein  07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted WP:G5 and SNOW. -- GB fan 15:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaiian[edit]

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

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

Article is an unusual spelling of the Tagalog name for bamboo (see tl:Kawayan). No need for this term on en.wiki where it will just make it harder for people to find the tl.wiki article. Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it's an important nickname for Acidosasa or for a member of the family, and sourcedly so, it should be mentioned at the main article and not have a side article created for the nickname. Searching for "Kawaiian" also only really provided results for the word kawaii. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I also find it odd that Acidosasa is only supposed to be found in Southern China and Vietnam, but our Kawaiian claims it's found in Philippines. So, we're not even talking about this bamboo species in particular? It gets even more vague than that? I tried searching for a species it could be, but there are numerous bamboo species to be found in the Philippines. The tl.wiki article, when translated, only talked about "bamboo". The article also provides generic bamboo imagery of just about any bamboo species. It just seems to be a generic word for bamboo? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's just the generic Tagalog word for bamboo. Plantdrew (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate spelling of the Tagalog word "Kawayan" most likely.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As original PROD-er, I find the word impossible to find by search. (A single, "wordpress" blogspot doesn't count.) If it is indeed another name (Tagalog) of a taxonomically designated species of bamboo, it belongs in that article — but certainly not as a stand alone. Articles are about subjects, not different names of said subjects. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simio[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by a drive-by user even after it was endorsed Anarchyte and I still confirm everything I said here but, fortunately, with this 2nd AfD (the first one was closed as Speedied), we can at least have G4. Although this is tagged as "new user and assume good faith", there's simply no chances of this actually being notable as I note several things: nothing satisfying the applicable notability, the sources are simply not convincing and searches, again, simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the same reasoning as what the two PROD's said. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, again, delete. I just tagged it for speedy, then realized it's been around for a while, so, in case it gets untagged, I'm contributing here. I looked for an earlier, non-spammy version—and couldn't find one. The version when deprodded was terribly promotional: "so even novice at programming languages can also use it easily", " which gives better risk measurement", "helps making real time decisions", "users can intuitively and graphically build a model", "users easily switch the display", "Simio enable [sic]", "Simio can provide", and the entire litany of things that Simio is said to be good for. And that "Further Reading" section. I can't believe it's avoided deletion before now. Largoplazo (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the tag. If the language were changed, would the underlying content be satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must not be understanding your question. Your proposition, "If the language were changed, would the underlying content be satisfactory" says to me that G11 doesn't apply if someone could have written a completely different, neutral article about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that that isn't true. The language is what G11 is about. This article, as written, is promotional through and through. Largoplazo (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is for articles that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If...the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion" I removed G11 from this article because I think I could fairly easily rewrite it, as I have rewritten many hundreds of articles over the years. (Sometimes I am even prepared to do the fundamental rewriting that can make a valid G11 non-promotional--I've done that many dozen times by now.) I do this selectively, , when I think there is sufficient notability to be worth the troubleI therefore ask those who wish to delete the article, Is there sufficient basis of notability here to make it practical? (Yes, I normally formi my own judgment on this, but I sometimes want other opinions,--in this case, because I think it's borderline in both respects. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo content on a non-notable product. Sourcing does not suggest encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Eggestein[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article still fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully professional league, and WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage goes beyond routine sports coverage for example due to awards. Even nonselection made news. If find the above suggestion to WP:SALT this article in particular offensive as in this particular case a no-show at the first game of the season would be newsworthy in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable footballer. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolò Zanellato[edit]

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

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

Usual stuff: young footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances as of yet). Luxic (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletion dicussions. Luxic (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The player is in the starting lineup against Liverpool on international television. There at least deserves to be a place on the internet where someone can look up who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.118.234 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of youngsters play first team friendly matches during the summer, but that doesn't make them notable. We have clear notability guidelines and the fact itself that you are pleading for him to have "a place on the internet where one can look up who he is" just shows lack of significant third-party coverage of the subject. Luxic (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. In any case a BLPPROD in its current state as unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable footballer. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Kirk Garner[edit]

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

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

Non-notable social media "star". While they have a large Instagram following, I only found this article: [2], which mentions him, but as part of an article on internet "stars". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. I carved into this to remove all the blatant fancruft, and couldn't imagine that nobody had spotted this sooner. Thanks! 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable YOuTUbe personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this micro-stub of an article where the tags take 5 times more than the article. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. obvious strong consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Form 1040[edit]

