< 20 October 22 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Aberasturi[edit]

Jon Aberasturi (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)

Aberasturi does not fit our notability guidelines for cyclists. He has not participated professionally in the 27 allowed races that would give him presumed notability, nor ridden in the top tours, nor competed in international cycling competitions. The sources are also very lacking. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 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. ChrisO 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Woolard[edit]

Morgan Woolard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant. Outside of a top 15 finish in the 2006 competition, nothing here of substance. --fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Moore[edit]

Calvin Moore (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 actor - this was a PROD contested by the original editor. Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:39, 21 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 Non Phixion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green CD/DVD[edit]

The Green CD/DVD (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 album does not have enough coverage for notability. It has one review from Pitchfork from 2004 but that is all I could find that can be considered in-depth. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:19, 23 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mother-Daughter Exchange Club[edit]

Mother-Daughter Exchange Club (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 directory-like page on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The article does not cite any sources that are not award materials or PR driven. The industry awards do not overcome the lack of reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect above was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect for Big Tits at School (which was originally enacted in this AfD instead of a merge) was unfortunately deleted (despite the subject of that redirect being mentioned several times at Brazzers) after all of the original incoming Wiki-links to it were likely deleted in advance of the above-mentioned RfD. Guy1890 (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the Big Tits RfD: Delete: The name of the film occurs four times at the target; redirects don't need to be linked from any page to be useful (many, especially e.g. ones based on typos, won't be); it isn't a synonym. It is mentioned at the target. It was the result of an AfD. It doubles as a preservation of the history of what was formerly an article. All of that almost made me suggest keeping this and refining it to the awards section. However, there are 19 volumes in the film series. The current target doesn't talk about the films, it merely lists a few because of the awards that they won. (...) There isn't a better target, and I think the search engine handles this adequately. This sums up it pretty well. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 26 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 WP:CSD#A7 by Bbb23 —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielus Lemtiacus[edit]

Gabrielus Lemtiacus (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)

Per WP:GNG. Article lacks any context as to the significance of the subject. I understand he is a linguist and a language educator, but what specfically makes what he does notable enough for a WP:BLP? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this BLP a hoax? Alpha-School should be looked at too. Spa creator should show cause why he/she should not be banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 23 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. Deleting 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Singles and 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) as well, as suggested, and nobody objected. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis)[edit]

2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) (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 event, along with all Futures events, is not notable. Per WikiProject Tennis Guidelines, minor-minor league Futures events are not notable. None of them. A layman has to understand this long-standing consensus. The Major league baseball equivalent of tennis is the ATP world tour. Anyone who watches men's tennis on tv watches the ATP world tour. That's it. Minor league tennis is handled by the ATP Challenger tour. These are never on tv and are barely notable. Long-standing consensus has been to allow the minor league tournaments to be notable and if a player actually wins the event, for that player to be notable. Then we have the ITF Tour... the minor-minor leagues of tennis. Hundreds of tiny little events that pay a couple hundred dollars to the winners. These are never notable events, nor are the players that win them. For some reason speedy-delete was denied. The seedling articles that have sprung from this non-notable event must also be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also add 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Singles and 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Doubles into this as Future articles isn't notable.

and add another one too...Vietnam F7 Futures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 23 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) 08:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ammon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 23 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 Donald Trump#Hair. In the light of our policies and guidelines, the core issue here is whether Donald Trump's hair is notable enough to be covered in a separate article or whether, despite media coverage, it is so trivial an aspect of the topic of Donald Trump that it should be covered as part of an existing article, if at all.

I'm discounting opinions that do not touch on this issue, such as those that are just a vote or "per X". I'm also discounting the relatively few "it's an attack page" / "it's a BLP violation" opinions because they do not rebut the counterargument that these problems can be remedied through editing, as well as mere assertions such as "it's [not] notable". On that basis, a rough manual headcount gives us 29 "delete", 14 "merge", 13 "keep" and 6 "redirect" opinions (counting double the opinions of the form "X or X").

Because the question described at the outset is one of editorial judgment, and there are valid policy-based arguments on both sides, I can't assign any particular weight to either side's views. But I can determine that, at 49 to 14, there is clear consensus to not have a separate article about this topic. However, there is a significant minority - among the 49 who don't want to keep the article - that wants to either merge some content or create a redirect. Taking into account the substantial number of "keep" opinions as well, I can't determine that there is consensus to just delete the article.

Under these circumstances, I think that a redirect is the result that best reflects this discussion: It implements the consensus that we don't want a separate article, while allowing for subsequent consensus to develop about whether (if any) material should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's hair[edit]

Donald Trump's hair (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 feel like this has been deleted before, but I can't remember under what title. Is there significant coverage of his ridiculous 'do? Yes. Is it unencyclopedic and not independent of the rest of his body? Yes. (Unless it's a wig, in which case I guess it's sorta independent?) pbp 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly was a reason given for deletion. It's fine to disagree with it, but there was a reason. AlexEng(TALK) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as a strong argument for keeping ("significant coverage ... Yes.") and no valid reason given or deletion. --SI 15:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which also may or may not be real. Emily Goldstein (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People have talked about his hair independent of anything else about him for years, and probably will for centuries. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are still talking about George Washington's false teeth.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why, like George Washington's teeth, it is meritorious for mention in his main article. The hair is not notable apart from the person it is on. If Trump weren't a celebrity/politician, it wouldn't be independently notable. But who knows, I could be 'wrong!' TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this reasoning. If he weren't notable himself, then his hair would not be notable either. AlexEng(TALK) 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right after all.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. However if there was an article on Washington's teeth I would vote to keep that too. Both topics (Washington's teeth and Trump's hair) are more notable than many others that have their own articles here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Jack, How about the "Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism" precedent which I linked to above? Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference there is that Hitler's testicles aren't notable in themselves, but the theories and nuttiness surrounding them are. To my knowledge, there are no theories surrounding Trump's hair that would be notable in itself. I wasn't using the Washington teeth link as other stuff doesn't exist, but to show that it is very much possible to have famous body parts covered sufficiently in an article. My general philosophy is that if you can validly cover something that is not-independent in the article that it is dependent on, don't create a new article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources over the years:
here is a list of article links
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2004-Fire the signature comb-over, stylists say (USA Today, Donald Trump: rich man, poor hair (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), The infinite mystery of Donald Trump's hair (LA Times), Trump Hair vs. The Mullet (Chicago Tribune)
2006-Donald Trump Jr.: The Man, the Myth, the Hairstyle (Gawker)
2007-Trump vs. McMahon in hair battle at Wrestlemania in Detroit (USA Today) Trump's hair on the line in WWE wager (USA Today) Do Not Judge Trump Until You've Walked A Mile In His Hair (Deadspin) Trump Wins at Wrestlemania, Keeps His Hair (People) Donald's granddaughter pulls a Trump card with copycat hairstyle (London Evening Standard)
2008-Donald Trump's bad hair day (The Telegraph), Donald Trump’s Hair Conceals More Than Just His Bald Spot (NY Mag), Donald Trump tells Sunday Telegraph that he uses hair spray, not gel (NY Daily News), Letterman: Is Donald Trump's Hair Really a Chihuahua In Disguise? (Vanity Fair)
2010-How I cracked the secret of Donald Trump's hair (The Telegraph), The GIF Hunter: Donald Trump's Hair Blows Up (Complex)
2011-The Secret to Donald Trump’s Hair (Time), Donald Trump Lets His Hair Down (Rolling Stone), Donald Trump: Forget the Economy, How Does He Do His Hair? (ABC News), Now We Know: Donald Trump's Hair Care Secrets (NPR), Barbara Walters: Donald Trump Wears A Hairpiece (Business Insider)
2012-Donald Trump: ‘I Don’t’ Wear A Hair Piece (Access Hollywood), Donald Trump: 'It is my hair and it's an amazing thing' (The Guardian), Mark Cuban Dares Donald Trump To Shave His Head For $1 Million (Forbes)
2013-Donald Trump Hair Mystery Over? 'Celebrity Apprentice' Star Defends His Hair On Twitter (PHOTOS) (Huffington Post Canada), Donald Trump's hair photographed crawling in Amazon WITH VIDEO (The Oakland Press), ‘Donald Trump Caterpillar’: Flannel Moth Larva Looks Like Real Estate Mogul’s Hair (PHOTO) (Huffington Post)
2014-Donald Trump: “It’s Actually My Hair” And I May Still Run For President (Time), Trump's hair is real! Billionaire reveals Ice Bucket Challenge video (AOL), Never Touch Anything That Looks Like Donald Trump’s Hair (Wired), Donald Trump’s hair the ‘mane’ event at keynote speech (New York Post)
2015-Donald Trump Says His Hair Is Real Yet Again (The Gospel Herald), Sometimes Evolution Looks Like Donald Trump's Hair And That's Okay (Gizmodo), Donald Trump's hair: Defended and explained in his own words (Today), Meet the woman who confirmed Trump's hair is no toupee (CNN), An Illustrated History of Donald Trump's Hair. (Vanity Fair), The Real Truth about Donald Trump’s Hair (Men's Health), A hair surgeon explains what's going on with Trump's hair (Business Insider)
2016-Hairdressers reveal the secrets of Donald Trump's hair (NY Post), Donald Trump’s hairdresser says he is very protective of his hair (The Independent), You can now blast a trumpet on Donald Trump's hair (NY Daily News), Is an invasive and dangerous surgery the reason behind Donald Trump’s odd hairdo? (News.com.au), Donald Trump’s Hair Evolution Is Almost As Scary As His Politics (Huffington Post), The truth about Donald Trump's hair: Former hairdresser reveals the lacquer, home cuts... and if it's real (Mirror Online), Donald Trump lets Jimmy Fallon mess up his hair, because why not (Washington Post).
There's too many for me to list them all but is it enough to warrant an article or will this forever be unencyclopedic? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It no doubt is worthy of some mention, but I think the main article is the best place for that. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't create spinoffs that attempt to put a positive or negative spin on a subject already covered in a previous article as per WP:CONTENTFORK. So it being a "good" article about Trump isn't a good reason. EDIT: Unless what you were saying is making the article meet the "good article" criteria, in which case disregard my previous comments. JasperTECH (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put on my philosophy hat and ask if Donald Trump's hair is ontologically distinct from Trump? In plain language: are article's about Trump's hair just articles about Trump or are they something different? My answer: they are articles about a feature of Trump but they are indeed simply articles about him. I completely agree it is definitely something that should be included in the article on him, but I don't see it as being a distinct article. I also agree with JasperTech about the content fork concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that is a very goodlooking hat you're wearing. I wonder if Emily Goldstein pondered this; I would guess not. And no, I'm not biased against Trump, but I might cop to being a crusader against Trump's hair, since he's got a lot more of it than I do. Can we stop wasting our time now? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Emily, mine can never be as big as yours, but certainly I could, with the help of [2], [3], [4], write a nice little article on Donald Trump's penis. There's even "A History of Donald Trumpo's Penis"! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emily Goldstein, the hair is no doubt noteworthy. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is: is the hair's noteworthiness independent of the noteworthiness of Donald Trump? And the answer is an emphatic "no." Even at the time of the earliest article you have posted, Donald Trump was already noteworthy for his participation in The Apprentice. Even if Donald Trump had no noteworthiness aside from his unique hair, I would arguably still put information about his hair in an article titled Donald Trump. There's little reason to demand that his hair get a separate article. AlexEng(TALK) 01:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources from 2004 through 2011 are primarily about his hair, with the exception of: the one news report from 2006 (although it does mention that Donald is "perhaps best, or most endearingly, known for his hair"); the 2007 news reports, which give a little more info on the wrestling event rather than the hair itself; and two reports in 2011, in which the hair is not the main focus. One source from 2012 focuses primarily on the hair, as well as a couple sources from 2013, and one or two from 2014. Most of the sources from 2015 look pretty good. Same for 2016 (including one source saying that he is "almost as well known for his hairstyle as he is for his outlandish views.").  AJFU  06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously reading that literally? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me if I consider that last quote to be a serious and literal statement? That is what The Independent wrote. I have no idea if what they wrote was meant to be a joke, but that was not the way I viewed it. I posted the quote to serve as an example of news organizations that consider his hair to be a big deal.  AJFU  00:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or to start with, the entire business career section could be put into an article titled "Donald Trump's business ventures," with the info in the main article being condensed considerably. JasperTECH (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. The hair seems mentioned in archive 1, 8, 7..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)
  • Specifico, you know it's silly. While it may not exactly be bodyshaming given the involved vanity, this is not much different from a hit piece. Not much. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I have not read the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were in bad shape, like many new articles. I added one bit about the color and I was surprised that this wasn't already discussed. But just as to notability don't you think that this is a big deal with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised to see an article on "Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits" and it would be roughly the same. You do have a point but doesn't it unambiguously meet GNG? SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the number of sources you might think so, but the argument above about the hair being him is valid--besides, much of the sourcing is tongue in cheek. That his hair is an important part of what he is known for is silly; much of that sourcing is tongue in cheek and gossipy. (And frequently meant to be insulting.) If we take all of that at face value, we can write up his penis as well--and one might as well say Barack Obama's ears are notable. Everybody knows his ears... Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought. But though they are conspicuous, we rarely discuss Obama's ears, and to date we only have Trump's own (primary-source) debate boast about his penis. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many people are saying... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought American politics couldn't go lower, here we are giving equal weight to a candidate's hair and his political positions. Wikipedia is pretty entertaining! — JFG talk 04:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They both have received a lot of coverage, and in that regard they are similar (but obviously not in the same way). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice that while you complain about the AfD process, you haven't provided a reason for why it should be deleted, as required by WP:DISCUSSAFD. Also, I wouldn't say that consensus is unobtainable. It seems to me that the discussion is leaning towards the delete/merge side. JasperTECH (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments in favor of keeping it seem to be that it has a lot of reliable sources and news coverage (though I don't think it has much independent coverage), is a notable topic about Trump, and that it makes sense for it to have its own article since the main one is too long. I agree that it has reliable sources and is notable, but I think the main article needs to be split anyway, and that the contents here should then be summarized in the main article. JasperTECH (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Human culture?? articles about rock songs, cartoons, etc. etc. but not the hair? Not everybody's hair receives worldwide attention, but for those who've got it, we should cover it. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cover it? With a ((hat))?- MrX 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I created the hair section. JasperTECH (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When DGG !votes to delete an article, we should probably listen. On another note, I definitely appreciate your use of "someone might trump it". The WordsmithTalk to me 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a wonderfully useful essay, isn't it? The WordsmithTalk to me 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I nominated the article for speedy deletion. To be clear, I'm not trying to disrupt this very legitimate AfD, but I do believe the article is an attack page so I feel obligated to report it. If the reviewing admin(s) disagree(s) with me, that's fine. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: I agree this should be deleted, but speedy delete? Really? I would say the subject of this article is humorous, but not even close to libel. I guess it's up to the admins now.JasperTECH (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth: speedied it per G10. I also find this questionable, even though I am clearly on the delete side of this. There are clearly users that think it should be kept and I wouldn't have called it an attack page. I think it might be best to restore it and let the AfD play out. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JasperTech, WP:ATTACK isn't just for false/unverifiable information. It's also for pages that "exist primarily to disparage" their subjects, and the type of humor encapsulated by this page (and by the cited sources) was by and large about laughing at Trump, rather than laughing with him. All in good fun to be sure, but at Donald Trump's expense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument. Discount accordingly. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As is evidenced in the article, there has been coverage of that subject for a long time in numerous venues, beyond any possible claim of WP:ROUTINE. Even if everyone agrees that it should never ever have received it, it has, and it is not our job to decide that a GNG-meeting topic is actually not worth it - or if it is, claim WP:IAR rather than masquerading behind the guidelines.
Donald Trump is already a long article, so merging is an unpractical option. Even if the content was not GNG-worthy, which it is (alas), there would be a case to WP:SIZESPLIT.
All this being said, the article as it stands now has a few features that in my view constitute disparaging humor. If any of those are kept, I would actually prefer deletion (WP:IAR: on that exact subject, better have no article than a somewhat attack-y article).
  1. The photograph captions "Side view, 2015" and the "View from above/behind, 2013" objectifies the human under the hair. Replace by "Donald Trump, 2015/2013".
  2. The "gallery" section is already disputable, but in any case the first two photographs are out of the temporal scope where the references mention the subject, and should be taken out.
TigraanClick here to contact me 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Dr. Fleischman's speedy delete !vote above is a well-written summary of my concerns of "disparaging humour". Nonetheless, I believe that the corrections I proposed are enough to bypass those concerns. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem: this is not "trivial detail," this is a topic covered substantially not just in a sufficient number of independently published sources, but in a vast number of independently published sources. At that point, it becomes a valid topic in and of itself in accord with GNG. Everything else is a "SEEMSIMPORTANT/DOESNTSEEMIMPORTANT" argument. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would agree that we should not care whether our articles influence elections. But our job is not just to "report the facts", but to do so in an encyclopedic manner. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). This is exactly the kind of topic that was intended to be excluded by WP:NOT—trivial and extremely unimportant to the overall coverage of Donald Trump. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Smartyllama, Wikipedia's job is not to report the facts--we have newspapers for that... Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror ... well it's not quite as bad as The Sun, but not far off.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly so, a few UK tabloids favour following fluffy fun. However one strand out of place does not detangle the tress. Recurring recounting, recording, recognition and reputation of this ruff by regularly reliable sources rightly records a rough keep. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"especially considering all of the listed article sources are from 2016, which is definitely due to reaction to Trump's political candidacy." What are you talking about? I made a list of sources on this page and there is coverafge as early from at least 2004. Most of the sources in the article are from before he announced his 2016 campaign. To me it looks like you never opened the article. Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't read my reason too. I've said much more than that. Anyway, will you argue with me that press coverage of the hair from 2004 wasn't tabloid as well? Good effort, but my vote is a solid delete/merge. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A significant portion of the deletion review !votes to restore this to AFD were people who still think it was should be deleted, but that it wasn't a clear-cut attack page. The BLP/attack concerns have been iterated here, and while I don't necessarily agree that this is an attack page, I think stuff like pointing out that there is a caterpillar that looks like his hair border on that. I don't think speedy is warranted, but the concerns are legitimate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST states: Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. The Michelle Obama's arms AfD had broad, broad participation, and the delete arguments in that debate match delete arguments made here. It's not binding precedent, but it does strengthen, not weaken, the wider argument that this subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories aren't very good comparisons. The entries in them are either redirects rather than articles, the article isn't actually about the body part itself (War of Jenkins' Ear, Beheading of St. John the Baptist), the subject is an archaeological relic (Heslington Brain, Manning River Skull) or the body part was continuing to generate substantial coverage decades or even centuries after the owner died (Oliver Cromwell's head, Albert Einstein's brain). I don't think there are any other examples of body parts of living celebrities with articles, and the Michelle Obama's arms is a much better comparison than anything in those categories. Hut 8.5 08:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So where are you on Hitler's testicles? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if Trump manages to start a world war we might be able to have an article on his testicles. Hut 8.5 15:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that arch deletionists are wrong so infrequently about the outcome whenever an AfD debates attracts more than a few of the usual suspects is because there is very little appreciation among said deletionists of the importance of GNG, of the way that GNG keeps our debates rooted in the rule of law rather than degenerating into endless waves of tail-chasing and utterly unproductive acrimony. We don't need to waste words about what "seems like it belongs in an encyclopedia" as opposed to a newspaper. In actual fact, GNG reigns supreme here and that is a good thing — it protects the work of all content creators from arbitrary annihilation. If the sourcing exists, notability is met and the work is protected. We don't need to spend 40 pages chattering about what things "seem important" or "seem unworthy" — that is 100% irrelevant. This is a slam dunk keep unless for some reason there is a viable Ignore All Rules case to be made. And I ain't seein' it... best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers aren't stupid; they have their purpose. That purpose just happens to be different from the purpose of encyclopedias. It is exactly this fundamental difference in purpose which causes WP:N to have that two-pronged approach: not only must there be significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, but the topic itself must be something appropriate for an encyclopedia to cover. (Newspapers form a part of the base for the first prong, but not the second.) Topics like Donald Trump's hair or Michelle Obama's arms may serve the purpose of a newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. As for what the subject is, perhaps my original comment could have been better worded, but I meant that the subject of "Donald Trump's hair" is presented in this article as a subtopic of Donald Trump the man. I read the New York Times op-ed you mentioned, and it too characterizes this topic as a subtopic of Donald Trump, mentioning his "unclassifiable" ideology and even Hillary Clinton's hair. As an encyclopedia, we are responsible for summarizing knowledge about Donald Trump in an encyclopedic manner, and a standalone article specifically for his hair is putting too much weight on trivial details. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you are trying for the funny (at least based on your user page), but at some point you're making my point that this is an attack page. Some of your user page might also be viewed as such. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed attempting to bring some comic relief to an otherwise vexing topic area; just because it's possible to do that in no way implies that the article itself is an attack page. As to my user page, the material there is (as explained on the page itself)
meant to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment). In humor based on political events, Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican, though unfortunately the former opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing as the Republican nominee.
Obviously it's all meant in jest. I wouldn't never seriously compare Donald Trump to Hitler. That would be a BLP violation. EEng 18:19, 28 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.  Sandstein  08:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskommissariat Ural[edit]

