< 23 November	25 November >

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

The result was Delete and salt. Joyous! | Talk 00:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freshdesk[edit]

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

An article on this company has been speedy deleted several times, either as G11 or A7. A somewhat improved version was submitted to AfC; I asked for further improvements and made some myself. It is now considerably better than earlier version. Personally, I do not have any confidence in the independence of most of the references, and the more reliable ones are mere notices. But I know some others think differently about references like this, so I told the submitter I would accept it, but then send it to AfD for a community decision. My own view, is delete and salt. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, per DGG. Almost certain COI, and actually basically spam. Sources are essentially churnalism, nothing of substance at all. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as I concur, 4 deletions in the past 3 years is entirely excessive and the fact we know, as it is, these publications and subjects are entirely "paid-for news", we cannot confide at all of them being genuinely independent news, thus there's nothing to actually support here. Also, the fact the blatancy has been consistent each time shows the concerns, and quite likely, we know there will be a 6th if we delete it now, hence the salt. Not to mention, it's obvious both the contributor quite likely has a paid stake in this or is otherwise involved, and the company too is aware and motivating this advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per DGG and SwisterTwister. I also think we should delete Girish Mathrubootham as that article's notability is entirely founded upon founding Freshdesk. Kbabej (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've gone ahead and nominated Girish Mathrubootham for deletion. Kbabej (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone, thanks for your feedbacks. Can you guide me on how the resources should be because whenever i write any articles, i take reference of other wikipedia articles . for example i took these as references, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Delien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendesk Also i dont have any connection with these companies directly or indirectly. I generally do take and give importance to the resources that are from the proper sources. I would like you all to suggest a solution for this instead of delete and salt User:Barath Rajendran ( talk ) 11:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Chase[edit]

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

Fails anybio. Appears WP:NOTMEMORIAL may apply. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author) - Contrary to the nom, the subject explicitly passes anybio, as he won the notable Lester Patrick Trophy. Given the subject's depth of coverage both before and after death, the subject easily passes the GNG. schetm (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Connormah (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability, verifiability, and exceeds a "memorial" page. — Wylie pedia 01:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have to agree that the Lester Patrick Trophy meets ANYBIO, and there are already a number of reliable sources in the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep Yeah this is a very clear cut keep, not even close. Very notable person with all kinds of sources and winner of a major award in hockey and thus meets ANYBIO as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 6:04, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RaDene R. Hatfield[edit]

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

Hatfield was a candidate for state senate who was defeated. This is not a high enough level of political involvement to be notable, and the sources do not rise above routine coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN; reads like the candidate herself wrote it. Instaurare (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she gets over another notability criterion for another reason, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable because candidate in and of itself. And with the entire article being based on just one piece of WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage, WP:GNG has not been met either. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neodent[edit]

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

Orphan article, not a notable company, creator of page is SPA editor and has been notified --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Odd Future. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Na'kel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Odd Future. Failing WP:ANYBIO does not necessarily mean that a person is not notable, but this person seems to fail WP:BASIC as well. I found coverage in only one reliable secondary source, this source, and WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Odd Future. Non-notable member of notable group who has not done anything to pass WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Odd Future. It's what we usually do. → Call me Razr Nation 11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Carraway[edit]

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

Carraway was Miss Kansas USA, but this is not enough to make her notable on its own, and the sourcing clearly is not there. She has acted and modeled, but neither on a level to make her notable. Some of the sourcing is mainly "look, a pro football player has a wife we think football fans will like looking at pictures of", not substantial coverage to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Winning a state level pageant is not sufficient for GNG and there is really nothing else, certainly not the trivial acting/modeling career (which one of the refs characterized as a failure). MB 02:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written I do not see surpassing WP:GNG. If other data were presented, I would consider it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 11:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Gerber[edit]

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

Gerber was Miss Kansas USA, this is not enough to justify having an article. The sources are extremely weak, and a search on google showed up nothing better, mainly a PR release from the specific sub-unit of the University of Oklahoma she was a student at. Gerber was also a contestant on a game show, but not anywhere near at a level that would make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Winning a state level pageant is not sufficient for GNG. Nothing else. Her LinkedIn profile shows post-graduation she is working as an Account Manager is southern CA. MB 02:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would need to see more impact to support keeping the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur, this seems to fall below a reasonable threshold of notability. If she goes on to do something more notable, the content currently in this article would be fine for flavour and background -- but it is not in itself sufficiently notable to support an article. Peterravn (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. → Call me Razr Nation 11:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Eastwood[edit]

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

Eastwood lost his race for US Congress. Being mayor of Kenmore, Washington, which is his other close claim to notability is just not enough to establish his notability. The sources are not what we would need to establish notability for this level of apolitician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom, or put another way: all coverage of subject is ROUTINE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Instaurare (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; if you cannot credibly claim and reliably source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become eligible because of his political activity itself. But this does not demonstrate any reason at all why he would be eligible for an article. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - coverage is broad but shallow. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an easy call, but I am convinced that he doesn't meet the threshold required by WP:POLITICIAN. → Call me Razr Nation 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Quigley[edit]

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

While Quigley's story is unfortunate, I do not think he meets the notability guideline for people. His claim to fame is marginal at best and there is little to add other than his tragic death at a young age. There was nothing particularly notable regarding his death and his appearance in the 1978 Superman movie was so fleeting and inconsequential we do not even list him among the cast. Matt Deres (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And I don't even see a list of child actors we can redirect to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing even the title role as an infant is just not enough to make someone notable. Even if the whole movie was of the title character as an infant, and it was also the main character, I would resist such an article, but here it was a very, very short role. Nothing at all substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 24 November 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 (G7) by Tom harrison. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Quirk Library[edit]

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

unremarkable organisation, no claim to significance in the article Domdeparis (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All India Football Federation. Merges should be discussed on the talkpage but anyway consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIFF U-16 Youth League[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The under-16 league should not have a page. See this discussion for when this page, under a different name, was created. PROD was contested with an invalid reason ("please don't delete this page and as there is no way you can merge this article with another please leave it be") ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the season reason: 2016-17 AIFF U-16 Youth League. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with All India Football Federation; Longstanding consensus is that youth leagues are not independently notable. This is no exception. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability, and doesn't merit redirect/merge. Giant Snowman 21:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Football Federation: Because THIS and THIS. Anyone interested can do the selective merge. Anup [Talk] 04:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge a small amount per all AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Past winners table: Merge the past winners table with I-League U18 page winners table like THIS and THIS. Wordzgamez (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be assuming they're under one title. The I-League U18 and the I-League/AIFF U15 are separate competitions and I can't just make a page titled "AIFF Youth League" or something. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PC Advisor[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. It is a minor publication that has never risen to the limelight of notability, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - fairly well-known within that ever-shrinking market, but marginal IMO. Shritwod (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a master IDG properties page. Thanks for collecting these, Piotr. Since IDG's websites are basically filters for a master article list, it's silly that we have a page for each one. Jergling (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See COI editor keep argument at my talk page: [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given WP:BEFORE B5, nomination does not show basic preparation to defend the value to the encyclopedia of deletion. Nor is WP:N a content guideline; so stating, "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement." is not determinative as to the need for a notability concern. As other editors have implied, a notability concern is not a deletion argument under the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, it is always hard to find sources about magazines and related media, because obviously magazines dont write about their competitors. I googled a bit and PCAdvisor's reviews are getting referenced in other publications, so they aren't niche. The print market is dying out for everyone, but their online portal on the other hand has quite impressive stats. They get 14.1 million unique hits and 30 million views every month (link) and Alexa ranks them on #365 in the UK. I think the metrics show that they are quite relevant in the UK. Dead Mary (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Unscintillating; a publication doesn't lose their WP:N points just because of the Internet existing to make print duplicative. It's the UK sister to PC World, one of the top 3 US PC publications, so the notability remains clinched. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Uk version!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurlinfo (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Unscintillating & Nate - Notable magazine in the UK and IMHO the article needs expanding not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardback[edit]

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

As history and AfDs show, we can never take Indian news publications seriously or confidently to be genuinely independent and this is simply because of the blatancy of obvious paid advertising, therefore not making it independent news; this shows since, regardless of apparent publication name, the sources listed are all sources known and confirmed as "pay-for" publications, and the fact all of the contents listed only ever maintain the noticeable consistency of only advertising what the company itself would say. Not only is that one of the first blatant signs, but it shows the company literally makes all and any efforts at advertising, this article is an example.

