< 1 October 3 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 : WP:CSD#A10 - duplicate of Droughts in the United States Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Drought[edit]

North American Drought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propsed deletion template is removed Dirty Duck 16:29, 3 October 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 speedy keep. Wrong venue, WP:RM is thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter[edit]

Ian Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One link disambiguation page — JJBers (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep given there are now no suggestions of deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Funderburk[edit]

Brent Funderburk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. No coverage outside of small trade magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia (talk) 21:41, 4 October 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. seems to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dikesh Malhotra[edit]

Dikesh Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable business person Uhooep (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there are only three such sources in the article at the moment (the sources have to be there for us to discuss them) and none of them shows notability. There has to be significant coverage, not simply trivial mentions of the person. Please note that per this guideline, editors who participate in a discussion are asked to disclose any conflict of interest they might have (such as representing the person, being related to them, being employed to promote their company, etc.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 5 October 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Cordle[edit]

Sidney Cordle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on the leader of a group that is, to be blunt, utterly insignificant. The subject has never achieved national elected office and the sources are directories. Perennial losing candidates can be notable (Bill Boaks, for example), but there's no evidence that's the case here. His party? I am a Brit and have never even heard of them. That means they are less electorally significnat than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Quite a feat. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit[edit]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. A Google search does not give many results. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, history shows that I created the article but that's not what actually happened. I categorized an existing article but saved my edit just after the article was deleted [4] under criterion A10. Unfortunately, the deleting admin did not record the article that the present one duplicated. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article exists on the Thai Wikipedia and there are references there. Of course, I don't speak Thai so I can't evaluate the quality of the sources but it should be looked at before deleting the en.wiki article. (As should the results of a Google search for "เภา เพียรเลิศ บริภัณฑ์ยุทธกิจ"). I've added a link to a page from the Ministry of Finance of Thailand that confirms he served two terms as minister. Pichpich (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list [5] from the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand is hard to read for non-Thai speakers but it certainly appears to confirm that he was the Minister of Commerce on multiple terms. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 3 October 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 and redirect to The Cold Crush Brothers. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy A.D.[edit]

Easy A.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's possible that an article could be written about this person; but this is not an article, it's an advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wiener[edit]

Jacob Wiener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Could not find significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 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) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL[edit]

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, QBs have 300 yards pretty much every week so this isn't even a notable statistic, and is badly written and formatted to boot. We already have a List of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game article, so this is also redundant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't home runs too frequent an occurrence to keep track of. Lol, jk. Home runs are more important than 300 yard games. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orville Christianson[edit]

Orville Christianson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mr. Christianson appears to not meet the notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta (talk) 21:04, 2 October 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Juliano[edit]

Jonathan Juliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 2 October 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Strassman[edit]

Rick Strassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of living person and academic. Works are on the fringe science with an extremely paltry amount of secondary sources mentioning the individual, let alone reliable secondary sources. Most of the article is primary sourced. Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable secondary sources to show that his research is groundbreaking? That is what wikipedia looks for. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, Dr Strassman's work is very notable because his research kicked off modern day psychedelic research and it is the first extensive scientific study giving subjects DMT.
Graham St John's book "Mystery School in Hyperspace: A Cultural History of DMT" (which is the definitive book about the history of DMT) says this about Rick Strassman's research.
"Subtitled A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, Strassman's landmark study raised the profile of DMT, and represents a milestone in the history covered in this book. Triggering a tidal wave of interest in the pineal gland—seen more as a “lightening rod of the soul” than the brain's laboratory for hellish hallucinations—DMT: The Spirit Molecule shone a light on the profound implications of DMT's endogenicity (that is, its natural structure and function in humans)—all deriving from Strassman's observations of goings-on in Room 531 of the University of New Mexico Hospital Clinical Research Centre, Albuquerque, between 1990–1995."
From this article:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychedelic-drugs-mental-health-disorders-bad-rap-war-drugs-385946
"It ultimately took two decades for psychedelic research to begin again, when Dr. Rick Strassman studied DMT in 1992. DMT is a psychedelic compound that can be taken on its own, but it is also the psychoactive component of ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea brewed by the indigenous population of Peru. Unlike the more widely known psychedelics, DMT had much less of a stigma, allowing Strassman to get his studies approved far more easily. In the same year, the FDA also passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that year, which encouraged new drugs to be researched."
and another:
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/05/18/psychedelics-new-pot/
"The psychedelic faucet began to drip again in 1991 with the start of Rick Strassman’s famous Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) study at the University of New Mexico, which served as the first human trial of any psychedelic since they were made Schedule I. From there, the full-blown psychedelic renaissance that we now find ourselves in began to develop."
Probrooks (talk) 11:11, 6 October 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) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YourGrocer.com[edit]