Reichskommissariat Ural (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 seems to be a hoax. No references to "Reichskommissariat Ural" found on Google Books. Mvaldemar (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be a reference to a proposed Reichskommissariat for the Ural region in the book Himmler's Raumplanung in Osten: Der Generalplan Ost in Polen 1940-1945, p. 51. I haven't been able to locate the book online to verify this. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With further review, I've found that the link I cited originates from the July 2008 Wikipedia article on Operation Barbarossa, and the detail I've quoted was removed here, as well as there were two other edits at that time to remove this information on the grounds that it was a "fabrication".  I don't know if it was a fabrication or not, I just know we can't verify the information.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:46, 23 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. No consensus on redirecting, chiefly due to Lemongirl942's argument (K.e.coffman's argument is less persuasive as notability and search term usage are not necessarily related) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global 2014[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Global 2014 (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 pageant edition has no significant coverage. The winner was already added in the Miss Global wiki article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why redirect makes sense. She is in the main article and it's a valid search term. A redirect will help others find the information they are looking for. I agree that a merge is not neccesary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find these redirects to be a bit disorienting. Since the subject is non notable, it's unlikely to be a valid search term. I thus believe that deletion is the right approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with you, deletion is the correct approach in this matter.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman:I would be fine with deletion, but don't really see how a redirect is disorienting. If someone who isn't a registered user is trying to find out who won in 2014 they could very well search for Miss Global 2014. Redirects are cheap and if it helps someone find what they are looking for, I think its a positive. Like I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion here, I just think there is a reason that a redirect might be helpful, and so we might was well do it now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 28 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) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Connect (series 11)[edit]

Only Connect (series 11) (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)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Connect (series 1) the pages for series 1 to 10 were deleted as listcruft . Since then pages for series 11 and 12 have been created. Series 12 has been deleted as an unchallenged prod, but the series 11 page had a strong challenge from multiple editors. So here we are at AfD. It would be sensible if participants considered the whole series, so that if it was decided keep this page, all the others could be undeleted at the same time without the need for a deletion review. SpinningSpark 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the original proposer of deleting this article (and the Series 12 article), my reasons were purely to follow the precedent of the previous decision on articles documenting earlier series. I've no strong feelings either way (maybe I waver slightly towards deletion), but we should be consistent: either all of the series articles should be resurrected, or all deleted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Fibre Broadband[edit]

TIME Fibre Broadband (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, only consists of infobox. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick. I was adding a WP:PROD to this but you beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked at the sources below, still not convinced
  1. New Strait Times Brief coverage in a list of other broadband services]
  2. Sun(Malaysia) - redressed press release This one is essentially a redressed press release, with 80% of the article consisting of quotes by an employee. Not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH (quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources) or for WP:CORPIND.
  3. BBCMag or BBP Mag Doesn't seem like an RS to me.
The coverage is pretty spotty here and this service is clearly not notable. Someone might make a case of the parent company being notable and indeed, I do have access to Malay sources which might help to satisfy CORPDEPTH. But that's for the parent company not for this. This is not notable. More importantly this is clearly using Wikipedia for promotion, which should not be encouraged per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello CheCheDaWaff, I didn't quite understand what you're saying. Are you saying the sources within the article are okay? Or are they not? And how does this article violate notability guideline? Any clue would be helpful. Thanks. Lourdes 20:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Lourdes:, I should have been more clear. Personally I'm not comfortable with the sources but I'm not sure how favourably they compare to the guidelines on reliable sources. (WP:RS should probably be consulted here). Perhaps violate was the wrong word. What I mean to say is that I don't think it qualifies as notable, as specified in WP:CORPDEPTH. The specific issue I have is with this: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Failing this condition (of having deep coverage) means that the article needs several independent sources that establish the notability of the subject, which I don't think it does. I'm willing to budge on this, and I think it will come down to an assessment of the sources. For that reason (me not being sure about the sources), I'm changing my stance to unsure for now. Thanks for getting me to look into it a bit harder. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: having looked at the sources and read what Lemongirl942 has written about them, I am again leaning towards deletion. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:16, 22 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2016[edit]

AfDs for this topic:
Miss Grand International 2016 (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)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (2nd nomination), and the sidebar at right listing all of the deletions associated with this contest. The contest itself is of borderline notability, and two deletion nominations for that were closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Several previous attempts at year articles for the contest have not survived an AFD: Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International 2013, Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International 2014.

Miss Grand International 2014 was speedy deleted six times, and protected from re-creation twice. There's nothing here to suggest that this year's event is any more notable than the last four AFDs from 2013 onward: the references are all press releases and astroturf, same as the last articles. The deleted articles also have a long and chequered history of sockpuppetry and WP:SPA account editing: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. This latest article should be speedy deleted and temporarily protected from recreation per WP:SNOWBALL. Tried the obvious speedy G4, but this was declined without comment. AFD it is then. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:21, 21 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 Deleted (G7) by Vanamonde93. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of conjoint analysis software[edit]

Comparison of conjoint analysis software (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 indication of significance. Promotional at best. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: So can I put you down as a delete? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, should be deleted. Sorry about the fuss it caused.Happybunny95 (talk) 05:11, 22 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) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burundi Rugby League Association[edit]

Burundi Rugby League Association (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)

uncited and full of original research. Even if true, the sport hasn't even existed for 2 years. This association is not recognised by Rugby League International Federation LibStar (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 23 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 01:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killagators 2[edit]

Killagators 2 (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)

Film fails WP:Movie. Dewritech (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:06, 21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords[edit]

Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords (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 single by low-profile indie band that fails WP:NSONG on every level. See also Holes (Pint Shot Riot song). KaisaL (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 21 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseya[edit]

Kaseya (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)

Promotional article substantially written by SPAs that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Basic WP:BEFORE shows PR-inspired coverage and little else. Tagged for notability since 2012 without improvement. Has been multiply deleted previously, including dying at PROD. David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Fighter (film)[edit]

Puppet Fighter (film) (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)

Hoax. No indication that a film of this name is in production. Speedy deletion template remove by IP editor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 23 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. MBisanz talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoleta Lozanova[edit]

Nikoleta Lozanova (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)

Delete: non-notable Playboy model. Quis separabit? 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:28, 27 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) 09:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aathmika[edit]

Aathmika (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:NACTOR. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:37, 27 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) 09:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nayan Nilim[edit]

Nayan Nilim (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)

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:58, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Things (band)[edit]

The Wild Things (band) (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)

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source coverage to support it. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources and IMDb (because two of the band's members have also been actors), with no media coverage about them shown at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, if a strong notability claim and the reliable sourcing to support it aren't present. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:43, 21 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 per CSD A7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chokh Film Society, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology[edit]

Chokh Film Society, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (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 indication of notability Melaen (talk) 13:42, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badanamu: Learn and Play[edit]

Badanamu: Learn and Play (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)

Badanamu does not appear to be a television program, but rather a company that produces educational materials (games, videos, etc., see their website). The company does not appear to be notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Correct, it's not a TV program. I disagree about its notability, though. I have a toddler, and we were introduced to their material at her preschool. It does appear to be fairly well known about, and their videos have millions of views on YouTube. That said, the article itself is a poor one. I think it should be kept and improved, though, not deleted. Lukobe (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Lukobe: Your KEEP argument amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Your assertion that "it appears to be fairly well known about" is not supported by the availability of any reliable sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:45, 21 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 that this is a content fork of "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Discussion can and perhaps should continue whether that article is appropriately named...  Sandstein  08:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Aces[edit]

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)