Form 1040 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is on the U.S. tax form 1040 for individuals. It reads far too close to explaining how to do a tax return, especially by giving "who must file" and "signature requirement" sections, explaining different ways to file, and so on. The IRS is the authority on this - Wikipedia is not a manual, nor do we give advice. This article was expanded by a paid editor who is getting paid on page hits by User:Vipul - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Form 1120. An AfD on Form 1120 resulted in a redirect to IRS tax forms. I attempted to do the same here, but another paid editor associated with Vipul, has repeatedly undone the redirect. Therefore, I am bringing this to AfD for community consensus. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would report the above editors to the Administrators, if I were you. GUtt01 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different issue. We're here at AfD because the content itself is a problem. An ANI report on this matter is much bigger than just this article. MSJapan (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I will agree with MSJapan on a redirect. However, the user should have done an AfD when the blank-and-redirect they did was reverted, not attempt to revert the user (mentioned above) a couple of times themselves as much. GUtt01 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3RR templates you placed are inappropriate for several reasons: neither of us violated the rule, nor did we continue to edit after reaching three reverts over a week ago. Please remove them per my request on your talk page. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my vote for Redirection. I believe it's best that US editors discuss this. GUtt01 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve through the normal editorial process. The 1040 is probably the best known (and most disliked) government document in the United States. Parts of this article may be problematic, but other parts are clearly legitimate encyclopedic content. For example, the history of the 1040 has been the subject of substantial coverage in sources such as the Chicago Tribune (1994) [3]; Harper's Magazine (1977) (subscription required) [4]; The Washington Post (1996) [5]; MarketWatch (2015) [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the "normal editorial process" is being suborned by paid editors. MSJapan (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the subject of multiple entire books [7] [8] [9] [10] (all four of these are independent of the US government, reliably published, with the 1040 in their titles) it is obviously notable per WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are also guidebooks to a form legally required to be filled out. How is it not a case of WP:ENN? MSJapan (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are guidebooks or legal mandates listed as exceptions to GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not, but let me clarify: WP:NOTHOWTO certainly seems to indicate there are exceptions to use of sources. How can one reliably source material from a "how-to guide" in such a way that the article does not reflect the "how-to-ness" of the source, given that one cannot use a source for something it does not say? Frankly, it's not appropriate to be breaking down what goes on what line, who can file in what bracket and on what form, and so on. That's telling the reader how to file their taxes, and I'm pretty sure, policy aside, we're not legally allowed to pretend to be tax preparers or give tax advice. Take all that out, though, and there's nothing left besides "the 1040 is an individual tax form; it has lines for stuff." MSJapan (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the books on it are only how-to guides. For instance the first one of the ones I listed, "Learning to Love Form 1040: Two Cheers for the Return-Based Mass Income Tax", is not. Another likely source (of shorter length) is A short history of Form 1040, Harper's, 1977 (subscription required). There are also many more-technical publications about it in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. --Davidcpearce (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-written and well-referenced. I don't see any strong reasons for deleting it. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being GNG with good sourcing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With edits like [11]? So the article is going to tell me where I can deduct my sales tax, and that I can deduct other types of taxes, too. This is precisely the sort of thing we should not be doing with this article, and it's precisely what's going to end up in the article, especially when there's a batch of paid editors working on it who make money based on how many people come here and look at the article. Turning it into an advice article contrary to policy is directly going to benefit them. But fine, you all want to leave this here, claim it needs to be improved, and then ignore it entirely, allowing a bunch of undisclosed paid editors do what they want with it, that's fine with me. Who needs policy anyway? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, none of the paid editors working on the Form 1040 page are paid for pageviews. Since this seemed to be causing confusion, it was recently addressed in an update. I'm not sure how you are using the word "undisclosed"; all of the contributors are listed. Riceissa (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riceissa:I'm glad it was addressed off-site, but that's not how paid editing disclosure works here on Wikipedia. That's why you're "not sure of how I am using a word"; that does not, however, mean that you are "correct." You are out of compliance with the requirements as set out in policy, and thus, you and your entire group are undisclosed paid editors. If any of you had responded to the thread on COIN, you'd know that, but you didn't, and your employer ignored what he was told. See WP:PAID. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and improve. Just because the article was (arguably) tainted with some questionable edits, doesn't mean it should be deleted. I've deleted some HOWTO-information, and added references to the risk of identity theft and to the cost of filing taxes. Dandv 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, the fundamental problem is the sourcing - when the sources are limited to the IRS and sites that are used to do taxes and give tax tips (Intuit, Investopedia, etc.), there's no way to write an article that isn't slanted towards advice, because that is what those sites are for in the first place. I've cleaned out everything that implies or explicitly states: "you should", "you must", "this goes here", "the requirements to use this form are", and so on. I also took out trivia about line numbers. MSJapan (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While phrasings like "should" and "note" have also raised flags with me, I believe that your unilaterally wiping out of over 20,000 bytes of knowledge on August 2 was a bit extreme. I've only undone so far your deletion of my edit and its surrounding sections, which had no advice information and offered factual figures, letting the reader make up their mind. Please consider improving the article instead. -- Dandv 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (series 10, episode 1)[edit]

Top Gear (series 10, episode 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability of Article is Questionable, per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG; there is hardly any reason to create an article to detail an episode of a magazine programme GUtt01 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete - Perhaps if a great many reviews were collected for this episode, it would be worth keeping. I'll do a quick search. But as is, none of the content on the page is usable or sourced, so until something proper is built, I would say merging to Top Gear (series 10) is best for readers. Yvarta (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I couldn't find significant coverage of the episode, though my google skills aren't infallible. These were the only sources I could find that weren't showtime listings with a synopsis - [12]. and GTSpirit. Yvarta (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't merge this with the Series 10 article for Top Gear (2002 TV Series); the list in this article contain brief, short summaries, not extensive, detailed overviews of each episode. GUtt01 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I meant to type redirect, not merge. But I agree with your assessment. Yvarta (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta: I just checked your sources, and found that one only provides a brief summary of exactly what is in the episode, and not what is detailed in the article under proposition for deletion. The other is hardly a good source, because it seems to list moments from the top 10 episodes of Top Gear, and features clips taken from their official channel on YouTube.GUtt01 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If an article is for an episode of a drama, sci-fi, or fantasy show, it would be alright to keep it as long as it detailed the plot and provided info on the cast and production crew. This article is for an episode of a magazine motoring show. All times listed in it are described in other articles connected to the parent one of Top Gear (2002 TV Series); News will be outdated by now; Opinions and Criticism of a car should be part of its article on the site, under any information describing its reception. GUtt01 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no question in my mind about this. The article has little to no notability as a stand-alone page and has no references to back up even a single sentence in the text included within. As mentioned above, all details of importance can be included in the series summary article and/or pages of the cars reviewed in said episode. Aw16 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article on a single episode of an entertainment show? Really? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We already have List of Top Gear episodes which is sufficient, No need to start creating individual eps. 01:13, 6 August 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 result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bama[edit]

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

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

Unfortunately G4 was removed as it's not symmetrical to the 1st AfD but the non-notability is still there, nothing here is actually convincing and my own searches have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Page meets guidelines for WP:MUSIC by having coverage in reliable publications and has released albums on a large independent label with many notable artists. Jdogg Shaw (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: just because the record label has notable artists doesn't make Sonny Bama himself notable – see WP:INHERIT. As for reliable sources... two are links to the album on iTunes, the two links to AllMusic only credit Sonny Bama as one of several producers on the albums mentioned (not enough to make him notable), the Datpiff reference is a blog written by a hip hop artist friend of Bama's (not a proper journalist), Average Joe's is the label Bama is signed to, Al.com is an advertising and promotion firm so those two links aren't independent either... and finally Jdogg Shaw, you are John Shaw, the person who wrote the two reviews on Select-o-Hits, which is the the distribution label for Bama's records. So in fact there are no independent reliable sources at all in the article, and you have a conflict of interest which you haven't declared. Overall, this fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to WP:MUSIC "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." should be sufficient to keep the article. Average Joes and its history more than meets the guidelines. Sonny Bama has also worked with notable artists and produced for them. Furthermore, Richard3120 I have no idea who you are speaking of. No conflict of interest here. I'm just a fan of music in this genre. Jdogg Shaw (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies then for the accusation, if it isn't true. But then you would agree that the two reviews of Sonny Bama by his own label are not independent and are therefore not reliable sources. By the way, you can't vote twice, so your second keep vote should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jdogg Shaw (talk) The key wording in WP:MUSIC criteria is "may be notable..." Having releases on notable labels listed on AllMusic is not an automatic qualifier. Rather, it's a starting point. This article lacks independent quality references that indicate this artist is notable. The argument here seems to be that this subject deserves a page based on two flaws of WP articles that are often deleted: WP:INHERIT and WP:EDPN. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- do not see significant coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronda Eller[edit]