YourGrocer.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity.Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:51, 3 October 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) –Davey2010Talk 23:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peapod[edit]

Peapod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company till date. It is old but no significant nature. Covered once in a lifetime, merely promotional in nature. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. happend a long time ago but could not make any impact to become encyclopedia. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity as it still exist. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Era of Management by Richard L. Daft (a full page discussion, in what looks to be a college textbook)
  • Management by Richard Daft (2007). Cannot see a preview, but here's a snippet: "... But Peapod, the online grocery service founded in 1989 by brothers Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, is succeeding on all three fronts. Peapod introduced a new concept 15 years ago: the convenience of shopping for groceries online. Plenty of ..."
  • Applications of Supply Chain Management and E-Commerce Research from Springer Publishing, an academic imprint. Reasonably extensive discussion.
Compared to churnalism coverage we so typically see in company articles, this is a significant step up. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 3 October 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 consensus to delete (and close to consensus to keep but calling it "consensus to keep" wouldn't appropriately deflect the whole debate IMO).

This is clearly a case where different editors have different standards about company notability and inclusion vs. promotion, and both sides of the argument can be somewhat supported by different interpretations of the wording and/or spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH -- which is a problem with policy more than with the editors trying to work with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee[edit]

Honestbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company till now. comparatively new and funded vy investors. Nothing significant but another startup company for grocery delivery. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company investment plans. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The only interest Safehaven86 (talk) is to "keep" anything that is covered by any sort of media, and whatsoever they have written without analyzing the actual notability or significance for Encyclopedia material. I have been analyzing the keep vote mechanism for articles submitted for AfD. that is the reasons some of them are nominated various times, but for Vote for participation or comments, they had been restored. Still it does not make any of them encyclopedic genuine. thanks for giving your opinions. Light2021 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not be replaced with Daily News paper or the blog-spot. Just something is covered once in a time in a notable news paper does not make anything Encyclopedia notable. Every articles that is covered by daily news will make this Wikipedia irrelevant and will lose all its credibility. Techcrunch and Forbes? Highly commercial so called news platform, that covers anything that can make money or either funded by huge investment? misuse of WP:GNG. Light2021 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how to respond to this, as it's utterly incoherent. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jamie, and apologies if I was inappropriate to you. Light2021 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is because it's advertising , regardless of whatever has been noted above, because the analyses have had larger weight of shoeing the concerns, so it should not and will not be expected for any of us to vote Keep for an advertisement. Suggesting we "change" our standards for advertising is going to largely damn us as an encyclopedia because it will show that we cannot even control the simplest advertising that needs removal. Please state where, how and why this is not advertising, without citing anything of PR and unconvincing information coming from company-supplied words. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an advertisement then we should rewrite it or we should place an advert tag there, we shouldn't discuss deletion.... question is whether it is notable or not.. Techcrunch and Strait Times are covering this company.. I guess it is notable and it deserves to stay here...Plus it has been covered in other reliable sources... Hitro talk 22:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One question...what do you mean by "Our Standards"? I believe there is just one standard Hitro talk 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning is WP's standards. Or at least what WP's standards are supposed to be, instead of the current very low levelfor these articles. FWIW,I !vote keep a little over 1/3 the time. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about how the small number of employees fit with DGG's point that the funding wasn't so large (I don't know anything about what is or isn't a big amount of funding) and together implied that the company might not necessarily be receiving significant attention aside from the press release based reports SwisterTwister discusses above. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:53, 18 October 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) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grocery Gateway[edit]

Grocery Gateway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one happened a long time ago. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

77 Diamonds[edit]

77 Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instabuggy[edit]

Instabuggy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Light2021 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 23:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Thailand football rivalry[edit]

Malaysia–Thailand football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any verifiable sources supporting the existence of this claimed rivalry. Paul_012 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 5 October 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Lain[edit]

Tracey Lain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable actress. Per recent AfDs, the awards listed (UK Adult Film and Television Awards & UK Adult Producers Awards) do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Sources provided include non RS directories and self-published material. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Albanese[edit]

Kelly Albanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Found a few trivial mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. All of the information can be verified and has been taken from several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.193.131 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edible oil india[edit]

Edible oil india (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly WP:NOTADVICE, wirtten like an essay with trivial information. PROD was removed by author. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 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. G5 created by sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump tax scandal[edit]

Donald Trump tax scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly created article on extremely recent event, serious WP:NPOV violations and potentially WP:OR. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Scaff[edit]