This is fundamentally a dictionary definition. TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and I think I probably agree with the points raised here - I think it's better to merge this article with the Panzer Aces in popular fiction retitle it to Tank aces and make it cover all tank aces from various countries, not just German tank aces. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC) No idea why this article has been included here fo AfD. Searching on the term brings up many hits in Google. The term is used by various books in discussion of the various historical tank aces, including the book "Tank aces: from Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War". There is any number of Tank aces.... in fact, I am wondering why there is no article on it already. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Which is why you wrote this article. I'm not saying that the term isn't used; I'm saying that there is nothing to say on the subject that cannot more usefully be included in another article. There is of course Panzer Aces, an article probably justified by the fetishisation of the Nazi Military.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think there is enough to substantiate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deathlibrarian's above comments appear to be deliberately misleading: this is a POV fork spun out of the history of the article they suggest merging it into. The material was rejected from that article after various discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D As mentioned below, I have no idea what you are on about. I've researched some new material and included it from Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men", Is there something wrong with that? Can you please elighten me and give me a link to this discussion of rejected material that I am supposed to know about??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[15] [16] and [17] where the material you added was removed (with you reverting the first removal). The material on the claimed number of tanks destroyed you tried to add to the previous article has been recycled in this article, along with material taken from the original article (including the complete misrepresentation of a source I added which I've removed in these edits - the source explicitly says that the wartime US Army didn't recognise "tank aces" and the author has written that the whole concept is nonsense). See also Talk:"Panzer ace" in popular culture#Credited vehicles and Talk:"Panzer ace" in popular culture#Suggested move (the two threads immediately before the one you started). Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are talking about the various web references that refer to the number of kills for the german tank commanders? You will note I raised this as an issue on the pages talk page, and *no one*, including you, had any issues with it, or even replied - [18]. I came to the page, and did my original searches online to find that material, and then added it. As I told you, I wasn't aware it had previously been rejected, if that's the case. I told you before, I don't go and read the history of every page before I come to it to add material. Someone raised the point that the web references were innappropriate, and then following their removal, (which was fair enough) I spent *a lot of time* finding recognised book published sources which I inserted. Once again, as you are an admin, I would have assumed you were aware of this policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith before accusing other editors.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The concept of the Tank Ace, during the war was mainly used by the Germans. The Germans were involved in large amounts of tank combat and had a number of successful Tank Aces that were highlighted for reasons of propaganda. The British (...) did not use the term tank ace because no individual British tank commanders acheived large numbers of destroyed enemy tanks." Etc.
K.e.coffman (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this.... are you saying the Germans were the only people to have tank aces? During the war Germans and Russians mainly highlighted their tank aces, but after the war literature discusses tank aces from various countries, including people like Poole (from the US) and Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters (from Canada) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd incline to go the other way, keep the in popolar culture, any non-ww2 stuff could be included in tank warfare. (just to be difficult!)TheLongTone (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So put a section on tank aces in the tank warfare section?Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if the term was used during the war, but post war, the concept certainly has been....and is not simply "made up". It's referred to in a range of various books, its been used by newspapers to refer to the various tank aces including Poole, Radley-Walters, Wittmna, and Bach. It's used in documentaries, it's also even used by Wikipedia itself, to refer to the various tank aces, for eg on the pages for Michael Wittmann, Lafayette G. Pool, Dmitry Lavrinenko and Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters and others. As for your comment that the records of tank aces are not accurate, that is the opinion of some historians it would seem, but there is no general opinion from Historians that the German records are generally innacurate, certainly not to the degree that they still wouldn't have qualified as a "tank ace" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Most importantly, it's a legitimate concept that the average user and would come to wikipedia expecting to find encyclopaedic information, about at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking as much of the Soviets when I said that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I don’t know how accurate the soviets were, possibly less accurate than the Germans(?). In any case, if you have official reports saying a tank ace destroyed 150 tanks, and they actually only destroyed 130… it’s still indicative of them as a tank ace. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tank ace" as a concept has not been covered by serious historiography. It mostly likely originated with the publication of Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski in the early 1990s. The whole "tank ace" concept seems dubious, same as "U-boat aces" and (even) "Infantry aces". The reason I say this is the "tank ace" is not shooting and driving all by himself -- what about the crew? Are they "aces" too? The fact that some popular history writers call certain tank commander "aces" does not mean that the concept exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman Not sure what you regard as "serious historiography" but the concept and term is discussed by a number of books, that would meet wikipedia guidelines and WP:RS. You can run a search on Google Books and you will find a number of books that use the term. In addition, at least one of these, Robert Kershaw's books "Tank Men: The Human Story" *is* reliable historiography and discusses the term (as referenced in this article). Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken the duplicate !vote above. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:22, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude 42 Brewing Company[edit]

Latitude 42 Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be nothing more than WP:PROMO with no real indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 08:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are not merely "local event listings". The sources discuss the company's history and are brewery reviews. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From newspapers publishing information about such trivial awards, the reviews are still not actually focused as such, and "company history" is essentially advertising because that means the company is giving said information, something of which is expected since it's only a local news article, an excellent place for local advertising. Because none of these are outside of that, they are not substantial and therefore cannot be guaranteed to not be company-motivated advertising. See the secondwavemedia.com article for example:
Those two boys are today the men who are making Latitude 42 Brewing Company, at 7842 Portage Road in Portage, just north of East Centre Avenue, an instant success....(interviewed businesspeople) and then Doors to the new microbrewery open seven days a week, onto 11,000 square feet of space that includes at center a granite-topped bar, surrounded by handcrafted, tulip-wood tables and booths. Inside there is a capacity for 243 people, and the outdoor patio can hold another 90. A private dining room and 14-person brewmaster’s table are available for private parties. And a children’s play corner makes it clear: this is a place for families....(interviewed information again before scoping into building and company specifics such as the food specifications offered and what sizes they come in.....
Therefore that is clear advertising, because it not only begins with "such a family-fun place, it is located at....and while this beer is offered and this other beer is offered, it has 11,000 square feet, tulip-wood tables and booths, can hold 243 people and patio can have 90....". Honestly, that is advertising and that's not "substantial or notable information" nor should we accept it as such. To note, with all examining, the kalamazoocountry.com is literally a few thinly-tossed paragraphs about a trivial award and then finishing with "Congratulations to the company!". Yet again, this is not substantial nor should it be mistaken as such, and therefore they are local event listings, because like the secondwavemedia.com, it was not only republished advertising but literal advertising aimed at customers, and Wikipedia is not by means a business listing.
Take also articles about commercial establishments can only be promotional, but that is not true — it is ok for us to describe such subjects in factual terms and that's all our article does (yet the quoted selecivewavemedia.com specifically stated what the restaurant's size, capacities, food options, available seating options, etc. therefore that's advertising, not "encyclopedia information"), which states we can apparently accept advertised information simply because of the overall specifying, but that's not stating how WP:ADVERTISING (where it explicitly states advertising can and will be removed if unsuitable) and WP:NOT are not applying. Also, WP:GNG can be removed as applying when WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, which are large and firm when it comes to removing unsuitable information, especially when such company-advertising blatancy is offered as "significant news". SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gharibyan[edit]


David Gharibyan (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 poorly written autobiography of an Armenian student which struggles to meet WP:GNG … took part in Best Model of the World XXII ? actor, producer, showman and publisher in music networks? Article is stuffed with references that do not support the content. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a autography, and before voicing your opinion, please take your time and properly explore the content of the references. If you don't know any other language apart from English, please translate them first before making comments. David Gharibyan is well known not only in his country, but also abroad. To put yourself on the right track, please review the following links:

https://armeniagogo.com/armenian-models/ http://www.barev.today/news/twitter1 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7770043

check description videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/DalitaVEVO/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dP1wa4IC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXqCBU62B4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBq9xUm4Igo

about Best Model of the World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fIno_c57Ak http://www.novinite.com/articles/110709/Bulgaria+Hosts+'Best+Model+of+the+World+2009'+Competition http://www.bestmodeloftheworld.com/

--52.89.0.184 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, none of those links are actually what we need for an article here, we need actual in-depth third-party news, not simple YouTube links or model and IMDb listings, because none of these actually substantiate an acceptable article, therefore the deletion still applies. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Theroadislong: First of all, according to the data that I checked, David Gharibyan is a PhD student, which differs from ordinary student conception. The vivid proof of that is the reference in the professional journal of the Armenian National Science Academy (http://lraber.asj-oa.am/6457/). This also means that he holds a Master’s degree for about three years. I don’t understand your argument about this article being pure autobiography, and I think your writing style is just an effort to offend the artists, which is not acceptable. What concerns the Best Model of the World Competition, we have already discussed that issue with you and came to a mutual understanding, so why are you still touching that question? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Gharibyan). I have reviewed and translated these links, so I don’t think that they are out of the content, so I cannot agree with your arguments about this. Finally, concerning the question with the word “showman”, I would like to substitute that word with “host”, as well as change the word “producer” with “director”. --Prsocialmedia (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a masters degree does not make him notable. Entering the Best Model of the World Competition does not make him notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Yes, the Master's degree does not make him notable, but where did you find that he is notable for that? As of the Best Model of the World, he has represented a country, is it not enough? Actually, David became famous by winning the Mister Fashion Beauty Universal competition. Don't you agree, that his fame was ranked by such networks as Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc., which him granted him a title of verified user? http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2013/05/verified-pages-and-profiles, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en --Prsocialmedia (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG I'm afraid that none of those things make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Those links that I put in the discussion is just for responding to your suspicions. Please, see also the following links, which will help you to re-consider your opinion. They will also help to make the hashtags of the upcoming debates more efficient.

http://www.replik.am/arm/index.php?id=93847 https://armeniagogo.com/armenian-models/ http://www.barev.today/news/twitter1 http://orer.eu/hy/%D5%A4%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%AB%D5%A9-%D5%B2%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB%D5%A2%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%A8%D5%B4%D5%AB%D5%BD%D5%BF%D5%A5%D6%80-%D6%86%D5%A5%D5%B5%D5%BD%D5%A2%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%84-%D5%BF%D5%AB%D5%A5/ http://aad.am/5513.html https://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/4268781/ http://www.onteatr.ru/aktery/armenii/garibyan-david-levonovich http://www.panarmenian.net/rus/news/192584/ http://avproduction.am/?ln=am&page=person&id=2542 http://www.bellezavenezolana.net/2014/Diciembre/dic308.htm http://old.iravunk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31665:-l-r&catid=41:lurer&Itemid=57 http://www.starslife.am/news/davit_gharibyan_winter_must_be_cold_for_those_with_no_warm_memories/2015-12-02-2655 http://news.am/rus/news/114023.html http://lurer.com/?p=166709&l=am https://www.slaq.am/arm/news/119438/ http://my.mamul.am/am/photoreportage/59165 http://blognews.am/arm/news/13323/glance-y-merkacrel-e-hay-model-davit-xaribyanin.html http://www.glancejournal.com/2012/12/blog-post_2019.html http://miaynser.do.am/blog/davit_39_gharibyan/2012-02-12-99 http://celebrityimages.org/celebrity/7770043 http://style.news.am/arm/news/11222/amenagravich-hay-modelnery-foto.html http://note.taable.com/post/58386/ArmFashion-Show-0/2b64895TT9-83-8501-0--8T587TT---55 http://www.erit.am/news/hy/3119 http://operativ.am/?p=174605&l=am http://www.armfashion.am/show-business/interview/1521-??????-?????????-?-?????-????????-????????-????????.html http://www.hmongbuy.com/M0dYaHBFZWZZRGMz http://www.erit.am/news/hy/1149 http://armfilm.org/serialy/2152-ancyal-seriya-1.html http://designdeluxegroup.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/09/27.pdf (Page 42-43) http://news.am/eng/news/114023.html http://www.armspain.com/gala-en-benidorm-para-la-eleccion-de-mis-y-mister/ http://www.bellezavenezolana.net/2014/Diciembre/dic165.htm https://cmoda7magazine.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/davit-gharibyan-mister-fashion-beauty-universal-2014/ --52.89.0.184 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


David is not only an actor, as he has been granted the grand prix in model competition in 2014. 193.6.53.148 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article isn't for deletion. David Gharibyan as an actor and model is known even in Georgia, outside of Armenia. --Mikheil Talk 22:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Theroadislong's arguments about this page are such, that can be referenced for any similar Wikipedia page. I think they are subjective and I suggest to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy4uPresident (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This user has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Theroadislong's arguments about this page are such, that can be referenced for any similar Wikipedia page. I think they are subjective and I suggest to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.102.7 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:25, 21 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bix (website)[edit]

Bix (website) (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)

Promotional website content article. References are very poor such as Teitter, Techcrunch or wayback machine. Press coverage are promotional. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge to the list article List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services would be undue weight because the list article contains a sentence or two about each Yahoo! service. The substantial coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for Bix (website) to be a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:23, 21 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Sargent Pillsbury, Jr.[edit]

John Sargent Pillsbury, Jr. (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)

Delete. Poorly sourced biography of a person whose most substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning candidate in a party primary. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL -- and the only potential claim of preexisting notability here, that he was president of an insurance company, isn't sourced to any media coverage about him in that role. The sourcing here isn't substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG -- two of the three references are to paid death notices in the classifieds, of the type that every person who exists at all gets regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof, and the third is a biographical sketch on the website of the organization that holds his personal papers, which is thus effectively a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. None of this is enough to demonstrate that he had the notability necessary to earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said constitutes an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper reliable source coverage about him to support it. And of the two links you provided at the end of your comment, one of them is a paid death notice that's already in the article and has already been addressed in my nomination statement, and the other is a Google Groups posting (which is not a reliable source, as Google Groups content is user-generated and can misrepresent the publication details or the content of a source.) Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will this transcription of the Pioneer Press obituary suffice? It was not a paid notice; the author was a reporter with the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Kablammo (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has now confirmed that the article appeared in the Pioneer Press on March 30, 2005. See, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota#Pioneer Press Archives. I will edit the article accordingly. Kablammo (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has four independent reliable sources. One is a news article authored by a reporter with the largest newspaper in St. Paul, Minnesota (and second largest in the state). The article appeared in the B (local news) section of the paper shortly after Pillsbury's death. Another source is the Minnesota Historical Society, a highly-regarded and well-staffed state-chartered organization which is active in all facets of Minnesota history, with a central museum and document repository and dozens of staffed historic sites around the state. It sponsors exhibits and programs, publishes a magazine and books, and has its own wiki-- with vetted content authored by identified and qualified authors. Its publications have been relied on in numerous Wikipedia articles, at least two of which are featured. It is incongruous for Wikipedia-- itself but a website hosting articles written in many cases by amateurs-- to dismiss the MHS as unreliable.