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

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

Deleted in 2006 and I frankly am still not finding anything actually convincing and I would've frankly PRODed if not for that 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I searched and cannot find anything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. My search of Canadian media didn't yield anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2005, a person's own primary source website about themselves was often considered enough verification to prevent an article from being deleted even if reliable source coverage about her in real media was nonexistent. But those rules have been tightened up considerably, because we learned a lot of hard lessons about how flawed that model was — and 11 years later, when the rules are much tighter and it's RS or bust, there's still no RS coverage here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch under all 3 names mentioned in the article yields nothing that contributes to notability, just some facebook and blog pages. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried my hand at searching all the different names and couldn't find anything either. I love seeing poet entries on Wikipedia and have written several myself but that's only possible if there are sources to base an entry on. Without them, not much to discuss. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thru (company)[edit]

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

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

PROD removed (I still confirm everything I said there) apparently with the basis that they believed everything listed still suggests notability and substance but it's not actually the case. All sources listed are simply either press releases or trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No coverage beyond standard PR. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Ad of non-notable company. Millbug ^talk 03:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -- strictly promotional content; lacks independent coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awdhesh Singh[edit]

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

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

NonNotable mid-level officer. One of the many Commissioner ranking officers of India. Just a bureaucrat doing his job. His book is also not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Speedy delete. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister DGG John Pack Lambert comments please. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all here actually convincing of his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. " Just a bureaucrat doing his job" is not a helpful description--the likelihood of notability depends on what the job is. (and similarly for all "just a ..." arguments.) Based on the articles on Indian Administrative Serviceand Divisional CommissionermI think I would accept such a post in theIAS as presumptive notable-- I interpret it as there is one per state, which would be about 30 people. But the subject is not a commission in the IAS,but in the Revenue Service, which is a lower branch of administration,and I do not see why that should lead to presumptive notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Like to clear out a few things to non Indian editors. 1) Divisional Commissioner is one per district/zone in India. So a state like Uttar Pradesh would have more than even 40 divisional commissioners in a single state. 2) The post is again hardly notable in it self. 3) Indian Revenue Service is definitely not a lower branch of administration and is a premier civil service of the Government of India and is in the same rank as the IAS. They are recruited through the same exam. 4) The subject matter of the article has does nothing notable and has little sources to reference his article. Almost all IRS officers above the rank of Principal Commissioner are indeed notable as they head various zones. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thats not what our article on them say. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing but Hhaha, you should know better than to rely only on Wikipedia. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is Singh the essentially over the collection of customs in Chennai? If that is the case, with that being such a major city so central to international trade, that might be a position that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Answer No he does not. He is second incharge of the Central Excise's Anti Evasion department in Chennai. Even so, only a Chief Commissioner or a Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs/Income Tax would be notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a very tricky situation as rank/position cannot solely be considered as the yardstick for determining notability. Nevertheless, in this case, I agree that the page shouldn't be here for now. Hampai 15 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete non-notable person. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non notable bureaucrat and Author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non notable government official; lack independent coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has improved since the AfD began. However, the nominator recommends the article creator go through the Articles for Creation process to avoid similar problems in the future. (non-admin closure) Gestrid (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chamba Chukh[edit]

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

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

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines. Gestrid (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTRECIPE. No refs, no notability what Wikipedia is not  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article at the time of the above delete !vote looked like this and gave no instructions on how to prepare Chamba Chukh; the WP:NOTRECIPE argument is invalid. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The author of the article has left a message about this discussion on my talk page, and they've included some possible sources. Blogs, of course, wouldn't be reliable sources, but at least one of them might be reliable. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources look OK. Notability ditto. No more to consider. Twelve Bar Milkman (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article looks fine in its present form. - Takeaway (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Pasting some of the notes sent to Gestrid here for help explaining and improving the page: Some references and links for consideration:

Regards Anujkaps (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I am a friend of AnujKaps. He pointed me to this page and chat. I have located a Wikipedia page that also references Chukh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine#Himachal_Pradesh). So I thought to provide it for your consideration for inclusion as a reference to this chat.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeetikaPandya (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note to closer - It appears that there has been canvassing on this deletion discussion. Please use judgment in discounting recruited opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, Thanks for your note re: canvassing. I am aware of that clause and have been extremely careful not to canvass.

The page being discussed for deletion <Chamba Chukh> is something also being discussed quite widely in our community in Himachal offline. I have in fact contacted my friends who are also from the region to NOT EDIT the page and also to NOT get onto the discussion board. However if they do, they should EXPRESSLY SPECIFY that they know me and should state that upfront in the interest of complete transparency.

I will ask them to refrain from entering the conversation entirely, if that is more desirable. I can put forth their arguments through my own Username, if that is preferable. I am trying specifically to learn the etiquette of the wiki community to avoid such mis-understanding, before doing too much.

Thanks everyone for understanding. Anujkaps (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Anujkaps, your friend was upfront about how they've come to this discussion so there's absolutely no question of bad faith. Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a prominent Indian Travel sight that that has reference to CHAMBA CHUKH for your reference: http://www.discoveredindia.com/himachal-pradesh/cities-and-destinations-in-himachal-pradesh/chamba.htm

Anujkaps (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADVISE IF I SHOULD ADD SOME OF THESE REFERENCES TO THE ACTUAL PAGE ALREADY OR SHOULD I KEEP POSTING HERE ON THIS TALK PAGE CREATED FOR THE DELETION?

THANKS

Anujkaps (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anujkaps, articles are always allowed to be updated, especially when they might be deleted. If enough reliable sources are added throughout the article, it's possible it might not be deleted. You've still got a few more days before this discussion is closed. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uanfala and Gestrid,

I have cited a few references on the page now. Also, I have found references to Chamba Chukh on existing Wikipedia Pages which have also now been linked back to this page <Chamba Chukh>. Will continue digging and improving the page.

Thanks Anujkaps (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just remember that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, which means Wikipedia articles can't cite other Wikipedia articles. See WP:RS for what can and can't be a reliable source. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks understood.

Also, I have linked back to this page from the Himachal Pradesh (State in India where Chukh comes from) Wikipedia page where a reference to it already existed.

Anujkaps (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foursome (web series)[edit]

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

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

I originally prodded this article as being an unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability, but it was deprodded when some references were added. However, the new references do nothing to establish notability. The first confirms the release of YouTube red and does not mention the series at all, while the other 3 are primary sources, straight from the YouTube blog. I have been unable to find mention in reliable secondary sources that would establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nom's assessment of the sources and I am unable to find additional coverage that would establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Self-pushed virtual series". Millbug ^talk 03:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Keep - I cleaned up the article a bit and added more reliable sources and will continue to do so as I find them, but I think now the article has enough sources to show notability. Andise1 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, several of the added refs were used to support the plot section, which was a copyright violation, having been copied from YouTube and imdb.

I saw that and after the plot was removed I went ahead and rewrote the plot using my own words, so I put the refs back in. Andise1 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost. The plot is still very similar to the plot summary in this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Changing my !vote based on newly added references. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 217.42.252.221 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Vogel[edit]

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

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

The Cristian Vogel page, whilst has some merits, remains un-sourced except for one random link for over 5 years. A wikipedia article should not be original research or content that does not have a source for every assertion.