Sammy Scaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boxer best-known for losing badly to a young Mike Tyson. As far as I can tell, however, he does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NBOXING or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:45, 7 October 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karolcia[edit]

Karolcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable children's novel. The article was previously deprodded by Piotrus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 6 October 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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri-KO[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeri-KO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD on WP:TOOSOON grounds, but after a search, I'm seeing sources dated after that AfD, so I think the circumstances have changed since then and this is not G4 eligible. May or may not now be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 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. This is a WP:SNOW deletion: there is no point wasting any more time on this, as it is clearly going to end up being deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Mohammad Kazim Banday[edit]

Khawaja Mohammad Kazim Banday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been recreated on multiple occasions by someone who simply does not get it. There is no sense to be made of the thing and I am getting nowhere with my own searches. We can keep CSD'ing it per criteria A1 or bring it here, get consensus to delete and then salt the thing. Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 October 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) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization[edit]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The history of this article is shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions&type=revision&diff=742233481&oldid=742219241. As noted, this is a personal essay and is not written in an encyclopedic style, and overlaps other articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 2 October 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. This is pretty much a duplicate of the FIFA Mobile article, and has been deleted as such. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA MOBILE[edit]

FIFA MOBILE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:18, 2 October 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 Withdraw. I will look closer. I didn't see anything of interest the first time, but I don't have time right now to look closer, so taking it on faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thrissivaperoor Kliptham[edit]

Thrissivaperoor Kliptham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:51, 2 October 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 Royal Rumble#Dates, venues and winners. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2017)[edit]

Royal Rumble (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising article which violates WP:PROMOTION, advertising event for January. Single ipv6 SPA account came in and removed CSD G11 speed tag, which sympathetic admins failed to remove. Article has been updated since with real date of event, 3 months hence. Advertising page. Scope creep (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few years ago we discussed redirecting WrestleMania articles until after the Rumble. It's a proposal we should probably look into again, but there has always been opposition against changes like this.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being what, exactly? Your rationale merely affirms the nominator's rationale. Contrary to prevailing opinion, we're not here to serve as another social media site for current events. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's about an event that will generate profits for a company doesn't mean that it's promotional. The page itself is neutrally written. It's a recurring event that will get its own page and which already has verifiable information about it. (EDIT: Added information from Sky Sports source [20], so the page doesn't just use WWE sources -- 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC))This seems like the wrestling equivalent of Super Bowl LII or the 43rd Chess Olympiad. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not following your reasoning. When you say "neutrally written", I don't see that as a problem. Rather, I see yet another article that's slavishly devoted to a particular manual of style and/or particular sources, but doesn't exactly deliver much in the way of information value and won't until the event or something besides announcements of various minor details actually happens. Keep in mind that we've been in a billion-website world for quite some time. Regardless of what Alexa may say at any particular point, Wikipedia's stock in terms of public perception has been falling for years. Offering only the same content you can find at thousands or millions of other places on the web or the equivalent of clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites isn't going to help that any. Notice that in my original comment, I reference the use of the term "enduring notability" in various discussions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, specifically whether the term is misused or whether editors only give lip service to the concept. I'm reminded of something from Bobby Heenan's autobiography where he had a conversation with Eric Bischoff during the Monday Night Wars. Bischoff was bragging to Heenan that "I've been on top for 36 weeks", to which Heenan replied "So what, I've been on top for 36 years". That quote sums up my attitude in general about our coverage of future events when contrasted with our non-coverage or trivial coverage of countless notable past events. While the Sky Sports source was helpful, I'm perfectly capable of finding their website without having to use a Wikipedia article as a portal. That falls under WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm tired of constantly having to make that argument. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through past Royal Rumble articles, we have an article for everyone one of these events since the first one in 1988, so it seems that these events do have enduring notability. If someone has a problem with the quality of sourcing in older articles, it seems counterproductive to delete/redirect articles on upcoming events, since that makes it harder for people to add good sourcing. If this had been a redirect, I never would've added the SkySports source, and looking at the quality of older Royal Rumble articles, it may never have been added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, why this should be deleted? Because of that IP user claiming this is a "fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable?" Yeah, I think so. However, if I take step back, and look through the previous RR events, it should not be deleted. It takes a while to organize a major sport event (venue, location), like this one or even the Super Bowl. Take the Royal Rumble (2016), for instance, which was announced and created in April 2015, months before it took place in January 2016. Any arguments? I think so. My vote, will remain as keep. Nickag989talk 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored that !vote until more compelling reasons can be given to remove it. At any rate, if need be, striking it like this and offering a rationale for same is typically preferred. If you don't follow WP:ITN/C, until fairly recently, the rationale the IP gave is barely removed from the reasons many editors had for why pro wrestling-related content doesn't belong on the main page. Don't get me started on the compatibility of that stance to NPOV; as I refer to above and elsewhere, the vast majority of our coverage of the current U.S. presidential election is a bad, bad joke, but I'm not on a crusade to do something about it (yet). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:46, 18 October 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 Ming Li. If the notability of the company may form in the future, people will probably want to restore the article, so leaving the history for now. Currently though the company cannot have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP Technologies Inc.[edit]