I have rewritten the article, removing sources which were derived from paid obituaries, and adding other sources. Kablammo (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is an archival organization which directly holds a fonds of his personal papers because those papers were donated to it. That makes it an affiliated source, which makes it a primary source. It's not exempt from being a primary source just because he didn't personally publish the "inventory of this fonds" page himself — it's still an inventory of primary source documents which were directly donated to the organization by him or his estate. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, I still am not following your argument. The biographical note published by the Minnesota Historical Society is the Society's biography of Mr. Pillsbury. The note itself is not a mere inventory (and even if it were, the MHS is both a secondary source and reliable). MHS is not only a depository of primary source documents; it has those, and much more. It has a complete editorial staff (including factchecking) and is publisher of 450 books in print in the Society's three imprints. Eric Morse, who write on the Canadian fur trade, has thanked the MHS for its work in his field, and I have used its sources for probably a dozen articles, including a featured article.
The MHS is an independent, secondary, and reliable source. Kablammo (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The MHS's page about Pillsbury is a catalog of an archival fonds of primary source documents donated to the MHS by Pillsbury or his family. The MHS may be a valid source in some other contexts, but it's a primary source in this context — not because of what the organization is, but because of what the page is. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The biography was contributed by the MHS, an independent and reliable party. The fact that the MHS also keeps his records is not relevant. Even if it were, the source would still be reliable-- the Society's characterization of those records would still be writings of an independent third party. The MHS did not generate those stored documents. Kablammo (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, your position is that anybody can get into Wikipedia just by asserting that any particular thing they did was noteworthy in and of itself, without having to adequately source their notability per the demands of WP:GNG? Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that our WP:N guideline says that Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and reliable source coverage which satisfies WP:GNG, in the context of something that counts as a notability claim, is how one shows whether notability has been "defined outside of Wikipedia" or not. So what you're saying is not in contradiction with what I said. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I saw is the inference that looking in the article was a sufficient test to determine that the topic failed wp:notability.  Since notability has no content requirements, looking in the article may tell if the topic is notable, but it doesn't help in determining an absence of notability.  Maybe WP:BEFORE D3 explains it better, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To whatever limited to non-existent extent that a mere wedding announcement on the social pages could actually count as WP:GNG-conferring coverage in and of itself, the fact is that Katharine Clark, not John Pillsbury, is the primary subject of that headline. Her parents lived in New York City at the time, according to the wedding announcement, and thus her wedding announcement would have appeared in a New York City newspaper regardless of the notability or non-notability of whatever random dude she was marrying — it exists because her, not because him. Wedding announcements fall under WP:ROUTINE, so a wedding announcement does not speak to GNG just because it's in The New York Times. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide the link that shows this announcement.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ROUTINE is for event notability such as the Balloon Boy, and even for events doesn't change how to interpret WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROUTINE explicitly includes wedding announcements in its examples of coverage that doesn't assist GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the reference, and I'd have to look at the edit history and maybe the talk page to understand why the exact words "wedding announcements" are listed.  But I can say that the context shows no coupling to WP:GNG. 

    The page itself is concerned with event notability, such as Balloon Boy.  The specific paragraph you've identified refers us to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the specific name of which was a part of policy I helped to codify.  We are not using this topic, the Pillsbury topic, to announce a wedding in 1936.  We are not violating WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. 

    The paragraph itself says that such material may be useful in non-event topics, "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."  The other side of this is that, as I said before, WP:GNG has no restrictions for "routine" coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody's saying that a published wedding announcement cannot be used for supplementary verification of the wedding and the name of the subject's spouse and other biographical details after the topic has already cleared GNG on other sources. But if you're evaluating the basic question of whether the subject has enough coverage to pass GNG in the first place, a published wedding announcement does not count as a data point in and of itself toward tipping the scale into "yes". Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy term is "significant coverage", not "data point".  As "significant coverage", this headline contributes to WP:GNG notability.  From WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just when I went ahead and characterized "John Kerry wasn't elected either" as the most impressive feat of completely missing the point that I'd seen on Wikipedia in the 2010s, you had to go and top it almost immediately. One evaluates whether GNG is met or not by counting the number of references that qualify toward the meeting of GNG, so a reference can quite validly be called a "data point" without needing the phrase "data point" to be specifically reflected in the exact wording of GNG itself — we are not restricted to arguing solely on the basis of the exact literal wording of a policy statement, but are permitted to use alternate words to make the same points. The point remains, a wedding announcement does not count toward the meeting of GNG: anybody can place a wedding announcement in the wedding announcements section of any newspaper by paying for the announcement. So a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because it can technically be called "substantive"; a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because it appears in The New York Times, when the bride's parents lived in New York City and therefore would be expected to place their daughter's wedding announcement there; a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because the bride and groom are technically named in its headline. A wedding announcement simply is not GNG-conferring coverage, period. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've quoted from the guideline, and your analysis has not identified errors in my analysis, so my statement stands. 

    Yes, if it was paid, that would change my opinion...was it?  You've said that it was on the "social pages", and another editor called it a "news article". 

    As to the idea of using counting of entire references to assess GNG, the general rule is "two good references", but it is theoretically accepted that 50 or 100 references each with minimal significant coverage must also be considered. 

    No, "confer" means "bestow", and notability is not bestowed, so saying that "X does not bestow notability" is always a true statement, or a truism. 

    I believe that the point remains that WP:ROUTINE does not define GNG, and only becomes a factor to raise the bar when GNG is met and the topic is an event.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the trivial semantic quibbles? Whether notability is "conferred" or "demonstrated" by the sources is immaterial to the substance of the matter. And some people who are desperate to get their pet topic into Wikipedia will call anything a "news article", including press releases and entertainment event calendars and brief blurbs, so long as it happened to get printed by a newspaper — I've even seen people try to claim that newspaper advertisements satisfied GNG because newspaper (which they don't).
But given the fact that the only version of that source anybody in this discussion can actually see is a garbled no-text abstract behind a paywall in the NYT archives, we have to evaluate it based on the content of the headline itself — and we know that (a) the headline is primarily about the bride, and (b) "local girl gets married" is not a thing newspapers assign their newswriters to write journalism about, but a thing that got published on the social pages in that era and is typically relegated to the "life events" section of the classifieds alongside birth and death notices today.
Plus I was able to find a very similar "article" about Katharine Clark marrying John Pillsbury in the New York Sun archives on Google News, which was (a) dated just one day earlier than the NYT article listed here, (b) very plainly in the "weddings and deaths" pages rather than the news pages, and not bylined by an NYS journalist, and thus very plainly a paid wedding announcement, and (c) very definitely not substantial or GNG-demonstrating.
And again, "non-famous local girl to marry" is not a thing newspapers print in their GNGable sections; it's a thing they print on their "weddings and births and deaths" page. This is a known fact about how newspapers work. So the source in question is not "real GNG-eligible news article until proven otherwise"; it's "non-GNGable paid wedding announcement, quite possibly even the exact same announcement I showed above from the New York Sun, until proven otherwise", because that is, and always has been, how newspapers "cover" the weddings of non-famous daughters of local residents. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location in the headline as argued would change the amount of attention given to the topic.  I suppose you could say in WP:GNG terms that the depth is less for an out-of-town spouse.  I'm basing this on the headline, as I've not seen the announcement.  But this argument doesn't change the existence of non-trivial coverage that goes to WP:GNG, just the depth of coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The nomination has been relisted twice. Many of the new comments on this nomination page continue existing discussions started before relisting, rather than being added below the relisting notice(s).

Continuing the discussion just above: The New York Times has multiple news on John S. Pillsbury, Jr.:

The text of all of these is hidden behind a paywall. Kablammo (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained and cited three of these four articles. Kablammo (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summation This article was proposed for deletion one month ago. It was relisted three times, the most recent one week ago.

When nominated, this article had 85 words with three sources, two of them independent and reliable. It now has 1124 words and twenty sources.

Four readers have voted "Keep", while two voted to "Delete".

It is time to close this AfD as Keep. Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 28 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. The name of the article can be further discussed on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my country[edit]

I am sorry for my country (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)

POVFORK. No indication this speech is more notable than others. The "title" is apparently an invention of the article's author. Written entirely non-neutrally, with "commentary" presenting Duterte's claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Names public figures as being drug offenders. zzz (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think having "less coverage" than other topics is a criteria under WP:GNG. It simply says the topic has to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whether it is "less significant" than other popular articles is never a basis for Notability. Thats your personal POV. And a speech by any country's President having this amount of coverage, both from within and outside the country, is certainly notable, whether you agree with the state leader's speech or not. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RioHondo (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement title again demonstrates the level of notability. If a Donald Trump supporter wrote a pro-Trump article about a speech at one of his rallies or press conferences, it would quickly be deleted. This is no different. In both cases, their speeches frequently get reported in "multiple credible sources". zzz (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we have based it on Obama's ones (Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009, Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009) and has no bias on it, as Duterte made the speech on a wake visit to NavForEastMin soldiers with the date when it was delivered. And second, what do you mean of notability? As far as I know in Wikipedia, notability means when it is/was covered by several reliable news sources, the topic has received follow-up, and it received reactions from low-time people up to high-time ones. Wait! There is something lacking to the article. To make it more notable, especially to User:Signedzzz, we can put in the "Reactions" section that these people identified by the President denies any involvement in drugs[1][2] and other sources I can't tag because of busy school works and other news follow-ups regarding the after-shock of the speech. ~Manila's PogingJuan 07:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: As I've said, I'm currently busy of school works, due to the incoming semestral break and second quarter exams that I can't contribute much now including the sources I've tagged, so please can someone make a contribution out of it. Regards![reply]
And wait! You compare Trump's speech to Duterte's ones, like someone anti- who keeps comparing Trump to Duterte? And excuses, what makes this article a pro- one? By the way, this one has a sense, especially he is "too much", in my opinion, focusing on Oplan Tokhang like there are no other problems in our country, unlike Trump's ones that is currently busy of his "sexism", "racism", and "ass here, ass there" (that is what media always highlight). Your latest comment, User:Signedzzz, is, therefore, debunked. ~Manila's PogingJuan 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to User:GeneralizationsAreBad, the new title is based on gov.ph (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines), which is the official site of the Executive Government of the Philippines, where Duterte, the head of state, is also the head of this government. While we can suggest better title as you have said, I also suggest "Rodrigo Duterte speech naming alleged drug personalities, August 2016", as it was the focus of the speech, as reported by reliable sources, the media. ~Manila's PogingJuan 07:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/07/Alleged-narco-politicians-narco-politics-deny-involvement-illegal-drug-trade-duterte.html
  2. ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/805946/dutertes-drug-war-draws-varied-reactions-mainly-shock
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not recommended article title
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the multiple sources prove the notability of the topic. But if it is just an article title dispute, you are free to start a WP:RM discussion. Anyway, Trump is just a presidential candidate, this is a speech by a head of state so its a weak comparison. Thanks for the link to Wikisource though PogingJuan, although normally we dont move the article while discussions are ongoing. If we go by WP:COMMONNAME, I would agree with your alternative title, based on sources cited in the article.--RioHondo (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is actually based on the published speech of Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, which is President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s Speech During a Wake Visit To Killed-In-Action Soldiers. ~Manila's PogingJuan 16:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I believe that there is 'another' fitting and proper title for this article. ~Manila's PogingJuan 16:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:18, 21 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. Another very large wall of text again proving that there is great disagreement about how to treat this articles and whether certain sources meet the requirements of reliability and verifiability. As with other AfDs of this type, there is no consensus to delete this at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kissmetrics[edit]

Kissmetrics (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)

Instead of PRODing, which may actually be driveby-removed, I'll simply nominate and say: the first source is boldly entirely PR, see "“I was born with the gift to drive traffic to websites,” is how the young and amazingly energetic serial entrepreneur, Neil Patel, starts our interview...." and that same article goes to state, not only the specifics of interviews but of the fluffed-puffed achievements there is to advertise about both the company and him. The VentureBeat article not only states the funding part but then adds paragraphs about what the company is and its services along with how it works; that is notoriously used for PR and PR alone. The next TechCrunch article boldly contain words only found at sales pitches, which are messages targeted at the clients by stating words that get their attention, such as "Kissmetrics wants to boost you!"....No honest "journalism" adds that, ever; the second TechCrunch is essentially also the same; simply by "adding a journalist" is not stating that the company was completely uninvolved, certainly not, it's actually stating the contrary, the company was involved but is wanting to be surreptitious about it. The next one, MediaPost, then again contains only PR-based speak, nothing an actual journalism-article would contain, since this exact article goes to specifics about the background; sure, there's a lawsuit stated but that's still not taking away how it's not actual substantial news. The next one, which also states information about the lawsuits, is thin, and is still not convincing. Whether it was intended or not, it could actually be said these links were put to the end to perhaps counteract the PR-based information with hopes of adding "neutrality". Essentially what this company's business and environment is: having PR-based or still otherwise PR-like or then simply unconvincing coverage altogether. I'll note that I have looked at this author's contributions and they hint at the work of a PR agent, because the exact links here were easily found with searches, searches that also found other trivial coverage, all that is still entirely unconvincing since it's only about expected company activities; some of it is timed apart suggesting there was no consistency. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you doubt the reliability or the independence of those sources? Or that they have significant coverage of Kissmetrics? Your comment seems to be about the notability of the books, which doesn't have any relevance to the notability of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt they establish notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, which of the requirements of "significant coverage", "independent" and "reliable" do you believe that these sources don't meet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article can be blown up and started again without an admin having to press the "delete" button first. Just use the "edit" tab. WP:TNT is a highly-disputed essay based on a personal opinion that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is a reason why it is widely ignored by admins closing deletion discussions. What makes you think that can't simply edit an article to blow it up and start again rather than have it deleted first? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that badgering people who disagree with you will turn out to be less than convincing - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not badgering, but attempting to conduct a discussion. How about answering my questions rather than complaining that I'm asking them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't view this sub-thread above as "badgering" by 86.17.222.157; it reads to me like they're simply stating their opinion regarding matters. North America1000 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Because those are essentially still only guides, not the larger amount of coverage needed; even then with my examinations listing these as "still thin", the concerns of PR outweigh any other possibly good sources here; and PR should and is a serious concern. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not "essentially still only guides", whatever you mean by that, but independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, so enough to substantiate notability. It doesn't matter if there are thousands of other mentions of the subject found by web searches that are PR - we should simply ignore those and concentrate on the sources that are not PR. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are pure PR, I agree with the nom 100% --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, for at least the third time of asking, please explain why this book and this one don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please address those specific sources rather than continue to repeat the generalisations that you have made so far. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is written in the article "Kissmetrics provides visualization tools on how users interact with their site, web apps, and mobile products. It collects and shows customers acquisition data for each user." This is blatantly promotional language. As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source. In addition, im not impressed by the Tech Crunch article since it posted the piece as if it is a bait article for you to use. The only "notable" one is the FORBES article, which is weak in itself. This article should be deleted. This isn't a future calling card. Pyrusca (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles, it's based upon all available sources. Notice that I have provided many sources above that are not present in the article, which serve to establish the company's notability. North America1000 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This assumes the existence of these sources. We can't just assume them - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the sources I provided above in my !vote; many of them are not in the article. The delete !vote above comes across as only being based upon sources in the article, such as "As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source" and "the only "notable" one is the FORBES article..." Of note is that I did not include the Forbes source in my analysis of notability above. See also: WP:ARTN. North America1000 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Indeed, assertions of the available sources all automatically somehow being "pr" as a default should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than by proof by assertion alone. For example, the sources I have posted above are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. As such, the sources I have provided objectively serve to qualify the topic's notability. North America1000 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? The ones where I have clearly stated they were either PR or PR-focused? Simply stating that some sources are acceptable is not the same thing as analyzing and acknowledging them. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the ones Pwolit iets mentioned as reliable, and that you were unable to dismiss. Cavarrone 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating the same concept dozens of times does not make it true, or more convincing. Eventually, even heavily retouched press releases are not difficult to be identified as such. In spite of walls of text of "analysis", none of the provived sources has been demonstrated to be a press release. The funny thing, even negative journalistic pieces have been marked as PR, which is one of the oddest thing I happened to read in an AfD. Provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. --Cavarrone 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This summary is utterly inaccurate. None of the last comments is a "per user" vote, and on the contrary they clearly indicated several sources which appear reliable and which you have failed and still fail to dismiss. As long as you are repeating yourself again and again, I'll repeat myself too: provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. I see only one WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here. Cavarrone 18:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a reference to the law of holes: if you find yourself in an untenable position, you should stop and change what you are doing, rather than carrying on and exacerbating the situation. Just a way to say that repeating yourself again and again does not make your position stronger but weaker. Cavarrone 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cavarrone, for explaining exactly what I meant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) And after reading this redundant wall of text, I still fail to see how the MediaPost and Wired articles are supposed to be PR. The only vague arguments in your deletion rationale were a so-called "PR-based speak", which looks like just a POV and is rather different from pointing to a specific press release used as the basis for an article, and that "they contain negative material so to appear neutral", which is just something odd and incoherent. And about the books, calling them guides does not affect their reliability, you can even call them hamburgers if you like it, as long as they are reliable independent secondary sources containing significant coverage about the subject they are good. Please stop posting the same stuff again and again if you have anything new to say, your POV is quite clear. Cavarrone 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It actually helps to substantiate one's vote given there has been enormous analysis specifically showing the listed sources are merely PR, either being started for them or actually by the company themselves. There is no CORPDEPTH if coverage is simply about their own words and actions, considering both WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, which is far heavier than "CORPDEPTH". ONce we allow ourselves to be used as a mere PR webhost, we're damned as a serious encyclopedia, because it then shows we can't handle the simplest of advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a !vote doesn't agree with your analysis doesn't mean that it is unsubstantiated or was done without serious consideration. It's entirely possible for people to carefully analyse the sources present in good faith and come to opposite conclusions, as I did in this case after looking at Northamerica1000's sources.
Neutral or positive reporting on a business doesn't mean it's PR and unreliable. If we applied this standard that "if coverage is simply about their own words and actions" then the subject isn't notable to biographies, the result would be absurd and not many biographies would survive. In fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment. Reporting what reliable sources say about a subject is the entire basis of our notability guideline, and one can't simply dismiss sources out of hand because they are commenting on primary sources.
Of course, subject where the only sources are those that uncritically report on said releases would be problematic, but in this case there are several reliable sources that don't do that: the two books, one of which uses this company as a case study and the various articles about its privacy breaches and the relevant lawsuits. Issues with tone can be solved by editing; I would for example support expanding the sentence on the supercookies lawsuit to at least explain what was alleged to be problematic about their tracking capabilities. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"n fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment." has it backwards. The fact that the news outlets base their articles on such press releases indicates they are not doing independent reporting, but just repeating what pressa gents convince them to include. Not only is such "reporting not a RS for purposes of notability , but it is not even a RS for anything else,because it's just based on the company's own say-so DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above coverage suggests that the event of the Supercookie controversy may be notable (of which I'm not convinced), but that is a one event situation for the company, which is otherwise not notable. Companies are not notable for minor controversies they cause. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:16, 21 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 Midnight_Club_3:_DUB_Edition#Soundtrack. MBisanz talk 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition soundtrack[edit]