Because we can no longer take these seriously, I simply searched for the sake of it, and then confirmed the same exact thing: Sources found "news" only maintaining the yet again consistency of advertising. Not only is all of this self-explanatory, but so is the fact the history explicitly shows advertising-only accounts heavily involved with these articles, enough said. Therefore, because of the sheer blatancy, the best we can at least accomplish is by not mistakenly calling these "news" or "independent publishing". WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, which are policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though we can argue that a lot of publications around the world can not be trusted to be genuinely independent and may be a source of advertisements, I can vouch for the fact that none of the articles / references in this article were "paid for", even if the publication houses in question have been involved in such activities in the past. Take for example references 9, 5, 12 and 1. Facebook would never settle for "paid-for articles" on the featured section of their developer website / blog. The other coverages by Economic Times, NDTV Gadgets and Business Standard are 100% impartial and organic - reading them in full would show that they have reviewed the subject of this article from a neutral standpoint. This article has been on Wikipedia for more than a year and is definitely not intended to be an advertisement, otherwise, I'm sure it would have been spotted and deleted by now.

Disclaimer: I am officially associated with the company behind this product and therefore am vouching for the claims made above and can confirm that they are true to the best of my knowledge. I am not the author of this article but it has been on my watchlist since the time it appeared in a Google alert result set by me for "Cardback", though I have never made any edits to it. Having said that, I am happy to work with the community to elevate it to Wikipedia standards, if needed. Nikhil Wason (talk | contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook writing about their own ventures is neither independent nor reliable, as they have a vested interest in promoting the startup's image. Ref 5 looks to be one independent review, which is good. The Economic Times is a known source of PR blogspam, however. For Gizmodo and Windows Central, Abhishek Baxi wrote two very promotional pieces in the sites' blog sections on the same subject He is clearly an involved party. Funding rounds tell us nothing and do not show notability. Jergling (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, put aside your apparent involvement with this company, I explicitly noted and we all know this a fact that all Indian news is advertising-motivated and quite blatantly paid for such advertising, therefore a comment simply claiming "There's news!" means nothing if said sources are in fact advertising. "Facebook would never settle for advertsing" yet Facebook is one of the worst companies currently hosting advertising as it is since they not only allow companies to say and start whatever they want, their businesses actually involve advertising!

Also it's quite questionable for there to be "I can assure their advertisements were not paid for", yet there's a long long history of such violations and blatancy therefore it's quite unlikely there would've been a one-time they had not, especially since everything else clearly states this company's only involvements have been literal advertising. Therefore, summarily, we have nothing to assure both substance and non-paid or non-advertising contents, because none exist. Also, with such blatancy, we make no compromises (regardless of willing improvements) and the only solution for removing such blatant advertising is to delete it. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my rationale above. I give this one an 8/10: follows my official PR-writing handbook to-the-letter but needs some fluff and meatpuppets to take it to the next level. Jergling (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Indian companies in thisfield go, this one is relatively minor,. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a serious allegation and a gross generalization to deem the whole of Indian media as a set of "paid media" and "pay-for" publications. Indian media is as "paid" as the media of any other country. Deleting an article solely on the fact that notability is not achieved because all references point to Indian media is not warranted and is unfair. There are several 'notable' Indian companies and personalities that have no reference or coverage in media outside India, yet they qualify for Wikipedia articles. I seek a more convincing argument to defend that observation and consequently the deletion of this page. Nikhil Wason (talk | contribs) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All I can find are routine and trivial coverage. Anup [Talk] 04:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Relatively minor and trivial on-the-go coverage.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:40, 25 November 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 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perlhagen[edit]

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

Questionable notability, and no apparent credible assertion of notability - at least not enough on a read through to solidly tilt toward to the keep. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree there is no one thing to hang notability on, but he has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over the years and not just for one event. For instance "Refinery bid throws spotlight on investors" in The Sunday Times back in 2014; in connection with Monarch Airlines; and recently a great deal relating to British Steel so that he meets WP:BASIC where "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The effect is cumulative. Some of it is offline so I assume you have not read that. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as we should not consider WP:BASIC or any other damningly trivial and unconvincing when it's still clear this is advertising and that's enough to delete, especially since this was speedied once before, and there's quite honestly nothing here expectingly substantial, so it's enough to show there's nothing in fact better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising or promotional. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seem to me to be more like advertising or self promotion than an article eligible for an internet encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources. possible self-promotion needs to be confirmed. otherwise only speculations.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As BabbaQ states, there are multiple reliable sources, so it passes WP:BASIC. It also meets WP:GNG. SwisterTwister is mistaken - looking at the article creator's extensive new article creations, it is obvious that this article is NOT "advertising". Edwardx (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, it's about it is in fact advertising, because each article contains at least one of the following: obvious republished company information or interviewed quotes, none of which are independent, regardless of which publication listed them, the company said...."The company acquires....The company says....Now to begin the article, what is the company, its business plans and its involvements, now what is the company saying [is]....The company will pay [numbers], including investment [numbers] (finishes article with a company quote)....The businessmen plan to....Everything you need to know about the company: The company now says....The man pledges....[they] see a bright future....the company's finances and numbers....He bought the company with a stake, he also then owns this [company].... None of that is independent because it's clear it was company-supplied, therefore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean absolutely nothing when WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, which are both in fact policy, therefore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG would surely be damned before we wouldn't consider these two.

Even then, there's literally only attention about him because of his financial and company involvements with other groups so some of these never actually focus with him thus they are not in-depth or significant if only named mentions; that's not inherited notability and nothing else would suggest otherwise. If we're honestly saying that's the best we have, especially when we know business articles damningly blatant as it is, that's not notability, or independent "news" at all, hence WP:NOT would apply, to save ourselves from being a PR webhost.

Even take this, the article itself is at least a half-quarter filled by his "life information" followed by the other section, his career but that literally then only contains such information as The company....The company manages....The company's activities...., therefore it's simply to shoehorn anything to make this article supposedly larger. The sheer fact this was started again not even 6 months ago, shows how there's blatant motivations to start a PR business listing for this man, and a heavily focused one at that. History shows, as it is, a third restarting would be conceivable simply considering how advertising's foundation works. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While Richard Perlhagen is probably as notable as about 99 percent of the footballers with Wikipedia biographies, it also seems rather clear that Richard Perlhagen's father Lennart Perlhagen and older brother Karl Perlhagen both are more notable than he is. Had none of these articles existed, my suggestion would have been to start with an article on the father, Lennart P, add something brief on Richard and Karl to that article, and redirect both of them for the time being. We will, in all probability, have more sources on Richard in a few years. And Wikipedia needs more articles on companies and businesspeople. Wikipedia does not need witch-hunts whenever anybody tries to write one. --Hegvald (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is not about him. It's about the company and about others. He has no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Greybull is notable (though the article is almost promotional enough for G11 at this point). That does not mean the individual partners are. The refs are about the company. Multiple sources are not enough for notability--we require multiple sources with substantial coverage about the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really puzzled that users think it is a "vanity page", "advertising" etc. It is just a short and sober biography of somebody I read about in the news. There has been no attempt to puff him up and surely it is obvious from my user page that it isn't a PR piece or paid editing or anything like that? These sort of casually thrown around accusations, failure to assume good faith and simple lack of common sense are what drives people away from this project. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a vanity page because it's not clear from the article that the subject is indeed significant & notable for the public at large to be interested in this person's biography or accomplishments. It reads like a routine resume of a business executive; hence the label of a vanity page. I.e. this is something that a subject might have created themselves. I'm not suggesting that the author of the article is affiliated with the subject. But nonetheless, it's unclear why an article should exist. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. I think you need to be more careful in your choice of words in the future. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that too. A Google search on "vanity defined" reveals definition 2 as "the quality of being worthless or futile". So maybe he is using an unusual definition for the word. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents on the V-word (V for Vanity) for what it’s worth. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion>) states “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion." I should reveal that I’ve run across a similar false “vanity” AfD comment addressed at me as an author. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the positive comments of others that the subject meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Also, the negative claims that the article is advertising, promotional or vanity do not appear to be supported with any facts. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding here by some that Perlhagen has sought to promote himself in some way by issuing CVs or press releases which were used to construct this article. It is exactly the reverse. He and the other people at Greybull are routinely described as "secretive". I don't know Perlhagen, but I would imagine that he would be delighted if this article was deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge into Greybull Capital. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage", something of sufficient depth in order to signify notability. "Multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" means that multiple sources can be combined to provide the depth of coverage if no single source does that, but it still requires that the sum of the coverage be "in depth". That is not the case here - all the articles provide exactly the same information about Perlhagen - 3 CV items, the fact that he co-founded Greybull and then go on to talk about how his dad made money. That is not significant coverage, that is barely coverage at all. All of the significant coverage is about what the company does, or plans to do and notability is not inherited. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. Nobody else wants the article kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Katopodis[edit]