RSVP Technologies Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability for this start up. Press releases and a statement about funding from the government doesn't add up to notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON too soon for this company. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 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. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule[edit]

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising The Banner talk 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 3 October 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. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Canadian network television schedule[edit]

2003–04 Canadian network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 3 October 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) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games (eighth generation)[edit]

List of video games (eighth generation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have longstanding sequential articles that provide for this topic. See List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). The article creator proposed a major revision in July. Fearing that his idea would not meet with a favourable reception (see brief discussion) he proceeded and created a new article no matter. My main objection is that the new page is essentially a duplication of the existing one. Moreover, keeping the information updated requires a great deal more work. There are more fields that require modifying and the table is so long it is easy to lose track of basic header information. A quick look at the history tab shows that these articles are rarely updated relative to other video game list articles. Proofreading is lacking. For this reason it's best to keep things as straightforward as possible to encourage participation. There is zero reference table at this time. — TPX 12:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — TPX 13:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) is no more than a compilation of three existing articles with non-exclusive games removed. That article serves no purpose at all. I'm not going to reiterate myself here (read there instead: Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)#Purpose of this article?). But more importantly, you've probably have gone too far to have, really, requesting for an deletion on the new article that I've created, even though it has its purpose.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The seventh and eighth generation articles were created long before I started editing them. Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers (Gears, Mario, Forza) in order to make an informed decision. Everyone can appreciate the effort you have expended to create a new article, but there is a considerable amount of overlap between exiting pages and the new article that I don't understand what the point is. Encouraging editors to proofread these type of lists is hard enough as it is. — TPX 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm going to reiterate to here from the last time I said there. They lost their purpose ever since that the "exclusive" column has been returned to the game list. They can just go to the main game list to look at exclusive games just fine. Some readers may prefer a different table with different sorting system revolving exclusive. The new article does not require frequent updates because it does not have release dates and many other game info, just the game title, exclusivity, and availability. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I placed "more concisely" in italics when I said "Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers" because the same information can be found by visiting each list article separately. If you believe they are unnecessary then feel free to nominate both for deletion. But what you should not do is create a yet another third unwieldy article consisting of the same information. — TPX 18:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to tell me what I should and should not do... the new article clearly isn't for you. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very redundant to list same games twice, sure, but sometimes that's a good thing, we can cross-check for the questionable games between two lists. Though that's not what the new article is about, it's another list with conpletely different column that will provide different purpose to the readers. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point though? Each individual list already tracks all of this information, including exclusivity of software. This is a massive, unwieldy list that is going to require a ton of maintenance, without any payoff, since it's all documented elsewhere already. (And in a better fashion too - this list has a ridiculous number of "unknown" fields.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:List of Xbox 360 games#Proposal for improving the exclusivity information is where I got idea from. i thought it's good but it would be crazy to add any more columns to the existing table that's already taken the whole screen, so duplicate the list with a entirely new columns will be more ideal. There are more room for more columns, too, but that's all for now. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about we move and merge the genre, developer, and publisher columns from three articles to this new article? This new article could save someone's edits up to three times because they don't have to add such info to each game list. I don't like this idea though. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its already a very large undertaking to maintain these individual List of PlayStation 4 games-type lists. I believe this proposed combined massive one containing all games from Wii U, PS4, and Xbox 360 is too much to maintain by itself, let alone maintaining the individual lists and your proposed massive combined one concurrently. Especially for something that's entirely redundant anyways. We don't need this. Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide or some "ConsoleWars" fansite. Its an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I realized that articles revolving exclusives/exclusivity information are very console war like articles mostly maintained by fans. Do List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) deserve to stay too? TPX's reason as stated above sounds like they're buyers' guide. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will vote for deletion if the pages are nominated. There is no real purpose for List of PC exclusive games to exist when exclusive titles are denoted on List of PC games. — TPX 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll try to nominate these exclusive articles for deletion tomorrow. PC exclusive games article could just turn into a redirect page instead to retain its edit history then someone will still have a chance to merge if they feel like it. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 2 October 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubiculum[edit]