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition soundtrack (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:NALBUMS, WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant from reliable secondary sources. Merging content to Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition would be inappropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. The1337gamer (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only nom has discussed in afd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to newer log Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:15, 21 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 herein is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ainsworth Mitchell[edit]

C. Ainsworth Mitchell (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)

Subject of article fails WP:Notability. The references cited are primary, mainly evidence of existence (1911 publication Science and the Criminal; report on determination of forgery, receipt from US Library of Congress for copy of report, news item covering lecture by Mitchell (1930). Coatrack article for a Bahá'í Faith controversy. (Account name for article is that of a figure involved in the controversy.) Neonorange (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I did not find anything about the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá. It was probably a minor part of his life that has grown in importance as the religion has grown, while the rest of his accomplishments have seemed to shrink as chemistry and criminology progressed. In any case, his role in a number of interesting stories and prominent institutions in the 1900s through 1930s seem to make him notable, in my opinion.
Also, a quick look at google scholar suggests his h-index is above 8. While the h-index isn't really used for notability, I thought it was interesting. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
One Love Party (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 party. Essentially a vanity project for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). The article was deleted back in May Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love Party. Coverage is routine election coverage. Fails WP:NORG. As near as I can tell the sources in this version are, in bulk, the same sources about the London Mayoral campaign which were deemed inadequate for notability at the last AfD. JbhTalk 10:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in no way a member or related to this party but it is notable. They've stood in a variety of seats in varying levels of government, the citations have been vastly improved since the last deletion. They feature in a large amount of maintstream, individual and foreign media... the article has been updated repeatedly and keeps getting new citations daily. As per the speedy deletion removal note on the talk page, if you look at the revision history you can clearly see the improvements and citations being added. This deletion discussion is jumping the gun but even so, the article easily stands on it's own. Is it a major party? No. Is it a minor, notable party? Yes. Drowz0r (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the OP's new insert on where the citations are focusing on; naturally the frontier launch/candidacy of any party creates a lot of press so you'll probably see that in bulk for some time, especially when that candidate is also the continual leader of the party. Even so, there are now six citations (naturally not including links to Love Party's own site and such) that don't reference the Mayoral election and indeed reference their Witney candidate with some information on her. You can bet your bottom dollar more will be added shortly Drowz0r (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Some of the "Mayor election" pieces are a bit confusing. There were actually two mayor elections, a by-election for hackney and a London mayoral. Some of the wording and citations seem to confuse the two and it may appear that only one notable event happened, while there were actually two.Drowz0r (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parties whose average number of votes are in the low double digits (32, 34, 44) are simply not notable no matter the temporary splash or even repeated curiousity press coverage. JbhTalk 11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) You are correct. Raw vote count is a poor way to judge notability. Struck. Last edited: 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To count a party's notability by how many people vote for them is to fundamentally misunderstand UK politics under the FPTP system, secondly there are dozens of political party pages with precisely double digit votes that have been deemed notable so I do not see where that method of deletion you have suggested has ever been enacted. It is near impossible to compare different constituencies and even more so different levels of elections (national, local, etc) on vote count but generally it is a better indicator to go off vote share and not vote number. If the only press this party had was a bullet pointed name and a vote result in the press I would agree but they have consistently been given an allotment of space in every press piece covering the election as to what their policies and backgrounds are. Some press have reported, some have criticized, some have supported, analysed. There isn't a common curiosity theme, there is a variety of different media going for different things. I know because I've been improving the article for a few hours now and read through the articles and watched the videos. For example, one exposes a suggested military coup from the party. Seems to be around 10 citations now which are not relating to the london mayor thing btw Drowz0r (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will dig through the sources you have added later in the day. I have been through so many overblown, trivial and downright deceptive sources in relation to Ankit Love and his projects on Wikipedia that I am very skeptical of anything relating to that topic. (This article also has the massive citation overkill the past articles showed. I would be much more convinced by a half dozen or so good citations rather than 37, most of which were discounted in the last AfD.) In general though, small protest parties get coverage for the elections they contest and not much else. If there is significant, sustained coverage in relation to the party, not PR stunts and wild claims by Love to get press, I will reconsider.

It is the existance sustained coverage, outside of coverage of individual contests, which would indicate notability to me. JbhTalk 12:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A second set of eyes is very welcome, if nothing else, I typo a lot. I did notice before I started editing the piece it only included the positive pieces from the press and I've been adjusting that, such as the bonkers military coup suggestion was missing along with having fashion designers do school uniforms. I think it's noteworthy to include Love's father wished he had not gone into politics too and that the twitter account seems to have been deactivated after receiving a massive (fake?) boost of subscribers - I guess that also happened here on wiki with the citation overkill. I'm just wary of dismissing the article due to it being a vanity project. It might well be a vanity project from Ankit but with some injected balance, it can be made into something more educational as oppose to propaganda (I consider UKIP a Farage vanity project but hey ho~). Drowz0r (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually found a number of citations now that are not related to the elections, especially the mayoral one that can be added but I'm super swamped - I plan to add them tomorrow, but here is another: https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/hackney-central-masterplan-resurrecting-hackney-brook-ideas-feedback/
To add I was also the initial author of the new version of this article which has been edited since. () 02:49, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why the existence of other articles that may warrant deletion is never a good reason to keep an article. I've now PROD'ed Ooog. I would suggest that the Roman Party should go to a second AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right here of course, in terms of the written rule - but I have noticed a massive inconsistency in wikipedia over this. I've had pieces deleted while far lesser pieces have been kept and vice versa. Articles like Wales_Green_Party I nominated for deletion and made a convincing case, only for it to be re-created and kept despite others nominating it for deletion again. It remains a dead page, kept for no apparent reason. It seems that if enough people bombard wiki with "Keep it! Keep it!" with no real substance, the page is ultimately kept, despite the rules above saying this doesn't. Personally I've always suggested keep and a review some months/weeks later, generally that allows time for citations to appear and if they do not, the page can be deleted without any real argument.Drowz0r (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion decisions and processes can be far from consistent, but practically it makes sense to debate each case on the basic principles. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are generally given little weight. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The argument regarding other non-notable parties has been addressed by Bondegezou with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Regarding the other half of the argument (that there are more candidates that have contested more elections), quantity of candidates fielded or elections contested is a poor indicator of notability for much the same reason raw vote count is a poor way of judging notability. We need independent, reliable, significant sources to demonstrate notability and I'm not satisfied there are any. (I'll expand on this below.) N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out this comment as the fact the party exists is not an argument demonstrating the party is notable. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin: Rathfelder is the creator of the page Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog that was nominated for deletion due to discussion above.
Comment. There are many independent sources but few of them are reliable. Of the sources that are reliable, all of them feature trivial coverage of the subject. See my comment below. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there inconsistencies in how and when non-notable articles are nominated for deletion on Wikipedia? Yes, of course there are, but the whole point of WP:ININ is that this isn't of any relevance to this discussion. The reason why this particular subject seems to be nominated for deletion more than other non-notable British parties is not "political" as an above editor suggests. It is because this is the FOURTH creation of an Ankit Love related article that was created in spite of the fact that the three previous deletion discussions (even though heavily contested and contrived) reached the snowball conclusion that neither Love nor his party merit an article. This is the FOURTH deletion discussion accordingly and I suspect we'll reach exactly the same conclusion as the three that came before it. The repeated recreation of Love-related articles in opposition to community consensus in the absence of arguments to change the consensus is annoying and disruptive. I would like to suggest salting the title. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all The common complaint from all, which seems valid, is the article simple did not contain enough media hits in reputable papers, outside of election curiosity for this piece to be notable. I had a sniff around and have added several new citations since this was nominated for deletion that meet the proposed criteria. They are not linked to elections and speak of either Ankit Love individually but talking about the common policies or feature Ankit and the party but are not linked to an election. I'd appreciate everyone who has voted a delete variation to check the citations again and then we can continue to discuss if it needs to meet anything further. Thanks in advance. Drowz0r (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking - I've added another but it's related to the up-coming by-election, so while notable doesn't really solve our "continual media outside of elections" issue. I did add some others prior to those two, which seem acceptable (well, they haven't been removed at least) Drowz0r (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The few "keeps" (some of them self-described as weak) didn't go into as much detail on why they deemed the sources sufficient as others presented a much stronger and well-explained case that the sources are insufficient to make the subject meet our inclusion threshold. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily[edit]

Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about two missing people not officially pronounced or confirmed dead (and hence WP:BLP should still apply), largely sourced to local news reports. A search for additional sources turns up little more than same. Madeleine McCann this is not. I think for an event such as this we really should err on this side of caution; in particular things like a claim for illegally growing cannabis, sourced to the Anderson Valley Advertiser are a serious concern. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask Squeamish Ossifrage about specific sources, but the basic point is that just being verifiable to reliable sources isn't enough for an article sometimes, it also has to be suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly one that is well known for getting a volley of complaints (both legal and otherwise) from all over the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have toned down the statement about marijuana cultivation so that it pertains to the area rather than just to Denoyer's ranch. I have also added language to stress that Mr. Denoyer was acquitted of animal cruelty charges, and that he has never been charged with any crime pertaining to the disappearances. I am unaware of any furtherf deleterious information.
I deserve an opportunity to correct the article if it has problems. If a vague and unsupported accusation of "unsuitability" suffices to delete an article, most of WP's articles are subject to arbitrary deletion.
All things considered, you'll probably have an easier time writing articles on another topic than trying to defend one that other people think violates the core policy of BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there were BLP violations in the article I might tend to agree with you. However, false calls of BLP violation are not grounds for deletion.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for having been occupied away from the project and not returning here to comment further more quickly. However, I don't appreciate the accusation that my BLP concerns over this article are "false calls"; they are not. I'll try to keep this response brief, although if there's a desire for a more in-depth examination of the problems, I can do that too. In short, the sourcing is not high quality. The Charley Project is not a reliable source whatsoever. The Anderson Valley Advertiser article is a local article, in a weekly tabloid paper, in tabloid tone, and is not a reliable source for BLP-related concerns (or, probably, anything else). The other two newspaper articles are local-interest stories in small, local papers (their ownership by a national holding company does not change that character), which, among other things, are not generally considered to speak to notability (all, or most, missing persons are reported on locally and in local papers; not all missing persons cases are considered "notable" in Wikipedia's unique use of that term). The NBC "Missing in America" source gives every impression of not being independent reporting; it is not bylined, and is in large part dedicated to a personal video made by a family member of one of the subjects. HuffPo is a better source than the rest, but HuffPo's quality varies from contributor to contributor and topic to topic and should be evaluated with caution despite being generally accepted as reliable. But all that aside, this article is rife with BLP concerns. I'll blockquote policy here:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction.