This page continues to have no one editing it and providing the necessary sources so should be deleted JonnyTSpeed (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion was created without the ((afd2)) template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no comment on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Author keep It's been quite a road to get here - the nominator prodded the article more than once, then speedied it, then attempted to AfD it as an IP, twice, before Finngall helped him along to finish the transclusion. The AfD creation page is also the account's first and only edit. What this indicates is that the nominator is someone who may not really understand the deletion process very well.

This is only because the deletion process is so opaic and every notice that was put on was instantly deleted over some minor technicality. The AfD forces you to register - that does not make the reuest unjustified 217.42.252.221 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

You're not "forced" to register, as I explained at User talk:JonnyTSpeed. As I stated there, there are editors (myself included) who are willing to complete nominations on behalf of anon editors. Providing a rationale for the AfD nomination is not a "technicality"--it's essential. --Finngall ^talk 21:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyTSpeed's rationale is that the article is largely unsourced, but this is not in and of itself a valid reason for deletion; the article has one reliable source, and through the past month, I got no indication that the nominator's attentions had been directed toward a WP:BEFORE effort, which might have dredged up sources such as an extensive interview from Fact (magazine), coverage from XLR8R, and two reviews by Pitchfork Media. Beyond that, the nominator may not be familiar with WP:MUSIC, and Vogel, at minimum, clears the hurdle for releases on noteworthy labels, having issued several albums on the labels Mille Plateaux and Tresor Records. Since deletion is not cleanup, the nominator's comments regarding lack of editing and sourcing are not relevant to AfD, though of course I encourage any interested parties to add sourcing as their time and interests permit. Chubbles (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article has been requesting more sources for 5 years and you've just found them. Go ahead and edit the article rather than just say there's information out there so it should just stay with hundred of words of unsourced original research 217.42.252.221 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

I've already edited the article plenty, thank you. But you're welcome to do work on it if you'd like; in the time you've spent trying to get it deleted, you could have spruced it up quite nicely. Chubbles (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>>> So basically you were the repetitive author of all this unsourced material/ original research. Why didn't you put sources in the article when you wrote it? No wonder you are angrily defending your handy work [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep passes WP:MUSIC for notable label releases, also passes WP:GNG. with the reliable sources identified above as well as the allmusic bio which is rs.It would be best if the author can add these sources to the article and any other rs available. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, the Gnews results alone clearly indicate a notable musician, with PopMatters (to choose but one) hailing him as "a superb artist of musique concrète and a notable remixer of various Radiohead and Thom Yorke tracks". With so many true problem articles elsewhere, it's hard to understand the obsession with deleting this article by all means necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all unsourced content. After over 5 years of notices someone starts qualifying the content [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]
  • You have indicated above that you registered an account as JonnyTSpeed in order to pursue this nomination. You cannot !vote twice. You have already registered your delete !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is obvious to anyone who takes the time to do a Google search. Nomination puts forward no valid argument for deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clearly an advertisement; G11 would have been reasonable DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research Peptides[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company. All 5 sources are press releases, and Google search did not reveal any other in-depth coverage. SPA-editing with unclear COI status. GermanJoe (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material: Advertorial with its own press releases and trivial passing mentions along with no chances of notability is by far enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Swarm intelligence#Algorithms. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flower pollination algorithm[edit]

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

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat algorithm
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckoo search
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower pollination algorithm
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fowler–Yang equations
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle strategy

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

• Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
• Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
• Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
• I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge: This article claims to be about an algorithm, but it does not describe an algorithm, it rambles through supposed characteristics of something else (pollination??), and implies, I suppose, that these characteristics somehow define an algorithm. This is largely pseudoscientific babble. If this particular researcher is really notable, there should be an article about him/her, noting the production of an open-ended list of algorithms with flowery (ha!) names. I defy anyone to claim that the bulk of this article is a contribution to human knowledge, which WP claims to be. (And is, overall, the largest single collection of knowledge ever created by humanity, while including the largest collection of total garbage ever...) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Swarm intelligence#Algorithms mainly per WP:NOTJOURNAL. In order for a concept to be notable, we cannot be relying on just the original author's publications, but instead need some secondary coverage such as reviews citing the original work (in this case a book chapter). Right now the article seems to be written as if it was someone trying to justify a new idea.

There are a number of papers citing this method, but like many of the other algorithm articles, we need secondary sources that explain the method and what it's used for rather than relying on WP:PRIMARY sources. I would generally want to see these algorithm articles potentially merged to Swarm intelligence#Algorithms to see if they are even noteworthy there, and then spin them off as content forks if they can actually build up enough content there. I honestly don't see that happening though as that section likely should be reduced to simply say a number of algorithms have been modeled after biological systems while only noting examples cited by strong secondary sources rather than a non-independent source for each method. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nominator's analysis of sources is convincing. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Cox[edit]

Michael G. Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Too many of the refs are self-written and one doesn't even feature him. This is an aspirant politician who appears to have removed the PROD previously on this article. This is far too soon - better wait until dreams turn to reality before coming back to Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Many articles exist that only state someone is a political candidate. Cox has founded businesses, taught, and worked in government. The article and references can be improved. The subject is notable. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest I go about improving the content of the article?PurpleCouch987 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)PurpleCouch987[reply]

Unless a consensus I'm going to add more 3rd party sources and remove the being consider for deletion notification. I really would like to improve this article though so any input is appreciated. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

@PurpleCouch987: Adding all the material you can find from respectable third-party sources is a great idea, and is the best way to convince others that Cox has received enough attention in such sources to deserve his own article. But please don't remove the deletion notice until this discussion has ended. FourViolas (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well this discussion is going nowhere and seems largely pointless so... PurpleCouch987 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

• Keep Coverage of current race provides a few sources with short bios and discussion of Cox: [13] [14] [15]. Narrowly meets WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete candidates for the state legislature will get coverage. We do not create articles until they are elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

• Comment - have we reached consensus ? Have we heck. We have a politician for whom Wikipedia editors can only find a single independent ref that even hints at notability (the piece in Roll Call) and that is in a very niche publication for Capitol Hill. All the rest are his own web-site, Linkedin or similar which do not convey any notability. Now if we could find independent discussions of him in the New York Times or something similar, that might change the game  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your perspective. The majority of the comments on this page support the article. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

Additionally you are simply incorrect about the sources. The majority of the sources do not come from his campaign page but from third party websites such as legistorm, newspapers, and the Maxwell website. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