Cubiculum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was no reason for the move except to frustrate the deletion discussion. Pure page move vandalism. I've moved it back & suppressed the redirect to restore the status quo. WP:PM/C#1 Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now think that it is no longer a dictionary page, and there is probably enough to sustain an article, given its current information. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Too late for me to withdraw the nomination per WP:WDAFD, but it's now worth a Keep. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little disappointed by that, but not at all surprised. It's pretty much par for the course that participants in deletion discussions ignore the caveat "if they cannot be expanded beyond a definition" at WP:NOT#DICT. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir Todorov[edit]

Tihomir Todorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The football player never played in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 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 Housekeeping closure. Article does not exist. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstaritis[edit]

Barnstaritis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know, but the humor template is being used to compromise the speedy deletion process. Articles like these woild have been speedy deleted if it wasn't for that user tag. Does anyone here even find these nerdy articles remotely funny? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Night Takeaway[edit]

Sunday Night Takeaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The program was announced as airing in 2016, however did not eventuate and looks to be either dumped or pushed to 2017 [21]. The article could be re-created should the series be going ahead. Otherwise the article is about a show announced but not delivered, failing notability and lacking sources. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiousism[edit]

Facetiousism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Neologism. Only references found are to things like Facebook and Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JbhTalk 06:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Portaro[edit]

Brett Portaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. This article was originally filled with SEO/spam external links many of which did not have any relation to claims. The subject does not appear to be notable and the page looks to be nothing but a promotional vehicle. After going through the inline external links there was one, poor, link to a "List of Geniuses" site that you pay to be listed on. JbhTalk 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:58, 2 October 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. Obvious spam for non-notable musician Jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WYSM (Musician)[edit]

WYSM (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self promotional article of non-notable musician. Speedy was removed by a new editor. Melcous (talk) 05:18, 2 October 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 Eric Horvitz#One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence. Whether to merge stuff from history is up to editors.  Sandstein  08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence[edit]

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence for the importance of this particular report DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 4 October 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) JbhTalk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lazzarini[edit]

Victor Lazzarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. I could find no significant RS coverage of the subject and his publications have few citations. JbhTalk 04:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, it appears that the work with Csound and synthesis is significant enough. There were some links broken in different places on wikipedia, I realised later that the page was there but was deleted.Roetfuss (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something where sources discuss him rather than the technique. I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if some are found. Also, his most highly cited work has 38 citations so how big a deal is it? His work is outside my area of expertise and I'm willing to reassess. JbhTalk 13:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible a redirect to csound is appropriate ... but I'll have a good look - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38 citations of a single article in a niche area such as sound synthesis is not too bad. The MIT Press book appears to be well appreciated. Just giving some reasons why I even bothered.Roetfuss (talk) 14:53, 2 October 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. Obvious hoax Fenix down (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barbour II[edit]

Robert Barbour II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is apparently a playable character from a video game. Google searches turn up nothing. If it exists, this is way too soon for an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hypes[edit]

Andrew Hypes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. Coverage is a single local paper and social media. JbhTalk 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 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) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAT Refund Eligibility Table for EU based Companies[edit]

VAT Refund Eligibility Table for EU based Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic, not referenced, not reliable compilation of tax rates. Do not quite understand the purpose of this. The article itself says The table below is intended as a guide only. Renata (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love: The Bob Marley Musical[edit]

One Love: The Bob Marley Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musica lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamieson Laboratories[edit]

Jamieson Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable company that fails to cite almost any reliable sources to back up its claim to notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 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. A Traintalk 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggtmoy[edit]

Zuggtmoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per usual, none of these sources show anything relevant. First four are singular name usage that do not talk about the character in any meaningful context, fifth is just describing a branching scenario and mentions the character only in relation to the scenario without any real world context, and sixth is just a strategy guide. Once again, you've brought in a load of fluff and three other people will come in here to vote "per Jclemens" despite reasonably knowing that none of these sources could actually be added to the article in good faith, at least in terms of establishing notability for the article. Would it kill you to at least try to find actual sources? TTN (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At some point, you should reevaluate your assessment of the sorts of sources I provide, since when I do provide them and dispute your deletion proposal, consensus seems to fall with me far more often than it does with you. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please feel free to show me where anyone has used the majority of the sources you provide to improve an article. There is not one source listed above that could be added to the article in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with the sources being relevant or even actual consensus that the article is notable. It's a bunch of people coming in with the idea that the article is notable in the first place and voting keep based upon that initial idea when given a reason to do so, even if that reason is faulty. Pretty much all these articles that have been kept recently will end up sitting for another year without improvement and eventually be removed in another AFD. It's actually quite common in a number of AfDs with the same kind of useless laundry list of trivial mentions. Your idea of notability is simply contrary to Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't see that changing any time soon. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amusing that you should expect me to improve an article with what I find, when when I find anything at all, it's evidence that you never bother following WP:BEFORE. You also confuse evidence of notability, which must be independent, with evidence of sources which can be used to create and expand an article, which doesn't have to be, per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would expect that, if your sources are as good as you claim, that any of the number of people professing a keep argument would use them in the articles. They don't, they won't, and nobody ever will (unless someone shoves them in after this argument to make a very bad point). Anyone who expects someone to follow BEFORE to the letter for a bunch of old, forgotten ten year old articles is silly. The onus is on the person claiming that the articles are notable. Just because most these were made when Wikipedia's standards were extremely lax does not mean the idea of a topic needing to properly branch out from a main article should be ignored. I do run a quick check through the source links, but that doesn't really matter when you pull out a bunch of irrelevant junk and claim it to be proper. Articles need to have multiple, non trivial third party sources to establish notability. While you constantly try to dance around that very specific definition of notability, it's there as clear as day. These sources are irrelevant, trivial mentions that do nothing more than confirm the existence of the topic. TTN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How? What significant coverage has this received that is independent of the subject? Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 6 October 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 List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myhriss[edit]

Myhriss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 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. Consensus is that while this is indeed a concept invented by popular writers post WWII, it is notable as such, but the article should be edited to reflect this. I'm not sure that there is consensus to rename the article, but discussions about this can continue on the article talk page if needed.  Sandstein  14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German tank aces[edit]

German tank aces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plainly put, there never was a "German tank ace". By that I mean that neither the term "Panzer ace" ("Panzerass") nor the "concept" (whatever that means) did exist among the Waffen-SS, the German wartime propaganda or the Wehrmacht. I may be proven otherwise by RS, but so far I have not read the term or in any primary sources or military historiography. (There are two exceptions of the latter, I will mention later but these actually support my argument.) Of course there were German tank commanders who became the subject of German propaganda, notably Michael Wittmann. It is also true that U-boat commanders and pilots received the most prestigous German military order of WWII, the Knight's Cross, when they had sunk a certain number of enemy ships or shot down a certain number of enemy planes, respectively. But even them were not referred to as "aces" (Asse) by German propaganda. No soldier of the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS, however, received a Knight's Cross just because he had destroyed a certain number of enemy tanks. If these men were considered for a Knight's Cross, it was for a single deed which was supposed to have significantly influenced the outcome of combat and been carried out "on one's own initiative" ("aus eigenem Entschluss"). Kurt Knispel, arguably the most "successful" "German tank ace", for example, never received a Knight's Cross. (Roman Töppel, "Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände," in: Ztschr. f. Heereskunde 76 (2012), pp. 180-190, here pp. 180-1.)

The article claims rather vaguely: "To the extent that the concept existed, it was mainly advanced by the Waffen-SS as part of its contributions to Nazi Germany's propaganda campaigns," referenced with Steven Zaloga's Panther vs Sherman. Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Oxford: Osprey Publishing 2008, p. 36. I will quote him at length, because his publication is the one and only source so far. Even he notes that "the concept of 'tank aces' was not particularly prevalent in World War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger bataillons which enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year [...]. In Heer panzer units the concept was not widespread, and military awards focused on mission performance, not an arbitrary metric like tank kills". Zaloga's claims do not support the definition of our article, since the top three "tank aces" fought with the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. How did they become "tank aces", given the "concept" wasn't prevalent in the Wehrmacht? And how could the "concept" have been especially common regarding "certain bataillons" and not with tank commanders in general? Did man and machine become one? It seems as if the fame of the German tank Tiger II, propagandized as a "Wunderwaffe" (wonder weapon), has somehow been transposed upon its commanders, but that is clearly an ex post development, i. e. the term was attached to them after WW II. Zaloga does not provide any reference for his claims anyway, which does not speak for their reliability.

As I said, the term "Panzerass" is not to be found in German propaganda of WW II. The term "ace" in relation to individual military success, so to speak, originated with French military propaganda of WW I. The as de l'aviation, (the flying ace) was used for fighter pilots who had shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft (usually more than five). It has been picked up particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) Two things should be noted: First, although, fighter pilots like Boelcke, Immelmann, and Richthofen figured prominently in German propaganda, the term "Fliegerass" was not used. Second, the term "ace" is nohing like a concept, but rather an image, a myth. As Peter Fritzsche put it: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) The term "Fliegerass" is nowadays present and being used in German language referring to fighter pilots like Richthofen, Mölders and the like. But that is a fairly recent development (see, e.g., this google ngraph) and to a limited degree it became part of popular culture through special interest literature. It is not used as a "concept" by historiography, though. Instead, the image of the "ace" itself has become the subject of historiographical research. (See the examples of Robertson and Fritzsche, cited above.)