— Wikipedia policy on people accused of a crime
The bulk of this article does precisely that. Phrasings such as "Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money."; "Denoyer accused Cavanaugh of theft, and dropped his 63-year-old penniless disabled uncle in the San Francisco Airport."; and "He claimed that if he had been called to testify in the animal cruelty case, Denoyer would have been convicted and the elder Neily spared his fate." should probably be removed immediately as BLP violations (especially given the source quality)! Specific sentences aside, the entire article is written with the implication that Denoyer was responsible, and our policy simply does not permit that. That's the essence of the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, me, Mr/Ms Ossifrage...where to begin?
"Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money." went by the board when I edited out the Charley Project cites. Your Charley Project complaint has been addressed.
I fail to see how Denoyer's accusation of theft, or his taking his uncle to the airport, can be construed as a crime. In source material, but not in the article, is the fact that Denoyer held his uncle at gunpoint to force him to go to SFO. As pointing a firearm at someone is a crime in California, I chose not to mention it because it was never charged.
As next of kin, Ryan Neily is entitled to his opinion about Denoyer. I quoted him to show how investigation of this cold case continues because he is pressuring the authorities. Ryan Neily's
Somehow, you haven't seemed to have noticed that I peppered the article with information that stated Louis Denoyer's innocence.
Denoyer has never been charged in connection with the disappearances; he was acquitted on the animal cruelty counts. Last sentence of lead. Not strictly true. Denoyer pled guilty to a charge of improperly disposing of a dead animal carcass; the court placed restrictions on his future ownership of horses. However, as it now stands, the sentence clearly states he is innocent. I excised the petty conviction out of respect for BLP policy.
Sergeant Jason Caudillo of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office followed up on Neily's disappearance with a search of the Westport ranch with cadaver dogs. They alerted on a pet's grave, but nothing else. Caudillo admits he found no direct witness or physical evidence of a crime on the Westport ranch. Last para of Neily's disappearance. A reluctant official statement of Denoyer's innocence, but I can only quote what is said.
James Denoyer claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances. Last sentence in article. This is the only statement of Denoyer's that I found. I gave him the last word.
If there is a consensus on newspapers being unreliable sources, I wish you would link me to it. I mean a true consensus, not your solo version. As it is, I use these papers for other writing projects of mine. From long experience, I know these newspapers are reliable. We don't have big city papers out here because we don't have big cities. However, if you take the New York Times as the gold standard for news sources, guess what? Every one of the newspapers in this article has been used, at one time or another, as a source for Times stories. You see, the professional journalists at the Times believe they are reliable.
What is the best source in this article? I define a good source as a book that has had sustained and critically acclaimed reviews from subject experts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While your personal definition of a good source excludes all use of newspapers as reliable sources, it does not match that of WP. The article is entitled to an evaluation by WP standards. With one possible exception, all newspapers used are main stream media by major news organizations.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very good question; personally I'd delete the whole bally lot of them if I was in charge but unfortunately I seem to in a minority of men who dislike porn to the point of feeling nauseous about it so I have to defer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Clarityfriend notes, I question whether there's sufficient notability here even if the article were free of BLP concerns, but BLP is the more important problem. Policy simply does not permit an article to make negative implications about a living person with poor sourcing, even if you then say something to the extent of "But he wasn't charged for any of that." And make no mistake, the sourcing for the negative implications is poor, even when it is sourced to an article that is probably a RS for general purposes. How? Here's an example. As of this version of the article, this text appears: The bedroom he had been promised was a mattress tossed in the rear of a junk truck. He needed rides into town for food and medicine, but Denoyer refused them. Cavanaugh's son called him from Illinois, and sensed there was something wrong in his father's situation. Cavanaugh seemed too nervous to render any explanations, although he hinted at nefarious deeds afoot. That is cited to the HuffPo article. But if we go read the HuffPo article, we see that's actually based exclusively on a direct quote from Ryan Neily. Neily is entitled to his opinions and his version of past events, and is under no obligation to maintain a neutral point or view. HuffPo doesn't make those claims in its voice, they merely repeat the quote. But this article then presents those claims as if they were established facts, in the encyclopedia's voice. That's an NPOV problem and it's a BLP compliance problem. And that's how much of the article is written. Even when it cites a reliable source, it does so largely based on the quoted statements of the individuals involved, not the reporting in that source's editorial voice, and then it repeats those claims in the project's voice. I recognize that we disagree here, but I think the history of responses at the BLP noticeboard makes it very clear that policy simply doesn't permit this sort of thing. I'm not really interested in engaging on this topic further here (and this isn't really the place for a nuanced discussion of the editorial requirements of the BLP policy), but I'm steadfast in my opinion that this article does not satisfy policy expectations, and that simple rewording cannot fix it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument was made above that disappearances are commonplace. Undeniably true, but two disappearances in a row from the same place is notably unusual. I don't know of another case of double disappearances from the same place.
  • Now that I have received detailed feedback on BLP complaints, I have been rewriting the objectionable sentences. I also found a bit more I could change to honor BLP. If you still have any objections, please let me know.
  • I have read these local newspapers for years. I would not depend on them for national or international news; they just run wire copy. However, for local news, they are extremely reliable. These papers are not stepping stones to a big city job; our local journalists hang around for years and decades. They know this county.
  • On the other hand, I doubt that you have ever read a copy of any of these papers before this article. You can't really know whether a paper you have never read is reliable or not. An argument based on ignorance is not very persuasive.
  • Let me end by noting that the most recent text of the article should be the subject of discussion. Past edits are just that--past.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl, I am going to repeat my request that pro-deletionists point out specific problems for correction. There is such a thing as WP:ATD--although you all seem to be unaware of it or determined to ignore it. I say that because none of you have showed any signs of having noticed the ongoing changes I have made in accordance with WP:ATD. And there it says: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." Of course, in this case, ATD is being crippled by vague accusations without feedback.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [He] claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances.[6]
Neither does the article discuss any long-term societal impact. This appears to be standard crime blotter material, and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"People disappear all the time, ..." Inadvertent paraphrases of Monty Python are not the best AfD arguments, no matter how much of a smile they bring to the face. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Just a news story". Like Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. (Per WP:WHOCARES) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Anderson Valley Advertiser. Self-described as a small-town weekly, which publishes, among the news of local fire district controversies and county supervisor meetings -- some of the most imaginative and well-written articles and stories found in the American press. We're not looking for imaginative stories.
  2. Fort Bragg Advocate-News. Another small-town weekly, reporting on what's essentially a local human-interest story.
  3. Huffington Post. This is the only one of the sources that's really worth-while. A substantial article in a national publication. If there were a few more like this, we'd be good. But, it's just not enough by itself.
-- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Love[edit]

Doc Love (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)

Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wkharrisjr wrote:

Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject.

I am sorry you feel this way. The excerpt below disproves your point of view.

Doc Love's stated interest is to improve relationships between men and women, decrease the nation's divorce rate and gradually quell the 'war between the sexes'.

He criticizes other relationship experts for having no understanding of the concepts of Interest Level and Challenge.

Thomas Hodges borrowed the concept of Interest Level from Looking Out for #1 by the Libertarian Robert Ringer, who also self-published his bestseller Winning Through Intimidation. Thomas Hodges was inspired by Ringer to self-publish his materials.

In contrast to these other relationship experts Doc Love claims to be a true scientist: "I, in contrast and not realizing it at the time that I was a true scientist, tried a different approach: "Please tell me about the men you chose to stay with, who didn't wine you, dine you, and buy you flowers?"" In "Doc Love - The System (Synopsis)" The System is defined by Doc Love in this way: "To you Psych majors, "The System" is the result of a long-term study of the effects of male behavior on the behavior responses of women toward them, with applications for the male via behavior modification". Ironically, after a while, Doc Love began focusing more on empowering himself to control his own male students and impose on them his UNSTATED interests:

  • Libertarians' excessive obsession with "Aristotelian" logic of Ayn Rand makes their systems for love and life impractical. Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic expands the logic of Aristotle, rather than replaces it, just as Einstein's theory of relativity merely compliments Newtonian mechanics where that paradigm lacks explanatory power. Men would be more successful with women if they accept that extreme cases of truth are uncommon in humanities. By claiming that he has a monopoly on truth, Doc Love is ignoring the reality that when it comes to social intelligence, fuzzy logic is closer to the way we arrive at truth.
  • Science aims at understanding causality so control can be exerted. Changing public attitudes about a MALE behaviour may lead to anti-male laws being passed prohibiting that behaviour (social engineering).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering that a few years ago a totally fake article was created on Wikipedia by some university students in Virginia we have every reason to want to delete articles that lack adequate sources. This is one such article, sources and verifiability are needed, not blind acceptance of low quality research on non-notable topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc Love has his own worldwide radio show heard every Wednesday for an hour on Blog Talk Radio.

    He has written a popular column on the #1 Men’s website in the world, AskMen.com (featuring dating and relationship advice for guys.)

    He has also been featured in countless major media appearances, including

    ▪ FOX News ▪ Time Magazine ▪ The 9-5-0/Houston ▪ KIIS/Los Angeles

    On 22.1.2016 Doc Love was interviewed by Lucia, she has posted the interview on YouTube under the title 《The Art Of Love | Doc Love's THE SYSTEM | The Dating Dictionary | Episode 1

    Lucia is a dating/relationship expert specializing in Cougar relationships. She is the author of, Lucia's Lessons of Love, a syndicated columnist, keynote speaker and host of The Art of Love on L.A.Talk Radio.

    Strong keep"'2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 19:21, 26 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathan Ferguson[edit]

    Nathan Ferguson (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 both criteria of WP:NFOOTY EchetusXe 18:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep I'd say that this person makes the general notability guidelines as the main subject of several articles, as cited eg [33], [34], [35], [36]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Happy to replace this with delete if the transfer news is deemed to be routine. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    near future? WP:Crystal? Govvy (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And surely articles for the players from the "U23" teams as well? OGLV (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if they pass the criteria. You're acting as if Wikipedia is running out of server space. --Jimbo[online] 13:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NB...not all academy and youth players, only the ones who pass the criteria of playing in fully-professional competitions. --Jimbo[online] 13:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:28, 21 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 push technology. MBisanz talk 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Push Notification[edit]

    Push Notification (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 think this article should be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notification_service to make one full article, rather than two stub articles about the same thing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Push technology may be a valid merge target instead. JbhTalk 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest that, but Push technology is kind of confusing, so I couldn't really get a clear understanding of it. Maybe I'm just tired but if you think that it fits, then you can make your decision. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, did you know that the page won't link if you capitalize the 't' in 'technology'? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are titled in sentence case ie "Push technology" rather than "Push Technology" or "push technology" however it is possible to create a WP:REDIRECT by creating a one line article consisting of #REDIRECT [[Original article name]] with an alternate spelling, or alternate name which will then be linkable. If there is no redirect and it is not appropriate to/you do not want to make one it is possible to pipe the display text - [[Push technology|arbitarry text]] --> arbitrary text. JbhTalk 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:27, 21 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 Magmatic water. The spirited defense by several SPAs and IPs is not policy based, in contrast to those arguing for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Primary water[edit]

    Primary water (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)