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

No indication of notability. WP:MILL reporter. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable.--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or second choice Merge to Eyewitness News (South Africa)~~ - she has been name checked as being a key player in Eye Witness News on South African TV, as an appointed member of SANEF, and championing the televising of the Trial of Oscar Pistorius. All that makes me think she's about as notable as Moira Stuart. I appreciate the many news hits are pieces written by her, not about her. @Aspro: please read WP:JNN. Ritchie333 ^(talk)^(cont) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) The article appears to have been created by a single user account. (2) the image uploaded by that account appears to be a professional shot, within a studio, using a back drop. Yet the image (uploaded here) appears to be scanned - not something that a professional photographer would normally stoop to. At the very least he would insure that his copyright is in the EXIF of the image. It looks to me like a portfolio shot, that people in the media often have done to add to their portfolio. Yet the uploalder is claiming it for his own. Let him tell us what camera, ISO, f, speed, lens, and BD paper, spots and diffusers he used. Thus, this image is exceedingly suspect. (3) Does anyone that appears on TV or radio automatically become notable? WP would double or quadruple in size over-night if that were to be true. (4) No good refs. Yet, thanks for bring it up in order to double check the weight thereof. P.S. What is the diff between JNN and résumé?--Aspro (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. There are one or two (could be more) passing mentions as, Katy said this, Katy said that, and Katy said, blah, of no use. Anup [Talk] 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All cited coverage is a passing mention or not by an independent reliable source. Sandstein 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JOURNALIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebob99 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG, at least so far as published accounts seem to show. Her career does make it tricky to search for third-party sources, however, so I would be willing to change my opinion if significant coverage came to light. Matt Deres (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:JOURNALIST -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article. Joyous! | Talk 00:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of Burka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. No references at all. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any potential sourcing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:NFILM. Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"The Other Side of Burka". Educational Media Reviews Online. (Appears reliable: It's hosted by the University at Buffalo Libraries, and their About page states, "The reviews are written by librarians and teaching faculty in institutions across the United States and Canada")
Between Text and Image: Updating Research in Screen Translation. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. pt215 – . (subscription required) (Gbooks preview goes for three pages before blanking-out)
"The Other Side of Burka". International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect maybe? Just a suggestion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:09, 24 November 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. postdlf (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doughboy Beatz production discography[edit]

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

A discography page for Doughboy Beatz, a non-notable record producer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that Doughboy Beatz is also nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - music by a non-notable producer. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His work with major artists makes him a notable producer, as well as his sources. JayPe (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there isn't a single good source in the entire article (almost all YouTube, iTunes and Livemixtapes download links), and per WP:INHERITED just because he has worked with major artists doesn't make Doughboy Beatz notable, particularly as it appears not one of his productions has actually made the charts, except as a contribution to an album track. Richard3120 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before attempting to salvage this subject’s entry, I combed through many producer pages to see what sources are commonly used by editors. Youtube, iTunes & LiveMixtapes are all used as sources in endless amount of articles on Wikipedia. So to say “there isn’t a single good source in the entire article” seems wrongful. iTunes is a staple in the music industry today and most of Doughboy’s catalog is on it. Also, your statement regarding him being on charts is contradictory. You acknowledged that he did make the Billboard charts but you’re trying to downplay his work in the same instance. Also, that isn’t the only chart instance sourced in the Doughboy Beatz article. Another instance listed was a Billboard magazine link, that shows actual chart position of 1 of his productions. "Brandon produced Trai'D's breakout single "Gutta Chick" that made it's way onto the Billboard Hot 100 charts which jump started his production career."this _Boyboi87 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doughboy Beatz has been deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (1) Richard3120, and (2) taking into account the deletion of Doughboy Beatz. Notability is not inherited. None of the sources provide the sort of independent coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, and almost all are nowhere near WP:RS. In particular, YouTube is not WP:RS unless a video was uploaded by an unimpeachable user, and there are often WP:COPYRIGHT issues. Sites like iTunes may provide evidence of facts but rarely provide evidence of notability. Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No !votes after almost a month at AFD. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling albums in Mexico[edit]

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

Previous commented on talk page of the article. It's a possible hoax (see talk page and even the AfD in Spanish Wikipedia). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the talk page, but I noticed that only Telemundo as brought up, but not the other source (rotativo). What's the stance on that one? Erick (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik. According to the own reference Rotativo has taken the information from "AMPROFON". Personally, I would not use this reference in music sales. So this list was taken and accepted over the time as "true" becoming a woozle effect and the information that we saw is a copy+paste. I tried to contact with AMPROFON but they never answered.

However, I already explained that is a impossible thing that albums like for example, Recuerdos, Vol. II sold 8 million copies. Doesn't matter the decade, Mexico is not a major music market like United Kingdom when the best-selling album in that country is about 6 million copias as of July 2016. Also, its doesnt matter the methodology of certificacion, shipments or sales. For example, Romance of Luis Miguel references say that was certified as 8x Platinum which is translate as 2 million copies (see the Sales certificates) but according to those references sold more than 7 million copies. Is impossible (even is he has not received the other certifications) is like he has release the album 5 times. Albums like Thriller of Michael Jackson that was release several years before, received certifications in recent years.

If those sales are worldwide and not in Mexico also I oppose rename the list like "best selling albums of Mexican artists". What about Rocío Dúrcal?. Reference would be like List of best-selling albums in Argentina that came from CAPIF or Billboard, high reliable sources in music industry or the RIAA for List of best-selling albums in the United States. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't have any opinion on whether the list should be deleted or not. Just a quick note though, AMPROFON's database only goes back to 1999. Anything before that would have to be verified through reliable sources. Again, not taking any stances, just letting you know (unless you already knew that). Erick (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that AMPROFON's database online is recent. This is the reason why I mentioned an example of Thriller that was already certified in recent years or albums before 1999 from mainstream Mexican artists like Thalía that became certified in 1999. So what's going on with the best-selling albums? at least an last certification in 1999 doesn't appear. Even, before the Juan Gabriel's dead (that is common obtain a certification after dead, like Michael Jackson). No problem. Thanks for your comments. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Richard3120:, for his input. Erick (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "list of best-selling (anything)" on Wikipedia is always going to have problems, especially when it comes to music. There is so much discussion about how many records a singer or a band have sold, and even for a major worldwide artist like the Beatles or ABBA, there are still many arguments going on, decades after the group split up. In the case of ABBA the difference in claimed sales is as much as 300 million records, which is more than most artists sell in their entire lifetime. So how are you supposed to get a definitive sales figure for anybody?

I try and keep a watch on List of best-selling girl groups, which I think is a pointless article and have also tried to get an RfC going as to whether it should be kept or deleted. It has the same problem that Erick has stated: the only reliable source you can use for tracking sales or shipments is the certification, but if there are no certifications before 1999 then there is no way of knowing how many albums Michael Jackson or Madonna sold before then... or even Ana Gabriel, Javier Solís or Vicente Fernández, who must have all sold millions of records in Mexico before 1999. All you can use are unconfirmed reports in newspapers, which may only give total record sales and not individual album sales.