The same applies to the term "tank ace", minus the historiographical interest. The term originated within English special interest literature to purport the image of individual, distinct combat (and to sell books, I might add, by hooking up with Western folklore). One might just take a look at the literature in which the term "tank ace" is used. If Zaloga claims that the "concept" of "panzer aces" has received considerable attention in recent years, then he certainly does not refer to military historiography, but rather to special interest literature by publishers like Osprey, Stroud, Stackpole, Fedorowicz, Zenith Press and so forth. Take Franz Kurowski, former Nazi propagandist himself, as an example. It is difficult to keep track of his numerous publications in German, but a quite comprehensive list can be found here[39]. He chose some fairly martial titles, but he did not use the term "Panzerasse" whatsoever. Who came up with the "Panzer aces"? Please note, that JJ Fedorowicz followed up with Infantry Aces: The German Soldier in Combat in WWII (1994), also by Kurowski. It's the same book selling scheme, but equally ahistorical nonsense.

So far I have found two RS in which there are references to "Panzer aces". One is by controversial author Jörg Friedrich who speaks of generals Hermann Hoth and Georg-Hans Reinhardt as "Panzerasse" (Das Gesetz des Krieges, 1993, p. 220.). By this he unwittingly demonstrates, that "Panzer aces" is not a defined "concept" referring to successful tank commanders. The other is The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser /Davies who discuss Kurowski's titles, but not as a "concept" whatsoever.