    Someone had to bite the bullet, so here goes. This is promotion of a fringe topic. It relies essentially on one non-neutral source to establish notability, the rest is fluff. The author also removed an "original research" tag. See also Primary rock. Lithopsian (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's some hope for an article at primary mineral (for minerals unaltered by later chemical processes. And a tiny bit of hope for primary rock (mostly in a historical context, referring to Arduino and Werner's systems of lithography). Whether the current content deserves TNT is probably a separate issue to the mess that is primary water. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I most definitely agree with you that if Wikipedia existed in the 16th century, Copernicus's heliocentric solar system theory would be declared as fringe. This, however, is because at the time it was indeed fringe. A geocentric solar system was the generally accepted view and that is what Wikipedia would have primarily covered, even though an examination of the evidence by the editors may have proven to them that Copernicus was correct. This is by design. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia editors to determine what is correct or true, rather it is to assemble information from reliable secondary sources whom have already done so. So even if someone in the 16th century wrote an article on the heliocentric model of the solar system citing Heraclides et al, it would most undoubtedly be a case of synthesis of ideas from those sources to form the heliocentric conclusion, which is undoubtedly contrary to the function of Wikipedia. Sjrct (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference: New water for a thirsty world by Michael H Salzman Sjrct (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sjrct continues to win us all bets made with those who could not believe such an article would receive any push back from the lords of Wikipedia (supposedly "the people's encyclopedia", but I advised them it is far from it, as you have proven!) Your profile indicates you are an "eventualist" which beggars the question how Wikipedia will ever achieve value with such thinking. Wikipedia would not have published an article on Copernicus in the 16th century? That says it all... We have pointed to the article on Origins of water on Earth which does above average justice to the well-developed debate on the meteoric versus terrestrial (or proto-nebular etc.) origin of water. Did you look at the many articles in Nature and Science (I think those qualify as respected scientific journals--unless of course they conflict with "established" WikiScience) describing the recent discovery of proof of "Oceans of Water Beneath Our feet"? Yes, as usual, these are hyperbolic headlines (shameful for respected gatekeepers to engage in) but apparently they are necessary to catch the eye of even blinkered Wiki editors let alone distracted millennials...or are they one and the same? Most of the articles mention "theories 50 years old" but of course do not specify who and where and what. Expecting the silly attempt to attack anything that might not benefit the fearmongers of Peak Oil (dead and buried) and now Peak Water, we have provided abundant historical context for such 50-year old theories that had their genesis well back into the 1800s, if not back to Agricola or even Pliny or Thales himself. It was the Neo-Platonists whose philosophy dominated the Dark Ages, and once again the New Neo-Platonists (second or third incarnation) have attempted to close the gates using A PRIORI arguments that only the uneducated fail to see. Example? Why do plate tectonics (and thus almost all the earth sciences in America, but not in many other regions) believe that the Earth must be Steady State? Once again, well back into the 1800s theories posited an expanding earth--and once the oceans were mapped and dated they discovered not only did South America connect to Africa but Australia had once connected to...North America. Yes, Pangaea existed, but without oceans, on an Earth almost half the present diameter. All of the geological, stratigraphic, fossil, geodetic and paleomagnetic data proves it: throw it all into a computer science laboratory and the only way you achieve 99+% correlation is on a much smaller planet. (Yes, Wikipedia covers this under Expanding Earth, very poorly and condescendingly, even though there are countless scientific supporters of this theory who hold conferences, publish peer-reviewed papers--of course largely outside of the increasingly discredited U.S. scientific establishment.) Everything in the Universe is expanding from macro to micro scale but somehow, using a priori argumentation, the Earth is perfectly stable? Aha, you will say once again this is "fringe" science... Read Carey's book, published by Stanford University no less, "Theories of the Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences" and challenge his science (or his analysis of dogma which may only be outdone by Arthur Koestler). EE moved mainstream with James Maxlow, a disciple of Carey in Australia, who has a large global following. Just because American academia has become overwhelmingly politicized and ossified into bureaucratic-think, do not underestimate that many other academic and research institutions are surpassing us. How many of America's Nobel laureates in science are "home grown" so to speak? Less and less each year. Before you attempt to delete this article, I suggest you spend some time actually reading the many references, start with Salzman's expose--why should such a scholarly book be bought up and destroyed nearly to a copy so that a harmless paperback should now be priced like a rare item? Yet all of the USGS libraries (and many top universities) retain copies. Once again, attempt was made in the article (in expectation of some of the shock that Wikipedia, at this late stage, could actually have at a new article of import rather than the deluge of inane lists and pop star bios) to put Primary Water in the context of the vicious Water Wars of California, once again playing out before the world's eyes, history repeating itself down to the governor's mansion itself. Not sure if the formal statement for the record by Senator Estes Kefauver on Riess and New/Primary Water was included in the references, but the topic was of deep interest in the 1950-60s, and largely private interests (mostly German (e.g., Adolf Schoepe) and Jewish (e.g. Nathan K. Mendelsohn), somewhat unfortunately, who were not particularly liked by the segregationist Democratic Party and post-WWII sentiments of the times) arrayed against politicians, bankers and Big Ag (and their Republican politicos). I will finish by asking that this article be removed from "Hydrology" and placed under a new category of "Geo-hydrology" (spelled with a hyphen to emphasize the "geo" nature of the earth-generated origin of water and the study thereof) where we are happy to remain as the sole entry. Or would you like us to create that reference too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be added that the article represents no cutting edge "original research" but rather presents a new article on a century or two old term in geology as relates to earth-generated water (in all its phases: liquid, gas/vapor, and solid/crystalline). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: BurrME64 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
    • Incorrect! As stated, this entry was added at the top of this page by 76.90.38.132 so I placed it in the string of comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiki-speak...this exercise is becoming more Orwellian with every comment. Was it too hard for you change Publish to Keep? It is done. This is absolutely "mainstream" science--and has been for over 100 years, albeit sidelined by the bankrupt discipline of Hydrology which is largely the point of having to spend so much time on the topic. Does the concept of Primary Rock exist. Yes: now Archean etc. Does the concept of Primary Minerals exist? Yes: they are produced from Primary/Archean rock. Does Primary Water exist? Undeniably. Hydrogen and oxygen exist deep into the mantle and combine under the electromechanical forces of our planet to create H2O in all its phases, the source of our fluid dynamics, crystalline bedrock and minerals...
    • Tigraan did not change "Publish" to "Keep" as it is generally against policy to edit the comments of another in a discussion page. See WP:TPO. Sjrct (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby issue my reliable source challenge: please provide at most three reliable sources that deal with the subject in detail and establish its notability, going by Wikipedia's definition of the terms "reliable sources" and "notability". If you fail to do so, I will consider the subject is not notable and accordingly !vote to delete. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have provided dozens of sources from both historical and modern sources--including from "fathers" of their respective earth science disciplines. From recent years to the present you have: the deep earth seismology work of Dr. Stephen Jacobsen at Northwestern and his global team members; the deep earth mineralogy led by Dr. Graham Pearson at the University of Alberta; and the planetary astro-biology work of Dr. Lydia Hallis at the University of Hawaii/NASA and their international team. Not enough? Check with the Kepler in Austria, various institutions in St. Petersburg, multiple in Japan and China... Why not check your own article on Mantle plumes which states that such a concept of deep earth water vapor (H2O in gaseous rather than aqueous form) did not fit in with the plate tectonics of a few decades. Yes, plate tectonics...that highly controversial subject since geologists first discovered the Americas connected with Europe-Africa--but even later finding it difficult to accept the data that Australia and China were connected to North America as well. Given the vast over-specialization in science, often producing more and more meaninglessness, we understand how it is difficult to respect the great effort needed to comprehend concepts of a multi-disciplinary nature such as how minerals are created--including that really important one we simply call "water". Just because modern hydrology remains frozen in time, more a sub-discipline of civil engineer (i.e., long-distance plumbing), this state of affairs has not prevented others from leading: geo-physicists (see Wendy Mao at Stanford proving the Earth's core was created in layers through seepage from inside out); mineralogists from Van Hise, Clarke and Spurr to Pearson and Mao; a range of geo-chemists and planetary astro-biologists; seismologists leveraging the advances in computer science and mathematics; the list goes on! Primary water (and thus Geo-hydrology) is not a theoretical but rather an APPLIED science. The results speak for themselves, thus the section on History reviewing the work of Nordenskiold, Riess, Cameron and Cox who could receive much longer attention.
    • I wrote "at most three", in bold, on purpose. The point is to have less references to go through (details of my personal views on the subject: User:Tigraan/Reliable sources challenge). You seem to be expecting editors here to take a week-long undertaking diving through all that material. It will not happen. That is the point where countless others complained that Wikipedia is run by idiots who dismiss experts, so, pre-emptive strike: we are not evaluating the scientific merits of a theory, we are evaluating the notability of a topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Basically all scientific topics, from penguin migration to the Riemann hypothesis, require the same skill set in that regard.
    So, please quote at most three papers / books / articles, the best in terms of WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, with enough detail that one can find the them online or in the correct library (not just "the 12th paper by XXX"). The understanding, of course, is that if those few were found to be completely insufficient, then editors will !vote to delete with a clear conscience.
    Of course, you are under no obligation whatsoever to locate those resources, or even to reply to my post, but I guarantee doing so would advance your case a lot more than any amount of discussion of the topic itself. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • www.dmg-home.org/fileadmin/Konferenzen/Geoberlin_2015.pdf

    (2015) = "elevated primary water content"(p. 214) "Shallow magmatism during subduction-zone initiation: Constraints from the Oman ophiolite and related experiments Juergen Koepke1 , Sandrin Feig1 , Paul Eric Wolff2 (1) University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany; (2) University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia koepke@mineralogie.uni-hannover.de Oral in Session A1-03 The Semail Ophiolite in the Sultanate Oman was formed during the initiation of a subduction zone in the Cretaceous and is characterized by two different magmatic phases: The first shows typical MOR-type character with a small subduction zone component (extrusives composition similar to modern MORB, but with slight Nb-Ta anomaly and elevated primary water content), the second magmatic phase is completely different..." No surprise the authors are German and Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (1987) = both "primary water" and "primary isotopic signatures", in this case by American authors in 1987 (Dobson is now at Berkeley-Livermore so I don't think his publications have been deleted...): Abstract: Measurements of stable isotope compositions and water contents of boninite series volcanic rocks from the island of Chichi-jima, Bonin Islands, Japan, confirm that a large amount (1.6-2.4 wt.%) of primary water was present in these unusual magmas. An enrichment of 0.6??? in 18O during differentiation is explained by crystallization of 18O-depleted mafic phases. Silicic glasses have elevated ??18O values and relatively low ??D values indicating that they were modified by low-temperature alteration and hydration processes. Mafic glasses, on the other hand, have for the most part retained their primary isotopic signatures since Eocene time. Primary ??D values of -53 for boninite glasses are higher than those of MORB and suggest that the water was derived from subducted oceanic lithosphere. ?? 1987.

    (2013) Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 369–370, Pages 1-344 (May 2013): pp. 317-332. Water in volcanic pyroclast: Rehydration or incomplete degassing? by T. Giachetti, H.M. Gonnermann (yes, an Italian and a German in honor of Arduino and Werner) Abstract: "The matrix-glass water concentrations in samples from volcanic eruptions of intermediate to highly silicic magmas were measured and compiled. They range from 0.1 wt% to more than 3.5 wt% and show a positive correlation with vesicles surface area over glass volume ratio. Modeling of water diffusion suggests that most of this correlation can be explained by the post-eruptive diffusion of external water at atmospheric temperature and pressure into the matrix-glass, a process referred to as rehydration. Although the precise proportion of primary (magmatic) to secondary (meteoric) water is not determined by our analysis, we find that most samples can be modeled by progressive rehydration of an initially ‘dry’ sample during the time interval between deposition and sample collection at an average rehydration diffusivity of approximately 10−23 m2 s−1. This diffusivity estimate is consistent with values provided in the literature on obsidian hydration dating and with the extrapolation of diffusivity formulations for silicic melts to lower temperatures and pressures."

    • The three sources provided use the term "primary water", universally in the sense of magmatic water. They do absolutely nothing to support the fundamental claims of the article under discussion here (that "primary water" is a significant contributor to the hydrological cycle, or that significant sources of "primary water" can be made available via drilling; to say nothing of the article's willingness to take concepts like dowsing and abiogenic oil seriously). More specifically, the first source—Koepke, Feig, and Wolff (2015)—was a paper presented orally at the 2015 conference of the Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft - Geologische Vereinigung. To the best of my ability to determine, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and is not a suitable reference under Wikipedia policies (the pdf linked above is a publication of the conference's abstracts only). Its use of the term is trivial, and entirely compatible with our article on magmatic water. The other two sources are both published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The latter is, by far, the source that uses the term "primary water" in the least-trivial manner; it is available in full via ResearchGate. However, it also does nothing to support the claims of the article under discussion here, which remains a novel synthesis of sources in support of a fringe theory without sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet our inclusion standards. The sources are, however, sufficient that I would support a redirect to magmatic water (which, in light of this wall-of-text-themed AFD, will probably require protection), as the phrase is a plausible search term. I've amended my !vote above accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to see you are becoming educated in the subject. Magmatic water, as we indicate in the Terminology section, is one of many terms for "deep Earth water": primordial, proto-nebular, juvenile, pre-biotic, Hadean...ALL can be considered as subcategories of Primary Water. (Have you read how Primary Minerals are derived from Primary Rock? Water is a mineral--and crystalline in one of its solid forms found in many primary minerals.) Read the intro to Magmatic water again: it unquestionably enters the atmosphere via volcanic vapor, hydrothermal vents (that is liquid water!) and by the many sources of water found near volcanic formations (where coincidentally much of the purest bottled water is sourced from). We have isotope geochemists working on a review of the article as the geophysicists, seismologists and volcanologists are all pointing in that relation--while in total disbelief that this article is being rejected by Wikipedia of all things. Your profile claims Malthusianism which no doubt means you must be horrified by reference to Peak Oil being dead and buried and with Peak Water the next straw man to fall. Global Warming was certainly "fringe" and debunked so fast they changed it to Climate Change--and yet it survived on Wiki! No further responses will be made to Squeamish Ossifrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links have been made to Magmatic water and all other related topics--none of which covers this topic adequately. This article is absolutely Notable and fully Referenced. Wikipedia is full of "fringe" topics that anonymous reviewers deem mainstream. We have met all the criteria established by Wikipedia. The prejudices of the reviewers on the topic is immaterial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.76.127 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those calling for deletion have indicated any specific instances of the article directly contradicting the core Wikipedia policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, or the copyright policy. Because it is a "new topic" to the reviewers does not make it fringe or not Notable. The red herring of Dowsing (certainly related to pinpoint locating non-aquifer groundwater sources) was included at the end of the article which was quickly used as evidence by one reviewer as evidence of unacceptability of the whole article--AND YET WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE ON DOWSING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought I had made that clear. The article relies on synthesis to put all the facts together to prove the concept, thus running afoul of No Original Research. I wasn't going to bring up Dowsing, but since you did: our article on dowsing gives an encyclopedic treatment of it, its history and so on, with primary emphasis on the mainstream scientific viewpoint that is it pseudoscience and indistinguishable from random chance. The Primary Water article discusses the "science of dowsing". I hope the distinction is obvious. CrowCaw 20:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 09:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mate...not all water of internal origin comes from magmatic/volcanic sources; check your British sources, such as: "British Dictionary definitions for hydrothermal": hydrothermal /ˌhaɪdrəʊˈθɜːməl/ [the term dates to 1855 in geology] adjective 1. of or relating to the action of water under conditions of high temperature, esp in forming rocks and minerals Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012. The word "water" sadly conjures up H2O in an aqueous form; but much of deep terrestrial/telluric water (here and on the moon and many other planetary bodies) is in a crystalline form which transmutes to gas (water vapor) or liquid based on the massive pressures and temperatures combined with the electromechanical (our geo-dynamo plus tectonic action) forces of the earth. Water released from metamorphic rocks contains both primary water and atmospheric water captured from previous eons--hence the confusing results of isotope studies if the scientists do not understand the types and ages of rocks. A rudimentary chart is added for your edification: (See chart at:) "File:Geo-hydrologic_chart.jpg. It was stated that because we mentioned "abiotic/abiogenic" we are also therefore fringe...even though Wikipedia contains an article on abiogenesis that evaded such assault. And the article on Abiogenic petroleum origin has clearly moved from "fringe" to mainstream with its discussion, in the introductory section, of the recent work of the RIT/KTH in Stockholm (where the Russian scientist Vladimir Kutcherov is highly influential in this area). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems Sjrct has undertaken the "masochistic" exercise to review the article for NPOV, copyright etc. Why don't you dig deep and take a stab so the header can be removed and you folks can move on to other planet-saving article reviews?BurrME64 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)BurrME64[reply]
    Thanks for joining us, but we do work to some basic rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for exiting the discussion. "Elmidae" states that indeed it is Notable--and is free to engage in the "masochistic" exercise of NPOV'ing the article to conform to your standards (which from what we see includes "Wikipedia has no firm rules"...) and the following statement: "A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics." We have done so from our first draft. The major objection is that this article presents a supposedly "fringe" topic as claimed by anonymous reviewers whose prejudices (Malthusians, Catastrophists, etc) militate against something counter to their worldview. Global Warming is not fringe because, well, arguing a priori, the data proves it...until it doesn't. Then Climate Change emerges as a revealed religion, but is also not a fringe topic denied an article...until it isn't (sooner than later?). Please sip a naturally carbonated (CO2 resulting from the outgassing of the Earth) Perrier and read about the father of modern chemistry Lavoisier, in your case in the original, and his experiments on water in the 18th century and then return to Palissy in the 16th century and his Discours admirable... These great Frenchmen are of course pre-Revolutionary, after which little of scientific note has come from Gaul--and currently the greatest scientific and entrepreneurial French minds, thanks to the stranglehold of your beloved Institut and its Académie, are here...in Silicon Valley. Bon chance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See graphic at: "File:Water in Earth - Jug.jpg"

    • Naturally a geologist will prejudicially consider this topic fringe. Not one of the Jacobsen, Pearson, Nestola et al. global team is a geologist. Geology long ago abandoned the pursuit of the origin of water to geochemistry, mineralogy, crystallography, volcanology...and ultimately seismology and geophysics to prove it. Many of these used to be considered sub-disciplines of geology--but at least in academia have emerged as fully developed disciplines distancing themselves from the dogmatic stranglehold of American geology and disinterested hydrology which has become a sub-discipline of civil engineering and hydraulics. PW is not/not classified simply by its TDS. Rankama was able to define it by its heavier weight 60 years ago. Libby, then, and Hallis et al., now, are using hydrogen and oxygen ratios to determine pre-biotic Hadean waters, biotic Archean waters, newly released volcanic vapors and water etc. Mineralogists understand their is H2O in minerals and that it can be released by the electromechanical forces of the interior of the planet. Crystallographers are proving this in laboratories from the US to UK to Russia to Japan to New Zealand. There is no single term that covers all Earth generated water other than Primary Water as used by the "fathers of the earth sciences" over a century ago--thus the need to place it in the context of Primary Rock and Primary Minerals. The rest are sub-categories of PW: pre-biotic (abiotic/abiogenic!) Hadean, biotic Archean, juvenile of any age from magma/volcanics, metamorphic water... See chart at: "File:Geo-hydrologic_chart.jpg". It is a long and growing list! Clearly the emerging science of geo-hydrology (the study of the water of Earth origin) is the rightful place for both the theoretical and, even more so, the applied science of earth-generated water.BurrME64 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)BurrME64[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 26 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 Elias, Duke of Parma. Uncontested.  Sandstein  08:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Francesca of Bourbon-Parma[edit]