If you look at books where they do have lists of best-selling albums, like the Guinness Book of World Records or Top 10 of Everything, they always makes sure their top ten list is taken from a single reliable source. Once you start taking numbers from lots of different sources, like different newspaper and magazine articles, I feel you compromise the reliability of the article, because you are not comparing the same thing – sales figures in newpaper articles tend to be supplied by the record company and they are notorious for exaggerating the sales of their artists. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very helpful insight. Thanks as always Richard! Erick (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude and Chrishonduras:: I suppose the list in the second reference is reliable... it does say the figures come from AMPROFON. But it's only up to the end of 2009, so if the article is kept, then some mention of the data being "as of December 2009" should be added, because we don't know how it has changed since then. Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Richard3120. I know that we have problems with the best-seller in music topics, but the thing is evaluate each case separate like here. I already know and demonstrated why I think this list should to be delete and explained about the second reference which looks actually like a not official list or report from AMPROFON. I'm not trying to be punisher but showing a real perspective about this list. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we talked about the problem with certifications from AMPROFON since 1999. So, look at this: Paulina is an album released on 2000 but was certified as 6x Platinum which is translate like 900,000... So where is the other copies by an album that reference say that sold 3 million copies in Mexico?. If is so popular that is in the best-seller in that country, the album should be certified again in recent years. We've examples like Primera Fila of Thalía or Camilia that this happen. Some reference say that this album sold 2.5 or 3 million copies but worldwide, not in Mexico. I think that the problem of those sales is because are worldwide (which is more realistic talking mathematically) and some authors put that are just in Mexico. But there is another irregulary thing, what's going on with Rocío Dúrcal, is a Mexican artist?. I'm pretty sure that this list actually have origins in a forum or something like that, that later was published by an author in Diario Rotativo. For this album Paulina, some fans believes that the sales came from Mexico because the artist received a 2x Diamond award and was presented in Mexico but was for worldwide sales. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, If we will keep this list, we should add an album by Pedro Infante that has the best-selling album in Mexico with 20 million copies which confirmed a "realiable" source: El Universal. The order for the albums will vary. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that – it says the list is "the top ten albums in Mexican history"... you could interpret that as the top ten best-selling albums in Mexico, or as Chrishonduras suggests, the top ten best-selling albums by Mexican artists worldwide. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Rocio Durcal? She is not a Mexican artist and the original sources talk about "best-selling albums in Mexico". The list is totally contradictory (and sources): mexican sales, worldwide sales, there is not a Mexican artist. I don't think that not apply a rename or wikify. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete, and there appears to be a consensus to retain the page history. Any future merge is a matter for editorial discussion and does not require AfD. SpinningSpark 21:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Leinster Senior Cup Final[edit]

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

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (edit to add: To the relevant season article if that is kept, and if not) to Leinster Senior Cup (association football) as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2012-13 Leinster Senior Cup was closed as keep, so this should be redirected there if consensus is to redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; not notable enough for a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:NSEASONS, a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NSEASONS doesn't mention league or cup seasons, but rather individual team seasons, so I fail to see how it's relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with relevant seasonal articles which in turn should be kept. This prejudice against Irish related footy articles needs to stop. It is getting ridiculous. Djln Djln (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with season articles. In the seasons and finals of the Leinster Senior Cup in question, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster competed and deemed them worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the individual cup seasons seem notable, the final would be notable too. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a notable match, and also per SuperJew's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SuperJew Spiderone 13:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Info that is now on the page could be merged. No reason for a seperate page at the moment. MFriedman (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A v Hoare. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iorworth Hoare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The legal case concerning limitations on tort actions is notable and rightly has an article at A v Hoare. However I don't see that notability is inherited from the case to anyone involved in it, so that aspect is WP:NOTINHERITED. Nor does someone else's conviction for death threats convey notability on the object of these threats and similarly for acts of vandalism. The kernel here is the personal biography which remains built around one set of circumstances (lottery win while under detentive punishment), a WP:BLP1E combination for which I feel the arguments in the 2008 AfD and deletion still stand. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hoare's notability is as follows:
as a lottery winner, cf. Michael Carroll (lottery winner)
for his crimes, which aren't by themselves notable
for his notoriety in view of the two factors above combined
for forming a major change to tort law A v Hoare - the judge in this case made it clear that it was the depravity of Hoare's crimes that made the change in law possible - this was not merely a change in law that happened to involve Hoare, but rather a change in law predicated on Hoare's depravity and pre-existing notoriety.

The first AFD (2008) took place prior to the latter point, however in view of the former, he has remained notorious and featured in a large number of news reports since the AFD. Sumbuddi (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only one of Sumbuddi's bullet points that belongs in an an encyclopedia is the last, and that is rightly covered in an article about the legal case rather than the defendant. The rest is simply tabloid sensationalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to A v Hoare- the material in the article about the case would be useful background information in the court case article. WP:CRIME says that we shouldn't have separate articles about criminals if the material on them can be covered in some other article. In this case the subject's notoriety derives from the lottery win and subsequent court case which set a legal precedent, both of which can be covered in the article on the court case. He doesn't meet the further standards at WP:CRIME as his victims weren't famous and the motivation/execution of the crime wasn't enough to make it a historical event. Hut 8.5 09:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the point here is that Hoare's crimes were not notable, his notability is as a 'nasty' lottery winner, so it doesn't really fall under WP:CRIME as the notability is not from the crime. The facts of his crimes are secondary to the basic 'bad man wins lots of money' issue. He features in at least three separate books [2] [3] "iorworth+hoare" with regard to the philosophical question of the morality of essentially punishing a 'bad' person again by depriving them of their otherwise legitimate lottery winnings. This is an entirely separate point from A v Hoare which allows a victim to wait until the criminal has money before attempting to sue them. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumbuddi: Hi. The most effective, efficient way to persuade other ediotrs that an article is a keep is to expand & source the article with solid, properly formatted references, as per WP:HEYMANN. After doing this, you leave a comment at end of the discussion starting with WP:HEY, and briefly describing the improvements you've made and sourcing you've done. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can use those links to argue that he's become famous as some academic problem in philosophy. The first one is a school textbook on critical thinking which uses it as an illustrative example. The second one is a very brief passing mention and the third one is basically an extended opinion piece by Jeremy Kyle and as such is essentially worthless as a source for anything. Hoare's notability aside from the court case is just that he's become a bit of a hate figure in the tabloid press, which isn't a good justification for having an article on someone (WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BLP). Hut 8.5 09:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant keep Glanced at the article (bare urls, sex offender) and at the AFd, and decided to go with the very reasonable-looking merge proposal above. But I have the conscientiousness thing, so I ran a quick search first, just to make sure. This lowlife draws far too much press over too many year to delete ('Lotto rapist' Iorworth Hoare guilty of resisting arrest - BBC News[www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-37764544], Oct 25, 2016.) Even has own sobriquet: "Lotto Rapist". My search on "lotto rapist" here: [4]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The A v Hoare article covers the notable aspects of law. The "lotto rapist" tag is tabloid sensationalism. The rest of the article fails under WP:BLP1E. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appears to be considerable notability here; agreed with Sumbuddi that the point of law at issue in A v Hoare is only a subset of the reasons this person is of encyclopedic interest. This is an individual whom members of the Wikipedia-using public are potentially likely to want to read more about than would be contained in an article about a legal decision if there was a merge. There is obviously plenty of coverage outside the mere tabloids; for better or worse, this fellow seems to be more than just a WP:BLP1E. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to A v Hoare. Info from his bio could easily be used to flesh out the legal article. Joyous! | Talk 03:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as this is all about 1 legal case of which has its own article therefore therr's nothing here suggesting its own convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Per WP:GNG. Per good sources. Per overall notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This was a notorious case at the time. It seemed unjust that, having become a wealthy man through a lottery win, Hoare should not compensate his victims. The article on the law case is an unsatisfactory one, since the House of Lords heard a number of appeals each raising a similar issue of Limitation of Actions, which ideally should be discussed in the case article. Quite what happened after the appeal hearing is not clear to me, though I expect there was something in the press at the time. The case was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration (I have just added that detail). If it was likely that the judge would order the case to continue, I would guess there would be negotiations, leading to the case being settled out of court. The article may need pruning. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A v Hoare. WP:ONEEVENT case, nobody would have heard of Hoare if it weren't for the court case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Selective merge to A v Hoare. What is not related to the case is tabloid journalism. Sandstein 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A v Hoare or, failing that, delete. Classic coatrack; there's very little to say about Hoare himself that couldn't just as easily be said in A v Hoare. The original crime isn't notable. Winning the lottery is, but only because the circumstances that led to the court case. The subsequent tabloid coverage is an inevitable result of the court case but confers no lasting notability. There's nothing to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Sigma Tau[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Article is entirely promotional. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why this is significantly less notable than anything else at Template:Fraternities and Sororities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of fraternity and sorority articles that have no place on Wikipedia. I've listed only three for the moment but there is certainly a lot more work to do. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is essentially a copy-pasted version of the Chi Sigma Tau website. There are a few sources out there that are technically "news" but the information provided in those sources isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. No independent source details the history of the fraternity, and the coverage is otherwise insubstantial. Gargleafg (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks suspiciously promotional. WP:SOAPBOX. Ceosad (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). The article text is available in the history and can be merged if anyone wishes to identify a suitable target and do the work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Leinster Senior Cup Final[edit]