To sum it up: "German tank aces" is a phrase used within English (mostly American) militaria literature. The term not only builds upon the myth of the fighter ace, but incorporates this myth and therefore has no analytical value whatsoever. It is not found within military historiography. As a "concept" it is WP:FRINGE and not sufficiently notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. (WP:NFRINGE). Instead Wikipedia provides unwarranted promotion for the "concept" (WP:PROFRINGE). In contrast to "Flying ace" or simply "ace" where there are independent reliable sources analyzing this term, there are virtually no such RS on the "German tank ace". Thus the article is beyond improvement. Instead Wikipedia is not a dictionary does apply. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect to Steven Zaloga, who is apparently a more critical reader than many of his fellow author's at Osprey's, but imho his publication does not qualify as a RS. It's an 80pp brochure with many grand illustrations, but lacking any references. Zaloga's depiction of the German perspective is based upon "the numerous Foreign Military Studies prepared by German military officers about the Ardennes campaign" (including, e.g., two reports by Jochen Peiper), i.e. by the de:Operational History (German) Section. The work of this body of former German officers has been critically examined recently ( Esther-Julia Howell: Von den Besiegten lernen?, Munich 2015]]. The 12 books in his bibliography (Kurowski is not among them) are also from the militaria camp. Btw, I admire how you managed to read my argument, check upon its claims and the references and came up with an answer in just three minutes.--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Osprey books don't have footnotes, Zaloga always includes multiple pages worth of references (including to the primary sources he regularly uses) at the conclusion of his books, as you note, so it's not accurate to claim that his work is unreferenced. You also appear to misunderstand WP:RS: Zaloga is a widely-published and cited expert on the topic of armoured warfare, and whatever the shortcomings of Osprey publishing, they're a professional outfit which exercises quality control (albeit not as much as they probably should in some instances) so the work can be considered reliable. I don't think that many people are going to read all of your over-long statement, and there's no reason to do so given that it's not relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and implies that you haven't actually bothered to read the content of the article (the topic is notable, and the content is OK and can be improved, so there are no grounds for deletion). There are certainly grounds to move and improve the article, but that's an content discussion which you didn't bother to start before launching this process out of the blue, not a deletion discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016 Edit summary: "This is the list of German panzer aces. Stop. No need of sociological junk"
  • February 2016 Edit summary: "Reads like a tabloid whit all those quations, not very encyclopedic. This should be merely a list, how invulnerable the Tiger I was doesnt matter, or that all tanks aces were bulshwalkers does not belong here."
  • Also from February 2016, restoring the dubious "kills"
As far as the term is concerned, I suspect it originates with the prolific Franz Kurowski whose Panzer Aces, Luftwaffe Aces, Panzergrenadier Aces and Infantry Aces (!) continue to be popular WWII "militaria literature". The term "Panzer ace" appears in The Myth of the Eastern Front in quotation marks in the discussions on Kurowski.
At best, this could be deleted and redirected to either Waffen-SS in popular culture or perhaps to Franz_Kurowski#Portrayal of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Alternatively, a new article could be created under the name "Panzer ace" in popular culture or similar. Secondary sources for this would be Zalooga and Smelser & Davies.
As far as the article under discussion, the most recent version, which I was actually planning to address, but got distracted, introduced sources such as Patrick Agte and similar. So I suspect that trying to maintain neutrality of this article would be an on-going issue. Thus I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infrequent, and rapidly reverted/corrected, reversions to a less-good previous version aren't a reason to delete articles or their history IMO - note that these can, and probably will, be re-added via Wikipedia mirrors anyway based on my experience with similar articles. I'm sympathetic to an alternate name as suggested below though. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latest dubious version (diff) was there for a month. So, I'd say WP:TNT the current version, and start from scratch with a new name. Please see suggested draft below. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would still advocate deletion of the current page, to remove the access to the edit history and avoid restorations of dubious material. After deletion, the name can be redirected to the new article "Panzer ace" in popular culture, if the consensus is indeed to go with a revised name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this effort is an ill-advised piecemeal approach. I do not see sufficient RS for a "Panzer Ace" in popular culture-article. As far as I know this topic has not yet been adressed in military or cultural historiography. Steven Zaloga (I have adressed the reliability of his work above) does not deal with the issue of "tank ace" as a myth, but accepts it as being a "concept". Moreover I doubt that the "Pancer Ace" figures so prominently in popular culture that it would deserve a dedicated article. Instead, I would suggest an article Ace (military) on the terminology. There are sufficient RS to trace the emergence of that term, its meaning and image. The equally ahistorical Submarine ace could be merged and redirected to that article. Ideally even the article Flying Ace, which at present is completely devoid of academic historiography on the subject, could (and should) be merged into such an article.
My own research suggests, that the term "tank ace" was used as early as the 1950ies, but not as a concept. Rather it was a loose, even sloppy term to describe military leaders like Guderian and tank commanders like Wittmann, but also someone who managed to destroy more than five German tanks with an anti-tank gun. That underlines that it is the term "Ace" that deserves scrutiny, not its various ramifications.--Assayer (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides multiple references which discuss the concept of the role of a "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Smelser and Davies discuss aspects of this in considerable detail in their book, as does Zaloga in several works. I also refer you to searches in Amazon.com for "tank ace" and "panzer ace" which show that multiple popular (and generally awful) books have been written on the topic - it is these which Smelser and Davies critique and Zaloga and similar are responding to. Google Books searches provide similar results (eg, [40]). Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, the term indeed is restricted to "militaria literature" in the popular culture, but Wikipedia caters to the general public, and not to a scholarly audience. Given the fact that the article survived in its "WWII German military romancer" version until 2015 (I assume copy pasted from Achtungpanzer.com), and that there are consistent attempts to revert it to that state, I'd say there's interest in the "concept", however misguided it might be. On the other hand, I did not know that Ace (military) does not exist, and I agree that it would be an appropriate article to create and discuss the term there. I also agree that "U-boat ace" is an ahistorical concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not deny that there is some interest in what some have called the "German tank (panzer) ace". Of course you'll find multiple books carrying the phrase in its title. But I argue that the idea of a "concept" is fringe theory and does not merit a dedicated article. If you don't take my word for it, you may consider what Nigel Newton, Chief Executive of Bloomsbury, said when Bloomsbury bought Osprey: "The acquisition of Osprey increases our presence in niche special interest markets". Pageviews Analysis [41] suggests that the Flying ace article generates about 3,5 times more interest than the German tank aces and Michael Wittmann alone is viewed more than 3 times as often. Besides, I do not see a reason why a topic with a popular interest to it should not be treated in a scholarly sound manner. Otherwise we need not to bother about RS as vetted by the scholarly community. In a sense Franz Kurowski's work is more readable than many scholarly books. Neither do I see a particular reason to start a Panzer ace in popular culture-article instead of using a redirect to Ace (military), where the various military "Aces" can be dealt with. --Assayer (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; I guess we'll just to have to deal :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you move content, you need to retain the historical contributions attribution. If you copy in select content to a new article, you need to attribute it Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this not a "historical topic" but rather a contemporary creation, mostly via popular history and militaria literature. Panzer ace is currently a redirect, and it will continue to function in this capacity, so if anyone searches for "panzer ace", they will be directed to this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Idzkowski[edit]

Daniel Idzkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable entrepreneur; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What's available relates to subject's company, while notability is not WP:INHERITed. At best this could be redirected to Peekshare; but this article is at AfD, and it's not certain if would be retained: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekshare. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 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.
More