    Maria Francesca of Bourbon-Parma (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 family tree entry. Disputed prod. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 09:33, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Abdollahian[edit]

    Mark Abdollahian (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 can find no evidence that this person meets WP:PROF, or more basic criteria for notability like WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the sea of blue and peacock language "worldwide audiences". The article also contains a meticulous list of journal articles which are typically not included. So I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 09:32, 21 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 Anime music video. MBisanz talk 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    MAD Movie[edit]

    MAD Movie (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)

    Difficult term to Google, but using other keywords with "MAD movie" I found no reliable sources at all Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Failed to find enough significant reliable coverage about this term. While "MAD" is is commonly used in Japanese, the "Movie" disambiguation probably makes this ineligible for a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 09:31, 21 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ElDewrito[edit]

    ElDewrito (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:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. There are some hits from reliable sources, but they are not extensive enough establish independent notability from Halo: Online, which itself also fails notability criteria. The1337gamer (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ForgeAndAnvil (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC) I recommend to actually delete this page urgently, so that i can recreate the page when the game is more notable, and has more coverage.[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 09:27, 21 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vicomi[edit]

    Vicomi (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 typical promotional article. all claims are blatant advertising only. like "largest online emotional data network" or "some of the biggest online publishers in Europe". Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Inzergi[edit]

    Inzergi (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 sources, and there never have been since it was created. Frequent vandalism, including something about a dragon, which would have been notable but it was sadly unsourced. Unless there's an exception for places not requiring notability, I don't think this article adds anything. Googling Inzergi found only a facebook page, no news sites came up. There is an article on Katlang, with features the same badly worded text about this village. Maybe it should re-direct? In any case, for more knowledgable people to discuss. Scribolt (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 22 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Advanon[edit]

    Advanon (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 typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials.

    "Advanon targets the market of 378,000 high growth SMEs in the Germany-Austria-Switzerland region" and other coverage on same themes. Light2021 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rubikloud Technologies Inc.[edit]

    Rubikloud 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)

    A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Phenom (company)[edit]

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

    A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 22 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    RideOn (technology company)[edit]

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

    A typical promotional article. covered by Wired merely a part of any new startup with product coverage. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 22 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Zama Arman[edit]

    Zama Arman (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:NFILM with no in-depth secondary sources, reviews or awards. Sources are all dead blogs or YouTube videos, with the exception of two samaa.tv links which appear to say in their entirety that "It is for the first time in the history of Pashto films that a new movie Zama Arman is being presented in high definition at Eidul Fitr." McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this was created by a sock of User:Nouman khan sherani, who has a history of creating articles about minor films starring Arbaaz Khan and/or Jahangir Khan Jani. The latter actor is probably worth an AfD at this point, I'll take a look at that now. --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My further info edit was a conflict with your comment (well-spotted the sock), I decided to add it anyway. For our girl movie reporter "Nadia gul" - the thumbnail pic for her "Pashto Drama's" YouTube channel shows a conveniently generic pretty face, and the few comments are obviously either from socks or suckers. As for Khan: his page here is crap and my first reaction was "AfD this" - but a (very brief) glance at his google and IMDb makes me think he may indeed have some claim to notability. That article needs sorting out anyway. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahangir Khan Jani (2nd nomination) if you've found anything. I can't see that he even has an IMDb page, though. --McGeddon (talk) 12:53, 27 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) by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaishankar Chigurula (Director)[edit]

    Jaishankar Chigurula (Director) (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:CREATIVE: I can find no significant coverage of him or his work in WP:RS online. Sole claim to fame appears to be "created a world record as the lowest-budget feature film of the 21st century". Well, that's an absurd claim, as filmmakers around the world make feature films for less money than 2400 USD. The film has had mentions and reviews on film blogs, but appears to have made no major impact on the enormous Indian film market, as you might expect for a horror film made on a shoestring budget. Jaishankar Chigurula was speedied six times db-bio in 2014-15, and it's since been re-created umpteen times under various spellings (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaishankar Chigurula/Archive), and newer WP:SPAs appear to still be active on this latest one created in July, and on associated articles. Wikishovel (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons cited above:

    21 (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikishovel (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    21 (2016 film): again nothing substantial for this film in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    21 (2016 film) also has a good sources cheek the bookmyshow.com References you get notability WP:NFILM Rohith Shetty (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)— Rohith Shetty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Wrongfully accusing people of personal attacks IS a personal attack. ronazTalk! 12:28, 21 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) 09:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Woven In Hiatus[edit]

    Woven In Hiatus (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)

    Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC as of yet -- at time of writing, they had released just two singles, with their debut album still forthcoming. And of the four sources here, three are directly affiliated primary sources (their own record label, their own agent, a music festival they were booked to play) which cannot carry notability -- the only one that's actually an independent reliable source is not substantive coverage, but a mere 40-word blurb. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a band into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 22 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talokar[edit]

    Talokar (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 establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 21 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. Minimal discussion, even after a relist, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Carnival Recording Company[edit]

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

    More promotion for non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 21 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. Why this wasn't speedied is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Active Isolated Stretching[edit]

    Active Isolated Stretching (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)

    Contested PROD, No indication of notability JMHamo (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alcomsat-1[edit]

    Alcomsat-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Well, first of all, if that satellite was operational it could probably be merged to Algerian Space Agency#Satellites.

    I found enough sources to confirm the existence of the project, but most results refer to a 2014 launch date. Thus, it seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me - as far as we know, the launch is not a certainty. As the project itself is not notable, I say to delete that. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Teargas Ginn[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Teargas Ginn (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 secondary source coverage, chart positions or major labels - article fails WP:NMUSIC. Am seeing nothing but directory-site listings in a Google search. Also nominating an album which would fall under speedy deletion criteria if the artist article were deleted:

    Martyred, Misconstrued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There's also an article about lead singer Greg Stanina, but this has been flagged for speedy deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    HAW Magazine[edit]

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

    Only reference is to the magazines official website. I could not locate additional third-party sources for notability verificant. Based on the peacock langue, seems to be a WP:Promo Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Debussy (song)[edit]

    Debussy (song) (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)

    Promotional article, created by the same SPA as Marcus Orelias (AfD discussion) and 20s a Difficult Age (AfD discussion). Fails WP:NSONG and WP:V. TheKaphox T 20:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 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) 09:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Naismith[edit]

    Ian Naismith (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)

    Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a musician, with some advertorial overtones and no specific claim of notability under any WP:NMUSIC criterion. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, if that article isn't referenced to any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 22 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. MBisanz talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Defex (artist)[edit]

    Defex (artist) (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)

    Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, based almost entirely on primary sources like YouTube and Vimeo videos, Facebook, Beatport and Soundcloud, with little evidence of reliable source coverage shown -- even the few references that are actually independent of his own self-published PR are blogs. As always, WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every musician who exists -- certain specific notability criteria, and a certain specific quality of referencing, must be present for an article to become earned. Also probable conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Defexipedia". Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 23 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) 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Samuel Somerville[edit]

    Samuel Somerville (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)

    Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kahi, Nowshera district[edit]

    Kahi, Nowshera district (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 citations mentioned. Can't find it in searches as well. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I massively trimmed and rewrote the article and added some of the above mentioned sources. It is still a small stub, but the village does indeed exist. Dead Mary (talk) 13:01, 21 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 Not Quite Paradise.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Theme from Not Quite Jerusalem[edit]

    Theme from Not Quite Jerusalem (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:NALBUM for lack of available sources. - MrX 12:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This choice is simply stupid and ignorant because it is the official soundtrack of a British film. I added the sources, are you happy?Driante70 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 21 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) Cavarrone 11:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Flash Mob America[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Flash Mob America (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 business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Freund, Linda (2013-05-09). "Spontaneity for Hire: Flash Mobs Go Corporate". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Flash Mob America, which stages events at corporate conferences and trade shows, began in 2009 after a group of friends put on a flash-mob tribute to Michael Jackson, which went viral.
    2. ^ Pierce, Kathleen. "Flash Mob America comes to Southern Maine". The Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 2016-10-13. The Los Angeles company that specializes in seemingly spontaneous occurrences where groups of strangers gather in public for a purpose, comes the Pine Tree State for the first time.
    3. ^ Gray, Madison. "Are 'Flash Robs' Giving Flash Mobs a Bad Rap?". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Conroe Brooks, who partnered with Lawrence in founding Flash Mob America, says his company wants to distance itself from any notion of criminality associated with Flash Mobbing.
    4. ^ "Advocacy In A Flash". The NonProfit Times. Retrieved 2016-10-13.
    -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The bylined WSJ article is legit news coverage, with paragraphs about the company, and more paragraphs detailing one of the company events, as chosen to be covered by the journalist and the editors of the paper, +1 for rs sigcov. The bylined Bangor Daily News article is legit news coverage of a topic the journalist and editors chose as significant, +1 for rs sigcov. The bylined Time magazine article is minor coverage, +1 for verification. The bylined article in the Non Profit Times is legit news reporting and commentary with coverage of the company as chosen by the writer and editors of the publication, +1 for rs sigcov. I might be convinced to change my !vote to Weak keep because there are not an overwhelming amount of rs coverage, but still enough to clearly pass WP:CORP. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bangor article is a profile of the company leading up to a local event, similar to a million such profiles put out by newspapers all the time. If this were a music group or theatrical production, it would not even be considered, and I don't see how this is any different. The NonProfit Times article does mention one specific event the company produced, but otherwise there's little about the company that isn't direct quotes from the founder. Being bylined is better than not, and these may be usable for details, but I still don't think they do enough for notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 21 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) 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    John D. Kobs[edit]

    John D. Kobs (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)

    Promotion for non notable businessman. This article is bombarded with sources but most are about an app, not about him. Those that are about him are not independent. There are passing mentions or quotes or similar. He lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 21 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) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    John Waltz[edit]

    John Waltz (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)

    Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and source that he passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then the candidacy itself does not get him in the door. But the only other thing here, that he was founder and executive director of a shortlived advocacy organization, is sourced only to a single deadlinked article on a website -- and judging by that source's URL, Waltz wasn't the subject of the piece, but merely had his existence namechecked in an article whose primary subject was somebody else. This simply is not enough to show that a non-winning candidate has preexisting encylopedic notability for other things. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 23 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) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebecca Bledsoe[edit]

    Rebecca Bledsoe (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 one of the least sourced articles on the winner of a beauty pageant contest I have seen. A search for her name without quoetes on google news brought up lots of references where Rebecca and Bledsoe occured in the same article, the two names not even belonging to the same person. With quotes, it turned up only one mention of her. It was "Pageant coach has his eyes on Miss America contestants" from Newsworks.org with the specific source called "Down the Short a blog by Amy Z Quinn". This is not a reliable source. Even at that, the 20 plus paragraph article has this to say of Bledsoe "A college friend and former Miss Delaware 2005, Rebecca Bledsoe, suggested he try pageant coaching. Saltalamacchio said he whipped up a rate sheet and went to work, and has coached clients to wins and finalist placings in Miss Delaware, Miss Maryland, and Miss America's Outstanding Teen. In July, 2012, he made it his full-time job." It is about Saltalamacchio, not about Bledsoe. A more general Wikipedia search reveals that there have been lots of Rebecca Bledsoe's, but no additional reliable sources, mainly just mention on facebook. She seems to more often be called Becky Bledsoe, and I found mention of her as Becky Bledsoe Rappocchio, the later I am guessing is her married name, although there are no good sources at all. There is nothing approaching reliable sourcing for her beyond the passing mention in the blog about Saltalamacchio. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:12, 27 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America1000 05:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyclone Sigma[edit]

    Cyclone Sigma (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 article only has one sentence. It is definitely too short. N-C16 (talk) 01:18, 21 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) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael D. Protack[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Michael D. Protack (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)

    Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in party primaries and county council elections. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he passed another notability criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win election to a notable office, not just run for it and lose, to get an article because of his political activities themselves. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that discussion took place in 2007 and this version of the article includes new things that happened after 2007. Those new things still don't actually pass an inclusion criterion, but we can't just speedy this since it does contain new claims not present in the 2007 edition. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 23 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. MBisanz talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebel of the Underground[edit]

    Rebel of the Underground (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)

    Promotional article, created by the same SPA as Marcus Orelias (AfD discussion) and 20s a Difficult Age (AfD discussion). Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:V. TheKaphox T 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    David Matlock[edit]

    David Matlock (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)

    appeared in for a show for a few sessions. Not notable surgeon. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 21 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. MBisanz talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie Geist[edit]

    Jackie Geist (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)

    While her being Miss California might be seen as one event, it is not even that high from what I have found. The article has 0 reliable sources. The sources are all either produced by Miss America or Miss California, and thus PR promotion, or sources such as IMDb which is not considered reliable. There might have been some news coverage of her winning Miss California, but I did not find it in my search. I did learn that she now has the married last name of Frank. That was from the Miss California information page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Xfers[edit]

    Xfers (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)

    high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. it is not notable at all. Till now. Light2021 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 26 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. Existing sources about the subject do not appear to be sufficient to confer notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Modupe Macaulay[edit]

    Modupe Macaulay (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 apparent notability Melaen (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 21 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) 08:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alejandro Palacio[edit]

    Alejandro Palacio (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 created by an SPA which contains a lot of biographical detail not found anywhere on the internet suggesting a personal relationship with the subject. The Boomerang Deportivo club cited as a reference may well be an authentic club, but Palacio happens to be its secretary, so it's not an independent source. This article from a local government website seems to be as close as I can get to a reliable source. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I am prejudiced against biographies about boomerang throwers or that Mr. Palacio is not one of its leading exponents, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 21 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. WP:SOFTDELETE equivalent to an expired prod tag. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Fernando Correia[edit]

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

    Insufficient notability. A very rough translation into English and not worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 21 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bakait Entertainment[edit]

    Dear Comatmebro, please visit the links attached in the REFERENCE section so that your appetite for NOTORIETY can be fulfilled.Balsymbolism (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bakait Entertainment (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)

    Per WP:CORP. Two recently released short films without any sort of particular notoriety lead me to believe the subject isn't worthy of an article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Inness-Brown[edit]

    Elizabeth Inness-Brown (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:AUTHOR. Not a lot of secondary sources to support notability. Has won a Pushcart Prize, which certainly isn't a Peabody. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 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.
    Category