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

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (edit to add: to the relevant cup article if that is kept, and if not), to Leinster Senior Cup (association football) as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2013-14 Leinster Senior Cup was closed as keep, so this should be redirected there if consensus is to redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; not notable enough for a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:NSEASONS, a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NSEASONS doesn't mention league or cup seasons, but rather individual team seasons, so I fail to see how it's relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with relevant seasonal articles which in turn should be kept. This prejudice against Irish related footy articles needs to stop. It is getting ridiculous. Djln Djln (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with season articles. In the seasons and finals of the Leinster Senior Cup in question, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster competed and deemed them worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the individual cup seasons seem notable, the final would be notable too. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a notable match, and also per SuperJew's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SuperJew Spiderone 13:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Info that is now on the page could be merged. No reason for a seperate page at the moment. MFriedman (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark of Vishnu and Other Stories[edit]

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

Hasn't ever been sourced, it was created in 2010. A search reveals little, this is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was apparently Khushwant Singh's first book which didn't receive public attention. Anup [Talk] 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Although,it's the very first book of a very notable author,yet the book shall merit it's individual credibility even slightly!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff (operating system)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Can't find any secondary sources for it; the only Google result is Ruff's official website. IagoQnsi (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent third-party sources, also fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not anything on search engine other than the official website. sami ^talk 21:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Google "Ruff TechCrunch" and ""Ruff GitHub". Fair amount of people contributing codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.14.45 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people "contributing codes" has no bearing at all on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the article or its references, nor have my searches provided anything better. The only reference which could perhaps be regarded as an independent source is an announcement on TechCrunch saying that Ruff had won a "startup competition" run by TechCrunch. An organisation's own announcement of a winner of its own competition is not much evidence of notability, even if the competition is significant enough, which does not seem to be the case. I am not even sure that it should be regarded as an independent source, since one of the services which TechCrunch provides is platforms for "technology startups [to] launch their products and services ... for prize money and publicity", which amounts to saying that TechCrunch provides facilities for startups to promote themselves. (The quote is from the Wikipedia article TechCrunch, which of course is not a reliable source, but it seems to me to be accurate.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. And we're starting to find that TechCrunch cannot be relied upon as a neutral source as we've had countless problems with references from TechCrunch as being little more that repeats of company marketing and promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just nine Google hits for Ruff; three of those are on Wikipedia. For notable RTOSs, there are normally hundreds or thousands of hits. —EncMstr (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently this system is created by a Chinese company. If you use Baidu.com, or Sogou.com which are search engines available in China, there are many search results. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.192.153.198 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Plowright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unelected candidates for political office are not notable for such. The wider coverage is one event at best and not unenough to justify a view that notability is sustained and encyclopedic. For one thing the coverage does not show widespread attention to the actual political views or goals of this person. It is of an entirely different character than say the pre-2014 election coverage of Mia Love, which is the level of coverage we need to show a candidate is notable. That coverage is not here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty K. Snow Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well, this is a first for me in eight years at Wikipedia: an AfD-IDHT. Permit me to say again what all six keeps said at AfD1: although she fails WP:POLITICIAN, she easily passes GNG on the grounds of her being an LGBT historic first. That historic first remains despite her not winning the election. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm seeing passing of GNG. Remember that WP:POLITICIAN doesn't override WP:GNG; winners generally are kept and losers may also be kept if they pass GNG. As with Snow, this was probably re-nominated too soon: generally you should wait a year after something is kept-kept to renom it. p b p 01:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misty Plowright is a historic first, and, as such, passes WP:NPOL especially #2 & #3 which state:

2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

3. 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". [<-Bolding mine] Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Instaurare (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG (and for that matter, POLITICIAN since POLITICIAN explicitly allows for unelected candidates to be notable via GNG). Sources:
- The Guardian
- The Daily Dot
- Politico
- Vice
- NBCNews
- Towleroad
- Business Insider
- The Washington Post
- Berliner Zeitung (in German)
- Cosmopolitan
- NBC News
- Tetu (in French)
- Slate-FR (in French)
- Huffington Post-Quebec (in French)
- Le Monde (in French)

Clearly passes GNG, including accounting for the WP:BLP1E criteria--the international press picked up the event of her candidacy as significant, so she does not meet the exclusion criteria. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG per the above (and previous AfD) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since passing WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN does not apply here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A non-winning candidate who fails NPOL can, in certain circumstances, still pass another notability criterion for another reason. The first candidacy by a member of a historically oppressed minority, for example, can be enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they've gotten a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of coverage for that fact. (By comparison, while I can't speak for any other country we do have an article about the first-ever transgender candidate for political office in Canada, even though she didn't win either — because "first transgender candidate" is, in and of itself, enough to make her candidacy more notable than the norm.) While the article as written does need some improvement, Innisfree987 has amply demonstrated above that better sourcing does exist to improve it with — the coverage doesn't just nationalize, it internationalizes to Canada, the UK, France and Germany in a way that coverage of non-winning US congressional candidates very rarely does. And that's exactly how you show that a candidacy is more notable than the norm: press coverage far beyond the routine and expected. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 29 November 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. Despite failing WP:POLITICIAN, Snow clearly passes WP:GNG, and thus can have an article. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misty K. Snow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Misty Snow

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

Snow was trounced in the election, and the campaign generated very little actual attention in Utah, with Lee gliding to victory. The attention is just one event and not long term or sustained enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snow's campaign was so lacking in chances to succeed that its local news coverage received less coverage than some US house races. It is an example of a senate campaign that clearly does not rise to the level of notability for the candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This [6] article might as well be titled "Snow should not have an article on Wikipedia", highlighting that it was essentially a non-race for the senate seat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The "keep" close was less than six months ago, so it probably shouldn't have been renominated so quickly (nor should this have happened). The fact that she lost doesn't really invalidate the keep arguments made in the previous AfD, which was closed easily as keep. She's still the first tranny to get nominated for a Congressional seat and she still passes GNG fairly easily. Also, I'd dispute the above claim that she doesn't have as much sourcing as challengers in some other races; I see a lot of national sources in the article that normally wouldn't trouble themselves with a small-state Senate race. p b p 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians that suggests unelected candidates are often merged, WP:NPOL is clear that unelected candidates can still qualify as notable on the basis of WP:GNG. Snow clearly does, and is not excluded by WP:BLP1E--that would only exclude her if the event she's known for were not "significant" (see condition #3--all three conditions must apply for exclusion). Snow attracted international press attention with a campaign numerous WP:RS called "historic". When extensive reliable sources treat an event as significant, it's not the place of WP editors to overrule them. Here are some of those sources:

I'll stop there but I want to note, those are just searches from my primary languages, I haven't checked Spanish, Italian, etc. yet because, well, the extent of the evidence seems pretty clear-cut to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to note as well: this list also leaves out all the local Utah press coverage we treat as routine for political candidates. But I want to note it's out there, for anyone interested in developing the entry--even if it doesn't go to notability, it's fair game for content purposes. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Plowright (2nd nomination) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the sources listed above. She lost the election but acquired such notability during the campaign that it may be foolhardy to get rid of the article altogether. Perhaps the page would benefit from some bulking up, but it clearly passes WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well, this is a first for me in eight years at Wikipedia: an AfD-IDHT. Permit me to say again what all six keeps said at AfD1: although she fails WP:POLITICIAN, she easily passes GNG on the grounds of her being an LGBT historic first. That historic first remains despite her not winning the election. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gargleafg, Innisfree987, etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and none of the sources cited really cover the candidate in-depth. Instaurare (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a point of comparison? I ask because my experience at AfD is that these sources represent really extensive coverage; I'm really not sure by what measuring stick we could say this isn't in-depth coverage. I've never seen a case that had anything like this amount of coverage be deleted. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources presented here and in the previous AfD (losing an election doesn't remove notability, it just means the election results aren't the basis for notability). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A non-winning candidate who fails NPOL can, in certain circumstances, still pass another notability criterion for another reason. The first candidacy by a member of a historically oppressed minority, for example, can be enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they've gotten a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of coverage for that fact. (By comparison, while I can't speak for any other country we do have an article about the first-ever transgender candidate for political office in Canada, even though she didn't win either — because "first transgender candidate" is, in and of itself, enough to make her candidacy more notable than the norm.) While the article as written does need some improvement, Innisfree987 has amply demonstrated above that better sourcing does exist to improve it with — the coverage doesn't just nationalize, it internationalizes to Canada, the UK, France and Germany in a way that coverage of non-winning US congressional candidates very rarely does. And that's exactly how you show that a candidacy is more notable than the norm: press coverage far beyond the routine and expected. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to short summary at Utah Democratic Party subhead Democratic Party. Snow is a grocery store clerk chosen to run against a popular incumbent enabling the Democratic Party to make a conciliatory gesture towards Saunders supports and a strong pro-LGBT statement. This marks a moment in electoral history. She should be also be discussed on LGBT rights in the United States. But there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic to say about her. There is nothing at all to say about her except that she was nominated by a major party. I simply cannot find a reason to keep this as a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 30 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only a single possibly-reliable secondary source (parqmag.com), everything else is a directory entry or a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. I'm not seeing any press coverage. McGeddon (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty Delete could find nothing either and the links to yelp seem like desperation to find 2dry sources and the parqmag think was just promotional blurb, from the quick google translate that I did there was no opinion concerning the company stated in it...--Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Concerning the Parq Magazine, look at page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeStevens1982 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no coverage (52 hits), let alone WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, found via Google, giving the impression that despite the number of film festivals in which the company is asserted to have had entries, independent sources haven't given it attention. Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and it's clear those are the motivations here, especially since it's simply another young company hoping to seek establishing for its own business, and the sources themselves show this since they're clearly trivial. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work at a film festival, which I won't name, where three of this company's films have been shown, I was surprised when I didn't find the company on Wikipedia, especially when I've found many other film production companies on Wikipedia with much less recognition, coverage and accomplishments. Therefore, I decided to create this page, if you really think the company shouldn't be part of Wikipedia, go ahead and delete it, but please do some extensive work on all the other film companies that are on Wikipedia, coherence should be a big part of Wikipedia, also, don't be so judgmental and offensive on your comments, making assumptions without valid sources is as wrong as creating articles without valid sources. MikeStevens1982|talk 02:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've been trying to convey, if this is a company with substantial "recognition, coverage and accomplishments", the problem is that it isn't apparent thus far and no one is turning up evidence of it for consideration here. Also, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that anyone is going to embark on an untargeted review of "all the other film companies" with articles here. Can you point to any specific ones that you believe don't meet the inclusion criteria? Largoplazo (talk) 04:13, 26 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Integration Platform[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as per WP:DEL4. Sources provided fail WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources do not rise above the level of press releases. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the two remaining sources, one is a press release, the other a self-published "interview" from a PR firm. Two other removed "sources" were clearly identified mirrors of the previously deleted article here. Poking about, I really don't see much else out there. Interesting that most of the search results are the usual crappy mirrors; that's a good sign that the material is not notable and the the previous article sat here too long. Kuru (talk) 17:36, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gayeti Singh[edit]

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

I Prodded this as no evidence of notability and fails WP:JOURNALIST Prod removed by author. Refs in no way indicate notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gayeti Singh should not be deleted as per the following stipulation of WP:JOURNALIST, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In a bid to improve the wikipedia category of Indian journalists, it is imperative that we retain this entry as the concerned figure is an important voice in independent journalism in South Asia. Paste please refer to The Citizen (India) for additional details as to ascertain the notability of the work. Moreover, I am referring to the stipulation of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A Google search of "Gayeti Singh" presents evidence of notability for such. I will add more references to the article Gayeti Singh to improve the quality of the same. Filmforum61 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The tailored Wikiproject India media search returns nothing about this person, as is the case with Highbeam. The standard Google search returns just the usual social media links and links to primary sources, which just verify that the subject is a person going about their trade. No evidence of notability either to the WP:JOURNALIST or broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD May I direct you to the Google News Results for the given. There are multiple articles authored by the person that satisfy the criteria as determined for notability in WP:JOURNALIST. Wikiproject India media search and Highbeam are not the barometer by which we can judge as the search results are limited in scope to a handful of sources whereas Google news is a standardised and comprehensive search engine that can prove notability for journalists across all media. Filmforum61 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authored by the person is not relevant here: that is what every journalist does to earn their daily crust. What is needed here is articles about the person. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second the statement by AllyD.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. There are news articles by her, not about her. Anup [Talk] 03:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG.The subject is surely a journalist as evidenced from the numerous articles she had written but nothing is notable about her.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Irrespective of the intervening move to draft space. Sandstein 12:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution[edit]

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

No evidence that this topic has any notability. It appears to be original research. The references all support individual ideas or concepts and are (exclusively?) primary sources. This reads like an undergraduate essay. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this suggestion by the nominator and guideance at WP:EDITATAFD, I'm leaving this notice to record that I've moved Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution to Draft:Evolutionary psychological and biological explanations for prostitution (correcting the capitalisation of the title). --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm calling WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the reason it reads like an undergraduate essay is because it is one. The authors are third-year BSc Psychology students from Warwick University. The tone and writing style of the article are specifically not grounds for deletion, but for clean-up. The only issue we are concerned with here is whether the current sources show that the topic is notable. If you find that they do not, then could I please request that the article be returned to draft-space or userified so that we do not disrupt the good-faith work the students are doing on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a web host. If the topic isn't notable, why would we keep a draft? I appreciate that it may be disheartening to the students to see their work deleted but ultimately if that work is not improving the encyclopaedia it's not something we can retain. They can always save a local copy to work on if it's a requirement of their course.

On that note, I couldn't find a course page for this assignment, which if I understand correctly is required by Wikipedia:Student assignments for precisely this kind of situation. Joe Roe (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused about several things. Neither WP:WEBHOST nor WP:UPNOT forbids editors from using their userspace to work on articles that may eventually become notable. Please check those two guidelines and try to find where they support your assertion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy #Incubation is the policy that supports my request. Please explain why that should not apply to these students' good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Being unnecessarily pedantic when dealing with new editors is a sure-fire recipe for putting them off, and then we wonder why the number of editors is declining.

You've also confused the UK with the USA. There is no requirement for any UK course to use a course page. How do you think we could enforce any such requirement on an educational institution? Surely it is far better to offer the facility to schools, colleges and universities and work with them if they take it up, than to make demands about how they interact with "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret WP:WEBHOST as precluding us from using draftspace to host student essays that will never be viable articles in order to avoid "disrupting" their coursework. As the policy you linked states, incubation in draft or userspace is for articles on viable subjects that are lacking in quality. There is no reason to work on a draft article for a topic that isn't suitable for inclusion regardless of quality (i.e. they aren't notable) and literally any topic may be notable in the future.

I can't see anything in Wikipedia:Student assignments that would mark it as US-specific advice. "Each assignment should have a course page, so editors and ambassadors can direct constructive feedback to the right place.". I don't understand how there could be any confusion there. It is of course a recommendation not a demand, but I think this situation illustrates perfectly why it is sound advice. The students who wrote this article have chosen a subject which, while a fine subject for an essay, is not an appropriate Wikipedia article. If the article had been properly marked as being part of an educational assignment with a course page, we could have engaged with the students and their instructor about this sooner, rather than finding ourselves in the unfortunate situation of them having already written an article that we will probably end up deleting. Joe Roe (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make the mistake of assuming that a week-old article "will never be [a] viable article". The topic has potential for study as shown by PMID 8483982, ISBN 9781573922296, ISBN 9780195325188, etc. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it can never be notable. Your interpretation of WEBHOST flies in the face of common practice on Wikipedia as it would raise the bar for notability in user-space or draft-space to the same as for main-space. In your version of Wikipedia, there would be no use for draft-space at all, and nobody would be able to work on fledgling articles in user-space without first meeting GNG. I disagree that the topic is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article - a Google search for "explanations for prostitution" yields 16,700 results and there will be enough sourcing related to evolutionary psychology and biology among that lot to create at least a stub/start article. It's instructive to examine Prostitution #Socio-economic issues, to see how poorly sourced that is, compared to the standards you're demanding just to return this article to user-space.

Wikipedia:Student assignments is an essay, not WP:PAG. Have a look at Wikipedia:Course pages (another essay) and spot the "those participating in the U.S., Canada, and other Wikipedia Education Programs as well as independent courses." There's no disagreement about it being sound advice, but if a course instructor chooses not to follow it, it's not our place to punish the students who really are trying to add useful content. The article has only been on Wiki for one week. You are a host at the Teahouse, so I assume you have at least basic skills in engaging with new editors. You are most welcome to engage with the students involved right now, if you feel so strongly that your engagement with them will be beneficial to them or to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a host at the Teahouse, and an AfC reviewer, and a new page patroller, and otherwise spend a significant chunk of my time here trying to make things easier for new editors, as well as working in higher education myself – so if you're looking for a bitey elitist boogeyman I'll respectfully ask you to look elsewhere. I'm not "punishing" the editors of this article or questioning their good faith, but I think we all know that this is original research and it would be disingenuous to pretend that Wikipedia will ever have a place for that. Regardless of whether you think this may be a viable field of study in the future (we'll have to agree to disagree on that), the fact is that that research has not been done, so we have nothing to write about.