OK, I guess you would like the details. Refs 1 a,b,c,d,e,f and 8 are all his own web site. Ref 2 a,b ,c,d, and e are from his Maxwell School Alumnus page - good for facts but not for notability, Ref 3 simply confirms that he exists and is presumably paid a salary - no notability there, Ref 4 is a YouTube page - not acceptable as a ref in Wikipedia, Ref 5 is his own Linkedin page, Ref 6 makes no mention of Cox, Ref 7 is the Heard on the Hill ref mentioned above and is the nearest we get to notability, and Ref 8 is back to his own web-site.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been agreed upon by the other commenters. You are the sole holdout. As far as I can tell there is no explicit statement indicating that the consensus has to be unanimous. I appreciate your commitment to the quality of Wikipedia and I'm very impressed by your record. I've looked through many of the article you have written...good stuff! That said your personal feelings about this page do not outweigh the consensus. I think this discussion is closed. Again, thank you for your commitment. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

Wow, I don't remember being that patronised since I left school ! Nevertheless, this is not about how I feel about this article - I have no feelings about this article. It is about the way Wikipedia assess notability and the application of those rules to this article. The assessment is not up to you as you are a substantial author of the article and it is not up to you to close this debate - that is for other, uninvolved experienced editors to do.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, other "experienced" editors have established notability and stopped commenting on this page. Therefore your views are in the minority. I did not mean to be patronizing but if you want to take it that way thats fine by me. This discussion is effectively over - nobody else has commented for over a week. Unless I get new feedback by tomorrow I am going to remove the deletion notice. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, hi PurpleCouch987, please don't remove the afd notice, thats for administrators (or under some circumstances, really experienced editors) to do, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process, i have found these essays very helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Elsner[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG... and was deleted earlier this month. Notability hasn't changed since then. Joeykai (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the leagues that Elsner has played for count as Top Tier leagues as defined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no more notability than before, and this does not even attempt to address the issues raised. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I would speedy it but I made a delete comment in the last AfD so I can't. It doesn't have anything more than the one deleted earlier. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure if this actually does qualify as a speedy G4 candidate, and this version may not be considered substantially identical to the one that was deleted. From a prose perspective, however, it is substantially worse. Only reason I won't just nuke it now is the fact that I've generally semi-retired, so better for an active admin to make that call. Resolute 13:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are two critical lines of thought in this discussion: 1. All secondary schools are notable, regardless of the level of coverage received in independent sources, as long as we can verify their existence. Due to this inherent notability, any degree-awarding secondary school should have its own article. 2. Secondary schools are held to the same standard as every other organization, and must include multiple reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in detail. Without this requisite sourcing, notability cannot be determined; therefore, no article should be created or retained.

There is validity to both of these arguments, inasmuch as the conclusions are supported by their premises. But, to determine the soundness of the arguments, they must be weighed against the community's consensus precedent. The key pieces of policy I'll quote here are from WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL, the most authoritative guidelines on schools that we have:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.^[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
— WP:ORGSIG ^{(emphasis added)}

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
— WP:ORG § Primary criteria ^{(emphasis added)}

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
— WP:NSCHOOL ^{(emphasis added)}

Two of these guidelines point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further reference, so let's look at the relevant section:

Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
— WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

The key take away here is that we as a community have not properly discussed this issue, and therefore we have not established a working policy via consensus. The policy and our current consensus precedent seem to contradict each other, at least when it comes to the amount of coverage required. We must also consider if WP:SYSTEMICBIAS has any effect here; once again, this topic has not been discussed properly at a community level to answer such a question.

In conclusion, both arguments have full validity - just not from the same perspectives. The argument for retention based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fully valid and even sound when compared to the current, de facto, consensus precedent (a precedent that the guidelines themselves point to). However, the argument for deletion, based on the requirement of establishing notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, is also fully valid and equally sound when compared to the established consensus set in the guidelines. Obviously, this is problem. And a determination must be made. However, for a determination to be made, the community must have a real discussion and establish a firm consensus. - Singular discussions, with limited community visibility (such as AFD), cannot achieve this goal. And as such, it is not within a single administrator's power to make this determination for the community. Therefore, no consensus can be determined at this time, defaulting to the retention of the article. Furthermore, it is recommended that a formal RFC be opened to make the requisite determination, and then rewrite the relevant policies/guidelines to reflect the consensus. (This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies/guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ADMIN, WP:DELETE.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden English School Btl[edit]

Eden English School Btl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

[Note: The following reflects the name of the article at the time the AfD was relisted.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Eden English Boarding High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable Higher Secondary school in Nepal. Some links are are provided in see also segment but are not so strong for keeping this article here in wikipedia. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 04:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Striking the nomination.  While the account was blocked on 20 July 2016, and it is not clear to me if it would be proper to strike the nomination statement for an AfD closed on 13 July 2016, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF states that, "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions)...", and this nomination statement was formally re-instated on 29 July 2016 by the DRV relisting.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete Completely unreferenced puff-piece. Without future prejudice, it's current incarnation reeks of WP:PROMO. Nikto wha? 04:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain. Photos are nice, but the only real mention I could find is an announcement of a football match vs Samit English School. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that a government source has been found to confirm the school actually exists. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite obviousty per standard procedure as a high school/vocational college providing education to school leaving age per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - nominator and Nikto are evidently not aware of this.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  [Bolded !vote struck as this editor has made a new keep !vote in the relisting.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