I'm aware that Wikipedia:Student assignments is not a policy or a guideline and don't believe I referred to it as such. You left out the first part of that sentence from Wikipedia:Course pages: "All assignments should use a course page, including [the US]" If the coordinator of this course really refused to abide by that recommendation then of course there's nothing we can do about it. However to put it bluntly, if they simply weren't made aware of it, that's an oversight on your part as the 'ambassador' for this course. I think it would be more productive to admit that and try to correct it in future rather than defensively asking the community to bend its usual standards and processes to accommodate the mistake. That ship has sailed. Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an ambassador for this or any other course and have no affiliation with it, so you can quit trying to scapegoat my interest here. I'm retired after a lifetime of working in schools, FE and HE and I'm now involved in training new editors and keen to see Wikipedia used within education. So I'm not impressed with your claim to be "trying to make things easier for new editors" when your actions here are easily identified as an attempt to punish a student for making the mistake of moving a draft into main-space too soon. If you wish to avoid being viewed as a "bitey elitist boogeyman", you'll find it is best not to behave like one. There is no need to delete contributions when they can be returned to user/draft space when an editor wishes to continue working on them. Do you really think that deleting this article would make things easier for the student? The sources indicate that there's enough to write about to make an article, although I agree that the students involved have synthesised far too much of the content as it is presently written.

You claim that "a course page for this assignment ... is required by Wikipedia:Student assignments" and I told you that it's not a policy or guideline. Can't you work out that I'm explaining why any such "requirement" carries no weight? It would have to be a policy or guideline for the word "required" to have any meaning on Wikipedia. To be equally blunt, what would be productive would be for you to apologise for jumping to wrong conclusions, and start getting involved in actually helping new editors rather than paying lip-service to it. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my position is simple. In my opinion this topic is not notable and if that is also the consensus of this AfD then we shouldn't continue to host it just to accommodate a poorly executed coursework assignment. The information page Wikipedia:Student assignments requires (or recommends, whatever you prefer) that such assignments have a course page and you, as the only established editor who has mentioned any knowledge or affiliation of this course ("On behalf of WMUK, I've volunteered to answer questions that the students may have about Wikipedia editing."), might have averted that situation by putting that in place beforehand, rather than having to go on the defensive afterwards. Beyond that I really don't appreciate the repeated ad hominems and distortions, and don't really see the point of continuing this discussion. Joe Roe (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my position is equally simple. In my opinion this topic is notable, and at some point in the future there will an article on the topic or one very close to it. If that is the case, then there is no harm done in returning it user/draft space where it could be worked on until it meets GNG. Conversely, the harm is real to the new editor who loses work through sheer pigheadedness by other, more experienced editors, who could be more sympathetic to what it's like to be a new editor. Let me be completely clear here, your insinuations that I am in any way involved with the way the course is run are complete bullshit. Why didn't you "put that in place beforehand" - whatever "that" is - if you feel it's so essential? I'm no more involved in that course than you are, and have only reported its existence as a courtesy after I was made aware of it. You pretend to be concerned about new editors, so why don't you follow your own advice and at least offer to help answer the students' questions as I have? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck what hypocrites appreciate, but at least we can agree that there's no point in continuing the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you can't or won't move it to Draft space? Nothing in this discussion is inhibiting that action. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 06:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to see it moved back into draft space, but WP:EDITATAFD advises against it: "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." Nevertheless, it doesn't forbid it, so I've done the move. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. As far as I can tell none of the human evolution/psychology references are explanations of prostitution and none of the prostitution references are based on evolutionary psychology, making this a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Based on a quick Google Scholar search evolutionary psychologists have occasionally used observational studies of prostitution to discuss mate choice but I couldn't find a literature on EP explanations of prostitution specifically. Some of the material from the "in animals" section might be salvaged for Prostitution among animals. Joe Roe (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes[edit]

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

Copyvio, at least the description first three episodes are copied from YouTube. ([7], [8], [9]). The Banner talk 11:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-sense blog-style article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be original research. Ajf773 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio, fails WP:GNG, original research, fails WP:LISTN too Spiderone 17:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Nonsense and ridiculous article.Copyvio, fails WP:GNG & WP:LISTN, has substantial original research.Possess all qualities for a hindrance-less deletion!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about the copyvio, but we do have articles similar to this, such as The Big Bang Theory (season 1), NCIS (season 1), that have episode summaries and information on the episodes. Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved since nomination and as the nom's not commented I assume they're fine with it, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dewang Mehta[edit]

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

Subject may not meets the Wikipedia's notability and verifiability criteria -- in fact the article is pointing towards inherited notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article text is a broth of peacockery and incoherence (for example "The wanted to that the profits of the YOU arrived until the common people...") to an extent to suggest WP:TNT. The edit history indicates it was originally created as a translation of a Spanish article, but that is itself tagged as "una traducción defectuosa". However there was a significant quantity of coverage around the subject's death, which may be enough to establish notability. I am inclined to edit-down a core referenced version of the article which may aid this discussion more than the current prose does. AllyD (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Now done: I have placed a cut-down version which also includes more references. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While much of the referencing material is obtained from press coverage and tributes at the time of the subject's sudden death, I think there is just about enough to sustain an argument that the subject had biographical notability distinct from the organisation which he directed. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as, not only simply best known for this company, there's nothing here confirming any such CEO would be inherited notability, and the past deletion for advertising emphasizes these concerns, thus deletion is best before anything else to ensure it's completely removed. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AllyD has re-written the article with references that suggest notability. utcursch | talk 02:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. Thanks to AllyD for fixing the article. One will not find tons of sources on internet because most of Indian newspapers do not keep archives for their pre 2000-01 publications. Still, coverage of his legacy in numerous newspapers gives a fair insight into his personality. Anup [Talk] 03:44, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Swaziland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:LISTN. Another directory of red-links and non notable businesses. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and WP:NOTDIR Spiderone 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lists of hotels by country, but, in general, those lists include a variety of almost exclusively notable properties. This one does not. Gargleafg (talk) 00:18, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianne DeSellier[edit]

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

Self-promotional article, dubious notability given lack of focused coverage. PROD endorsed by User:Samee, removed by IP with no explanation. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 08:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is obviously self-promotion. The Article was probably created by herself if we go by the username of the creator. She may have spoken on some mainstream media as commentator but that does not make her notable. I couldnt find any pieces about herself as person to satisfy WP:GNG. Her other work as author and scholar doesn't satisfy WP:SCHOLAR and WP:AUTHOR too. Currently it far to early to have an article on her and it should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Without anything remotely approaching either an assertion of significance or an actual reference, this is about as cut-and-dried a WP:A7 article as it gets. ‑ Iridescent 03:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowal Golf Club[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Non-noteable golf course Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eitaro Toyoda[edit]

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

The article uses one source (Metacritic), and does not appear to have any other reliable sources about him. No idea how it has survived this long (5+ years) without being brought up for deletion before. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable video game designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, this subject has received no significant coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wichita Glade, Florida[edit]

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

Ultimately, this appears to be a WP:HOAX. Lasted for 2 years before getting PRODed (which is now expired). Evking22 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 04:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my endorsement of the PROD, there is no evidence this place exists. The cited reference does not even mention such a place. No trace found outside the Wikipedia article and wiki mirrors. A long-standing hoax, but still a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The listed source does not support assertions in the article. The claim of population would need to be souraceable to the US census, which it is not. The mention of most people living in tents is highly suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no GNIS entry, not mentioned in article's only ref (even looking at archived versions from the time of the ref's access date), and a Google search is like a directory of low-quality Wikipedia scrapers. All signs point to hoax. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the editor who prodded this article, my reasons were stated in the prod notice. There is no evidence this place ever existed. The only reason I didn't submit it to speedy deletion as a hoax was because it had sat there for 2 1/2 years. -- Donald Albury 01:29, 29 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cornilles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rob Cornilles

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

Cornilles one true claim to fame is being a defeated candidate for US House of Representatives. This is not enough to establish notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally as trivial as it gets, there's nothing here for significance, since everything is either job-focused or simply trivial in the meaning of the word altogether. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; if you cannot credibly claim and reliably source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become eligible because of his political activity itself. But this does not demonstrate any reason at all why he would be eligible for an article. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 29 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merrilee Boyack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Merrilee Boyack

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

The starting flaw is that this article is only sourced to Boyack's own website. My attempt to find any other sources through a google search failed. Beyond this, none of the stated acheivements rise to the level of notability. She wrote some books, but none that I can find mention of beyond a few blogs and Amazon.com reviews. I found a local article on her leaving the Poway City Council, but that is not enough to establish her being a member of the Poway City Council as a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, she doesn't meet guidelines for WP:NPOL (not a major local political figure) or WP:AUTHOR, nor general guidelines per WP:BIO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's quite simple, nothing for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:AUTHOR. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another article that looks like the candidate herself wrote it. Instaurare (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original creator User:Cboyack. So you're essentially right — even if she didn't actually write it herself, a member of her family certainly did. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on city council in a city the size of Poway is not an WP:NPOL pass — we grant an automatic presumption of notability to city councillors only in major, internationally famous global cities, not in every city that exists — and there's no media coverage shown here to assemble anything approaching a "passes WP:GNG anyway because coverage" claim. Also WP:COI of some kind, as the original creator was User:Cboyack. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 29 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven C. Baugh[edit]

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

Baugh has been an associate professor of education, a superintendent of schools and was a candidate for the state legislature. The last is not a sign of notability. The first is not enough on its own, and we lack sources that show he meets any of the notability criteria for academics. The district he was superintendent of currently has 73 schools, including 8 high schools. It was not nearly that big 20 years ago when he was superintendent. He was named state superintendent of the year. Still, I do not think this adds up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some good cites on GS, but not enough for WP:Prof. A worthy public servant but not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as trivial, nothing here for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carry Minati[edit]

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

This person doesn't seem to be notable: a YouTuber with 314,000 subscribers is not that special (there are over 5,000 YouTubers with over double that number). Furthermore, no reliable sources have been written about this person. The only sources available seem to be (news) blogs and social media pages. User:Supercarwaar/signature 16:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

He should not have a wikipedia page just on the basis of having a youtube channel with not even a million subscribers, and his videos are not worth watching too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.116.154 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, User:Supercarwaar This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... this article is about the famous Indian Youtuber CarryMinati (Whereas other Indian youtubers have also the same subscribers who is working in big project, and I feel that he will be not compared to the other you-tubers who has been gaining popularity worldwide. As in India, Youtube is new platform for people and rapidly growing for few years ago) who has rose to the fame because of his work on Youtube. he is emerging star of Youtube and gained popularity in very short period of time. His work has been appreciated by the singers and the comedians of India. This article should not be deleted because his more than 300K fans are seeking about his channel information and personal information. Since he became famous Youtuber in India, every fan of his has kept interest about knowing him. This is the third time I am writing the article of him, I hope, developer would understand my reason and also understand the importance of this article and why it should not be deleted from Wikipedia. User:Bizzlamichhane007

Not all YouTubers are notable. Delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a YouTuber isn't enough for notability for an article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the references are just blogs; delete per nom; fails WP:GNG Spiderone 10:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single independent coverage does exist for this individual. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:This person exists only in Youtube and that is not any fact for the staying of the article.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Allan[edit]

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

I have to admit I am not 100% sure on this one. It does look like he has one or two papers he co-wrote with a very high number of citations per google scholar, but physics is a field where the citations heavily come in papers and so the citation level will be high. As a government employee as opposed to an academic things are a bit tricky. He seems to have been involved somehow in developing GPS, but that was a braodranging effort. The hnonorary fellow title with the Institute of Naviagation does not seem to fit Criteria 3. That is actually probably the most likely way for scientists in positions like his to meet the criteria, but I do not see it. My general google search came up with his websites, and a non-reliable source highly critical of what he has written on his websites that did not in fact show much understanding of his actual ideas. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He´s recipient of the second I. I. Rabi Award of the IEEE (after Rabi, the first recipient).--Claude J (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks and kudos to John Pack Lambert for a careful and balanced nomination. I'm not entirely sure about this either, but when I removed the copyvio (i.e., essentially the whole article/eulogy written by his son) in 2015, I was persuaded by the cites and the IEEE award that he passed the bar and so did not request deletion as G12. It may be worth noting that our page on the Rabi Award was written by the same COI editor. Claude J, is this a significant or notable award, can you tell us? If not, perhaps that page should be nominated too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its a prestigious award in the area of frequency and time standards/control (with 5 Nobelprize Winners als recipients beginning with Rabi). Allan has also an entry in Pamela Kalte etal. "American Men and Women of Science" (Thomson Gale 2004) and Allan variance, a fundamental concept in frequency stability analysis, is named after him and invented by him (Riley, Handbook of Frequency Stability Analysis, NIST 2008, p. IV, where he is mentioned as pioneer in this field at the National Bureau of Standards along with James Barnes).--Claude J (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be persuaded this article is keepable if someone was able to cite and incorporate the "American Men and Women of Science" reference. We need articles to actually be built on the use of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Would the American Men and Women of Science reference include his educational background. His biography on his website opens here [10] with mentioning when he got degrees from BYU and the University of Colorado. I think I am going to add it for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award alone makes him notable to me. The rest of the searches (AMWS) above also convinces me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments and sources from Claude J (thank you!). Meanwhile, it'd be helpful if people would stop adding poorly-sourced or self-referenced content to the page – it's completely useless here, as we require independent reliable sources for our content. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have found numerous awards as well as peer-reviewed periodicals about or by the subject. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Granted, the article needs work, but a search of news and Google Scholar turns up several reliable sources. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Attack page Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunan Regionalists[edit]

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

Unverifiable, likely hoax for no sources can be found. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page, and block the user. Essentially a re-posting of Sunan Facist (sic). 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Panyd per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Jakhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No coverage at all in independent, reliable sources; everything that exists is either promotional or self-published. Indeed, this article also seems to be a bit promotional, violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. No hard evidence of notability found. Mr RD 16:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page must considered, as it reflects the notable work done which was covered in media. It is not an advertisement, and it gives reference work done by the person in an individual capacity, which people would like to know on as when basis, when searched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarwikidata (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing more than passing mentions in reliable sources Spiderone 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Founder of a non-notable company who has received some trivial mentions. He is no way nearer to any of our notability criterion. Anup [Talk] 02:14, 27 November 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. Delete for now. Comments indicate that re-creation later, when notability has been achieved, would be welcome. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skating Fingers - A Fingerboarding Documentary[edit]

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

Unreleased film, sole Gnews hit is a link to Kickstarter. Doesn't meet WP:NF Prod was declined without edit. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG among others. If it gains notability later in its existence then the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, with no prejudice against recreation when/if it passes WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. There's just nothing out there and it's just a bit early for an article. On a side note, kudos to the film crew and its director for meeting their Kickstarter goal. That's not easy to do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 27 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Trehan[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A couple of sources for the company (also appears non-notable), and a couple of interviews, one potential RS. Widefox; talk 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and Salt, per ST, hadn't checked delete log. Widefox; talk 09:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All coverage are like, said this, said that, said blah. Anup [Talk] 02:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 02:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 02:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, regardless of whether anyone else suggested it here, since it was literally deleted twice within the last 6 months , and it's not enough that these such publications are notorious for advertising, so there's no hopes of this becoming better anytime soon at all; thus let's save ourselves either the G4 or 2nd AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AuthBridge[edit]

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

primary/non-independent sources. Fails WP:CORP (promo activity) Widefox; talk 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and Salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Trehan. Widefox; talk 09:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as I myself PRODed in May but it was boldly removed, literally none of this suggests better at all, and it's clear this only existed for advertising hence nothing else to say here. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Subject of article is discussed in numerous news articles when performing a Google News search. However, this article comes off as an advertisement for the subject. I would consider keeping the article if an editor more familiar with the subject could expand or re-write the article. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and to answer the questions above by StarScream1007, all those sources are in fact advertising and we've established it before clearly as such, because the company is always paying for those announcements and notices, hence it's both company-motivated and paid for, there's literally nothing to ever suggest this is or is going to be currently significant, let alone substantial for notability. Deletion is quite simple with these, simply with the fact alone of blatant advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC) struck double !vote. Anup [Talk] 02:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This company makes a genuine claim of notability but at this time in my opinion falls a bit short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 02:55, 25 November 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.