  • Have a look at WP:OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD, especially its instruction to "[a]void weak or illogical arguments, such as . . . 'We always keep these articles'." Evidently, you were not aware of the essay's own instructions. Rebbing 23:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Ayub407^talk 09:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per longstanding precedent articles on secondary schools are kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - VarunFEB2003 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing ORG and GNG. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a guideline, and it absolutely does not reflect consensus to keep unsourced, COIN articles about non-notable private institutions. Rebbing 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete at least until WP:V can be met and this can be shown to not be a hoax. Even SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires we meet WP:V. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:V has now been met. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Firstly, SCHOOLOUTCOMES carries no weight and, even if it did, there would have to be reliable evidence that the school in question even exists. Reyk _YO! 13:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else who appears to misunderstand SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It merely records the consensus that exists. It is not meant to "carry weight". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. Look at how it's being used in this AfD prior to the relist, then try and tell me that. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until someone can prove this is not a hoax. Comment I believe this is a possible promotion of a private boarding school therefore fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because is not a school. 0 hits on the most generic search, "Eden English School" zero hits, google news zero hits. Pinging everyone to take a second look Necrothesp, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, John Pack Lambert, VarunFEB2003. Again I am willing to vote keep if anyone can prove this is a school. Pinging GB Ryan771 article creator. Also what is curriculum being taught here? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much aware of all wiki policies so I wont be the right person to comment. Thanks. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eden Garden Boarding School same school I think, I really don't know because there are no sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the snippets seen from a Google search for [distance from Lalitpur to Butwal], these two schools appear to be 263 km apart.  There are numerous additional differences in the assertions, such as that one was established in 1994 and the other in 1999.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (again). I think claimng this article to be a hoax (and Hobit) is an expression of very bad faith. There are two very different photos of quite clearly the same school: File:Eden E. Boarding High School, Butwal.JPG and File:Eden School Butwal.jpg. I think this conclusively proves its existence. Nepal is among the world's least developed countries and has a troubled political history and a low level of literacy. Thus some leeway should be given to the lack of existence of electronic media that would provide verifiable sources. Note that the ominator is now blocked and taking into account their editing history, one could possibly be moved to consider that the AfD nomination is some kind of school rivalry. This is the kind of AfD which could lead more experienced members of our community to demand qualifications and/or a specific user right for patrolling and/or tagging articles for various deletion processes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a hoax. In fact, I'd say it's 98% likely not to be. But the building shown in the picture and the one at the address given look to me to be different using Google maps. It's enough that I'm worried it might be a hoax. And I don't think we really have a reliable source that it does exist. So per WP:V, we shouldn't have an article. As soon as we get verification it does in fact exist (and I'd be happy with you or some other known quantity going there and verifying it) I'd change to keep in a heartbeat. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was also concerned about the google maps image until I realized what is marked as the building is actually the parking lot or field in front of the building, at which point it appears to be a match. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppet ban is enough for me to decline from voting. Even if its is a nonnotable private inistitution I am uncomfortable with the idea a banned editor for bad faith can vote to remove possible encyclopedic material. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out, Valoem, these recent activities are from either a bunch of, (or the same) 12-year-olds using a school IP. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the CU tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay not a guideline and IMHO no school should be kept just because it exists, If it doesn't have any sources it doesn't deserve an article IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Davey2010. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed part of an 'essay' and is not a 'guideline' - correct, but only in so far tat that 'essay' is the only available (or nearest} Wikipedia page type for classifying it. It does however not express any opinions and draws its content from clearly identifiable facts (literally 1,000s of High school articles ket at AfD). It is a neutral documentation of the way the community has chosen to handle the notability of a few special kinds of topics. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, I've closed tons of school AFDs as Keep as well as !voted Keep on many however IMHO there's no actual benefit to keeping school articles that are poorly sourced and are unlikely to ever be sourced or improved, I personally believe keeping them is now a waste of time but I know you prefer keeping these and I respect that (I don't mean that in a shitty way - we all have preferences etc), Anyway thanks for replying, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Now there's a source confirming it exists I don't see any reason to delete, Thanks to all who have managed to find sources. –Davey2010^Talk 11:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have searched a lot and I cannot find even a single independent reliable source which describes that this school exists. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is valid if and only if WP:V is satisfied. I would gladly change to keep if someone can find such a source. I have clearly not been able to find one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The schools compromise is one of our best ways of handling AfDs--it's an even handed compromise between those who wished to keep articles on elementary schools as a matter of course, and those who did not want to keep even high schools unless there were exceptionally good sources. Neither party was altogether happy with it, but they were both happier than if the other side had won. That is what is meant by consensus--something we can al live with without having to fight it afresh every time. Whether it is a private school or a public school is quite irrelevant, and I wonder on what basis Valoem is asserting that it matters? All school articles tend to be associated with promotionalism -- if not from the management, from the students. How is the criterion of whether an article is likely to be improved a requirement for keeping a WP article? And, anyway, why does Davey2010 think the article is unlike to be improved or better sources?--school students frequently do work on articles about their school, so I would say they are among the articles most likely to be improved. As for the question of whether the school exists,the school website is presumptive evidence. Have any of the people who say they can find no other sources of knowledge of Nepali? And if so, have they searched local print sources? DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely neutral on this article, but want to comment on the statement above that Neither party was altogether happy with it [...] is what is meant by consensus. That's the definition of compromise, not consensus. Consensus is when most people are happy with the outcome. That's not to say that compromise can't be a useful way to move forward, but they're not quite the same thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most (not all but most) of the school articles that end up at AFD and subsequently kept aren't improved nor ever sourced - They're just left to rot. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Redirect if there's a relevant e.g. district article) - There are some who argue that schools receive a free pass for WP:N, but if there are no WP:RS, there is nothing on which to base an article per WP:V. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, you don't appear to have read the entire discussion, nor to have understood the special nature of Nepal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While continuing to remain neutral on the article, I feel the need to also address the above comment. We have two drivers here, which are in conflict. On the one hand, we have a inviolable requirement that everything we publish is true, i.e. WP:V. On the other hand, we have an unfortunate, but overwhelming, tendency to favor topics which are easy to research online. That means we have (very strong) bias towards things which are recent, things which are written about in English, and things which happen in places with pervasive internet presence. We are caught up in a race to the bottom, to become the on-line blogopedia of Pokémon, porn stars, pop culture, and paid promotion. Fighting this bias is a critical part of what we need to do to remain relevant. So, yes, bend over backwards to fight bias on non-anglo-european topics. But, not at the cost of ignoring WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What the post above shows is a lack of the basic understanding of the message we've worked to present at WP:V and WT:V, which is that Wikipedia is not a Truth^TM forum.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC) As stated at WP:Inaccuracy, "Editors sometimes think that verifiable material should be accurate, but verifiable material may or may not be accurate."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: What makes you say I haven't read the entire discussion? If others have found reliable sources with which to write an article, then I have indeed overlooked something and would thank you for highlighting them. Sometimes I think it makes sense to grant some leeway for subjects when sourcing is weak but there's some indication there may be sources in a language I'm unable to search, or sources not readily available over the Internet. What we have here is not weak sourcing but a complete absence of reliable sources, and thus nothing on which to base an article. No prejudice to recreating it based on reliable sources should they surface in the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly struck my !vote above given verification. Certainly won't be switching to keep, though, as there's still nothing on which to base a real article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one was gnawing at me a bit. Looking again at what's available, I can't bring myself to passively accept what some people claim there is consensus for, but aren't willing to actually put it up for discussion via promotion of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to guideline status. There's almost nothing on which to base this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources about it can be found. If we can't find reliable sources, it is impossible for us to write a verifiable article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is not notability. The problem here is that we need a source to prove that the school exists: One reliable independent source would be sufficient, per schooloutcomes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you are mistaken. SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not hold that schools get a free pass on notability. Instead, it says:

The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).

Examining NGEO and ORG—the guidelines that SCHOOLOUTCOMES says apply to schools—we find that to be kept at AFD, a school must have received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. (ORG stresses that "[a] single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.") Driving this point home further, ORGSIG—part of an established guideline—says:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists . . . .

Rebbing 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand Rebbing. My position is slightly different though. I recognize what DGG said about the schools and I'm willing to respect SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a compromise: not a perfect solution, but better than debating every single school. But schooloutcomes specifically requires that there should be reliable independent sources which can prove that (1) The school exists, (2) It is accredited and (3) It is a high school. Unless all 3 are satisfied, I am not supportive of keeping an article. I see the SCHOOLOUTCOMES as something similar to the SNGs on sports people. I believe the purpose of SNGs is to selectively keep articles about people who have a good chance of passing GNG someday. I see something similar with schooloutcomes as well (though lot less selective): As long as the school is verified, it may be covered one day. I can live with it for the time being. The problem here is that editors vote keep without looking at WP:V, essentially reducing the school to a Russell's teapot. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's the thing: You (and others) misread SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a compromise establishing that schools are kept as long as they can be verified to exist, but it says nothing of the sort. (Go read it again.) Instead, it reaffirms that NORG applies to schools, and NORG, in turn, requires significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources—the same as GNG. True, it says that most high schools that can be shown to exist are kept, but that's because they are found to meet NORG or some other notability guideline, not because they're accredited high schools proven to exist. Rebbing 23:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:VERIFY. Several editors above have pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a reason to keep this article, but note that the consensus documented there is to keep articles on secondary schools that are verified by independent sources. To uphold that consensus requires deleting this unsourced article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify - I'm a believer in SCHOOLOUTOMES for reasons outlined by others and debated ad nauseum in these AfD discussions. However we just can't have unverified content allowed to exist on this encyclopedia at the risk of making us all look ridiculous. My firm belief is that this school exists, but there are no sources that I can find which meet the general standards of WP:VERIFY and the usual standards for schools in particular. We simply require evidence that the school exists, and photos taken by an interested party don't count. That's a low hurdle given that the information can indeed be in the local language that someone here can point to. The rest of the debate is phooey in my opinion. We can debate exactly what SCHOOLOUTCOMES says/means, we can debate whether it matters if it is a private school etc and so on, but that doesn't make any difference to the fact that this page is currently unverified and despite best efforts remains so. The delete option seems to me to be a bit severe, given what I've already said about the likelihood that the school exists, so I think we should userify and contact the editor who wrote the content with an explanation of what we need to see here. If the school exists, then there should be no problem with finding something which meets the currently accepted standard for SCHOOLOUTCOMES - and the other more general discussions about it as a guideline can be continued in a more appropriate venue. JMWt (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I already tried that. User_talk:GB_Ryan771#Sources_for_Eden_English_Boarding_High_School --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, difficult. Unfortunately if the editor himself is saying that there are no other sources, then we're pushed into the corner of delete, because the whole page is based on a COI. Which is obviously going to be hard for the editor to understand if he knows personally that the school exists! JMWt (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments  Regarding the effort to contact PABSON, PABSON states, that schools "registered with the District Education Office (DEO) are eligible to apply for Membership at the PABSON District Executive Office".  The applicable DEO website appears to be deorupandehi.gov.np/, and has an email and phone number, contact page. 

  In other notes, a Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] shows a map, an address, and phone number in the right-hand column for the school.  Since most of the original text is no longer visible in the current article, I've found that this older revision is helpful in understanding the context. 

  We are here because of an improper DRV closing that uses the words "wrong result" while citing no policies, and addresses AfD volunteers for "not digging deep enough".  The DRV itself was a nomination that could have been speedy closed as WP:POINT...a closer does not have standing to request the overturn of his/her own closing.  Be that as it may, there were no issues that could not have protected the AfD volunteer community by allowing the normal six months to pass before another AfD for this article.  Nor was sockpuppetry of the AfD nomination mentioned in the DRV closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per precise reading of our policies and guidelines, and WP:IAR for the WP:IAR claims that we don't need to support or WP:AGF our multi-language content contributors from Nepal.  As mentioned by the DRV nomination, File:Eden E. Boarding High School, Butwal.JPG shows the name of the school both on the building and on one of the busses.  I count 297 people in that assembly.  There is another picture of morning assembly at schoolius.com, picture, that shows a square tower to the right of the assembly.  The basic Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] provides a map, and I looked at that map at the 20 meter scale, and compared the satellite image with the square tower.  The details, such as the line of the roof peak, match, as does the treeline behind the school.  This satellite map provides the requirement in WP:V#Notability for a third-party source.  The guideline WP:N is satisfied, by the consensus that it does so at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  WP:RS states that all reliable sourcing depends on context, and we know from intellius that this school provides secondary education.  Our article on Nepal identifies fourteen "recognized national languages", and there is no need for AfD to explain why searches on Nepali strings produce puzzling search results.  Rupandehi district borders on India, which may increase the language considerations.  It is past time to move away from AfD and turn the difficult issues of reading Nepali over to our Nepali content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google users can add their own content to google maps. I don't think this really counts as an independent secondary source as someone could have added all of this information about a hoax school. What we really need is a newspaper article mentioning the school or a government document in any language. Not pointing to user submitted content. This should not be hard to supply if the school really exists. JMWt (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement carefully avoided any reliance on the assertion of existence based on a place marker in Google maps.  Please don't make false claims about my assertions.  Just the contrary has occurred here, as what I have shown can be used to conclude that the user content added to Google was done correctly.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are just wrong. Google content cannot be used in this way as an independent secondary source for primary verification. It is quite simple, the thing must be shown by secondary sources, which must be available for any existing school and which cannot be faked - such as newspaper articles and official government reports. It is obviously possible to build up fake credentials using information on facebook, google, twitter and self-taken photographs, hence they're not to be primarily used for verification. Once we have proof from an independent secondary source, then these of course add strength to the thing existing. JMWt (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you tried checking my reference to the policy WP:V#Notability, you'd see that the words used there are not "independent secondary source", then perhaps you'd see that it would be helpful and appropriate to limit your rebuttal to points I've made.  You can also see the words "third-party source" in my !vote post. 

In your response, you've not cited from policies, guidelines, and/or essays; and in the context of proving me "wrong" suggests that you are not clear on why you are saying that which you are saying. 

Another point you should perhaps consider, do you believe that Google takes satellite pictures?  I'm willing to consider that there is a vast military conspiracy to alter satellite images provided to Google to hide radar arrays on coastlines, but without sources to tell us that, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources.  Since we don't follow the sources blindly, I've written the essay WP:Inaccuracy, but I doubt you are going to find a consensus here that some advanced persistent threat at the direction of or on behalf of Eden English School is altering the satellite images being considered at this AfD.  Summary: the satellite images are reliable and third party.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I've seen many people (myself included) argue along the lines of WP:BURDEN in this particular case, pointing to a lack of reliable sources with which to write an article, regardless of whether the subject is argued to be notable. However, we have an awful lot of people arguing to keep -- numerically sufficient to make it difficult to envision someone willing to close as delete, regardless of the content of the arguments. So my question is what comes next. The content of the article has been officially challenged as WP:V provides for, but if the article is closed as no consensus (or keep!), I imagine removing the content would be highly controversial. So what happens next? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we find a way to verify the damn school. there must be a way. JMWt (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• BINGO - the page creator has found this from the Nepali Government Department of Education. That's good enough. Keep. JMWt (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JMWt: I'm sorry, but that's not anywhere near enough. SCHOOLOUTCOMES directs us to N, NORG, and NGEO, all of which require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The added source is reliable and independent, but its coverage isn't remotely significant. Also, it's only one source. Take a look at ORGDEPTH. Rebbing 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are arguing with the consensus position of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which has been tested over and over again with the conclusion that there is no way or consensus to change it, and as such has little relevance to this specific AfD. The fact is that we have in English a government source showing that the school exists. Therefore it stands to reason that there must be a whole number of other relevant reliable secondary sources showing it exists which we haven't found yet because they are in a local language or are only available on paper. That's quite a different thing to many others ORGs and is one reason why schools are considered differently. Again, if you don't like it, then it is down to you to try to change the consensus not try to derail AfDs with the same rejected arguments. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @DGG:, @Unscintillating: per schooloutcomes, now that it is verified no reason to delete and per Kudpung กุดผึ้ง sources are harder to find for undeveloped countries, if Wikipedia should promotion anything it should be education. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with DGG's and Unscintillating's analyses. Keep per this page^archive.org from the Department of Education (Nepal) linked by JMWt above verifying that the school exists. The page says:

  School Code 48261

  Name of the School EDEN ENGLISH BOARDING SCHOOL BUTWAL, RUPANDEHI

  Cunard (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now. School has been verified here and I want to thank the article creator for their help. See this discussion where they helped to find sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The creator should be congratulated for engaging with us when the thing must be extremely hard to understand given that we are casting doubt on the existence of something that he knows exists. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SCHOOLOUTCOMES is often seen as overly permissive, but it saves us all from a lot of pointless debates and wasted time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability, insufficiently covered by reliable sources. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a policy or guideline, while WP:N is, consequently opinions based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be disregarded.  Sandstein  07:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N has no requirement for coverage by reliable sources, it is a guideline to determine if a topic should have a standalone article.  The 2007 WP:N had a requirement that sufficient sources exist to write an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh. Not only does "reliable" appear 17 times in WP:N, but the nutshell includes "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention" and right there in the second sentence is "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence comes from the policy WP:V#Notability, and has a good consensus at this AfD that it is satisfied.  WP:N has only one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice".  WP:N is in some ways a minor guideline because we are only considering the difference between whether a topic should be standalone or merged.  It is WP:DEL8 where the difficult decisions for inclusion are made.  As for what you are saying about the nutshell, the nutshell calls for reliable "evidence", not reliable "coverage".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am a strong supporter of the longrunning consensus that secondary schools of confirmed existence should be automatically kept while all but the most exceptional primary schools should be redirected to their school district or parish or town. It is a compromise between inclusionism and deletionism which works and saves us all from an endless string of tedious debates that would bog down an overtaxed AfD process. In short: high schools generally also have sports teams, bands, extracurricular activities, and serve as community centers, for which there is extant coverage; and excellent biographies SHOULD include reference to precise secondary schools, and those links should be blue, not red. Primary schools, on the other hand, have very little such coverage and the articles about them are invariably mere rosters of staff. This is a secondary school of confirmed existence, therefore it should be kept. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Determining notability by evaluating coverage is how we handle most AFD debates. There is no need to shortcut that process, especially when doing so is in clear opposition to the written consensus of the community: "No organization is exempt from [the notability] requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists . . . ." It shouldn't need saying, but, per CONLEVEL, the consensus of the broader community trumps the opinions of those who are most active at AFD. In addition to contradicting our guidelines, this supposed compromise also gives short shrift to the purpose for the notability requirement and contravenes the unofficial norms of deletion discussions. Rebbing 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton: Fantastic Night Dreams[edit]

Cotton: Fantastic Night Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only two refs for this article which has been around for years. One is own web-site and the other is Hardcore Gaming 101 which is about as niche a publication as is possible to get. No claims to any special notability. No notability established. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect I researched the matter and my path lead to the Japanese Wiki. There I discovered that they have a single article for the entire series, only it's done in a slightly peculiar manner with the article being for this game and then mentioning the other games in a section. Our article for Cotton (series) is fairly comprehensive. I don't think the detail there of our game is missing much if anything. We could add a short paragraph from our Release section to the List detail of this particular game there, along with the TurboGrafx-CD image someone has uploaded. I also noticed the article for Panorama Cotton is fairly similar. It has even less information. I'd suggest deleting redirecting it as well and just using the image in the series article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the end result looks pretty neat: Cotton (series)#List of video games. I found just one sentence necessary to add in addition to the images. I also found some Japanese coverage I might add to the series article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After some amount of reviews and coverage were dug up, I think at this point the first title has earned its own article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Hardcore Gaming 101" is considered a usable source per consensus at WP:VG/S - Writer Kurt Kalata is a journalist with a lot of experience in the field. That source should not be discounted, especially considering it covers the subject in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a retrospective from US Gamer that focuses mostly on the title. US Gamer is an RS per WP:VG/S.
• There's a review for the game from Honest Gamers too. The Video Games WikiProject was undecided if Honest Gamers was a reliable source or not, so take that however you want... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay if by "notabilty"" the nominator meant "reviews", then there are several just on what he called "own web-site" (and really is MobyGames entry): http://www.mobygames.com/game/fantastic-night-dreams-cotton/mobyrank These are largely German ones like the linked scan of Mega Fun http://www.kultboy.com/index.php?site=t&id=4741 And then there are various others still, like the 3-page review in Consoles + or about the portable version in Retro Gamer even online: http://www.retrogamer.net/retro_games00/cotton/ Or maybe I just don't know what "special notability" means. --PiXXeL777 (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough sources have been added to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Musa[edit]

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

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Was tagged as a speedy as it's already been deleted recently, but declined by Nyttend. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 18:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 18:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 18:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per norm, U-19 cricketers fail WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 18:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT as recreated, per nom --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. That edit summary from Nyttend is atrocious, if editors can't be civil they shouldn't be admins. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable sports figure and micro-stub article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fazlul Haq[edit]

Dr. Fazlul Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Geographer who has just received his PhD. References show that there are some publication, but there's nothing indicating he is "well known" as the article states. H-index currently seems to be 1, with a total of 7 citations (5 for the 2011 article, 1 each for two articles from 2014), as per GScholar. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. No evidence of notability from sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment The article has been deleted before, under the name Fazlul haq. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted twice under that name, actually, but both deletions were speedy under criterion A7, so we can't use them as the basis for a G4 (re-creation of deleted material) deletion. And the present article has plausible-enough claims of significance to save it from another A7 deletion, regardless of whether they contribute to actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as examining this multiple times through and through is still not finding anything at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of academic notability (in particular citations too low for WP:PROF#C1) nor general notability. I would suggest salting, but Fazlul Haq appears to be a legitimate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Mangal[edit]

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

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable sports figure and micro-stub of an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen ul Haq[edit]

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

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails NCRIC and does not otherwise show how it passes WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- yet another non notable cricketer. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]