< 12 September	14 September >

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

José Roel Lungay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous recent AfD was closed as No Consensus because there were no comments on it. This, as far as I can determine, is an unsourced BLP because none of the sources are actually about the subject. I can't find anything useful online that isn't actually sourced, first or second-hand, from this article itself (i.e. "Wikipedia Books LLC"). Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE For procedural purposes, I am adding List of songs written by J. Roel Lungay to this afd as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom for the first AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for no indication of notability, and blatantly misrepresented sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete unable to find any RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Catholic parish priest. This article is filled with many unreferenced personal details, and so the article is almost completely original research and is not verifiable. Accordingly, it is in violation of core content policies. I did a good faith search for acceptable sources and discovered nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN, MjolnirPants, Jclemens, and Cullen328: I forgot to ping you earlier, but this afd now has a +1; I wanted to let you all know in case you guys want to amend your !vote before the afd closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Let's try an alternate spelling... Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there are actually multiple News entries once we take off the first name. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a handful of passing mentions that confirm that this person exists, Jclemens. Can you provide any links to significant coverage of this person? I am happy to change my recommendation if notability can be established. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you saw what I saw. I haven't seen enough to change my mind, but I've seen more than the "nothing" I saw before. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Everett[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL. This athlete was a bit player on a good team who did not receive substantial, sustained coverage as an individual. Doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Rikster2 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBASKETBALL and GNG. As the article states, he scored a total of 12 points in college. Not notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and for what it's worth, seems like this article was written by a close friend or fanboy of Everett. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did look for more sources and the best I got was this third-of-a-page he shares with his two brothers (and describes them as practice players). What scant other mentions there were were even more trivial (mentioning that he got into a game; listing him among many signatories on a letter denying a cheating scandal). There's really nothing encyclopedic here. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CURE Auto Insurance[edit]

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

Very promotional and reads like an advertorial having all the traits of (but not necessarily is) a comissioned work (COI/paid advocacy). The massive tag bombing is either to unreliable sources, sources based on press releases, or non notable awards (runner up or finalist does not amount to notability). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Most significant coverage in reliable sources is the carrier's controversial Super Bowl television ad. Meatsgains (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. With content such as "CURE has been vocal about its philosophy that car insurance rates should be primarily based upon an applicant’s driving record..." this is strictly an advertorial page. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)delete, analysis with statitsics![reply]
Delete. small company with no likely notability to be found. Any references that are more than notices are its own advertorials, or reprints of them. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill small insurance company. Let's play statistics, folks. This company has "almost 50,000" policies for motor vehicles in New Jersey. There are almost 255 million Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles out of over 330 million people. There is almost one vehicle per household member in the United States, and about 70 % of households own at least one personal motor vehicle. The New Jersey MVC reports annually on the statistics (.pdf required). Depending on what statistic you are using, and when, New Jersey is the second or third most affluent state. New Jersey has almost 9 million people. Even assuming some of them don't have cars, I would guess reasonably that 70 % do. A heavily suburban and relatively affluent state, that would be conservative. In round numbers, that's 6.3 million cars, folks. The number of cars in New Jersey is proverbially huge: that's why the Jersey barrier was invented, and part of why Alcohol laws of New Jersey are so complex (to stop drunk driving). On some days, it seems like all of them converge on Fort Lee, New Jersey. That means that, in round numbers, 50,000/6,300,000 = 1 out of every 126 cars. So this little insurance company insures less than one car in a hundred in a single state. No, it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As a comparison, State Farm insured drivers have had about 190,000 claims just for auto-deer collisions annually. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nba 2k17 locker codes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable discussion of special promo codes for a soon to be released basketball simulation video game. Only source is the author's user-generated blog. Was initially tagged for speedy G11, then redirected to the game company 2K Sports and then to the more specific target of the particular game NBA 2K17 but the article author keeps restoring the article despite suggestions that the material might survive if incorporated into the game article. Bringing it here for a decision by a wider group. I'm doubtful that this even needs a redirect rather than outright deletion. Meters (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This scrolled up my Recent Changes and I slapped a CSD on it, not realizing we're already dealing with a CSD tag-remover. This user should be blocked. Jergling (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Smith (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Blogger with no evidence of notability. Refs are advertising or press releases or blogs. Fails WP:GNG. Earlier PROD removed by a new editor with only 5 edits with no given reason. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else should I add? Is Bloomberg not reputable enough (it is neither advertising, nor a press release, nor a blog)? Also, Smith is also an author of a book, not just a blog. I will attempt to add more reputable sources. Let me know if there is anything else I should be doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaArmstrong (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Bloomberg ref is a executive profile listing. No notability associated with that. He exists. Ho claims to be an executive - no value judgements made or implied. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay. That makes. I'll see if I can find any better sources. Thanks for doing what you do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaArmstrong (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability. The references include obviously promotional pages, a page which does no more than include Todd's name in a list of podcasts that the author of the page likes, and a company listing telling us that Todd is a member of the "Franchise Advisory Board" of the company. Google searches for information about him produced almost nothing. (I put a PROD on the article. It was removed by a brand new account which has never edited any other article.) 79.123.70.89 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete considering this is essentially A7 and G11 material if it wasn't for the barely comprehensible and noticeably thin claim of "leader", this is something that would come only for PR attempts especially considering the soufces themselves are not even substance ce. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a weakly sourced vanity page; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly, a promo piece of non-notable person. Kierzek (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill writer. Stub lacks reliable sources about the subject; notability is not inherited from the company he worked for. The Bloomberg listing is not in depth.Bearian (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a vanity page, his book might be self-published, the imprint "Success Media" (as noted on the book's Amazon listing) doesn't appear to be a real company. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View in Uruguay[edit]

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

I don't see any encyclopaedic value in keeping this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). We are not a directory to store the updates of Google Street View. (We don't have articles about other services llike Google Earth In Uruguay? Streetdirectory in Uruguay? Areas covered by "x mobile service" in Uruguay?) My point is that article like these are seriously not required. Delete this for the same reason we don't keep article about software logs. We are not a directory. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Street View in Jordan for a related AfD. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm fine with a redirect to Google_Street_View_in_South_America#.C2.A0Uruguay actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IIFO and just a fork of Google Street View. This can be summarized with a sentence indicating its roll out in Uruguay. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly unnecessary data dump. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:LISTCRUFT and indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google Street View in South America#.C2.A0Uruguay per above suggestion. Content already exists there, albeit without provinces noted and coverage percentage mentioned at the background section above. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a meta-analysis of Google, thus essentially synthesis of a single readily accessible source. There are plenty of other ways for our readers to find such information. For what it's worth, I've been to Montevideo and enjoyed it immensely; I would recommend anyone to visit it in person. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Participant evolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Barely-referenced neologism which even the cited sources note is barely used. No evidence of currency. Does not meet standards of WP:NEO. What sources I see in Google are occasional mentions in older transhumanist publications. Previous AFD was a "keep" in 2005, but I'm reasonably sure it doesn't measure up to 2016 standards. David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sci-fi neologism. No apparent significant use in independent sources. Joe Roe (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a complete neologism, as the term has been around for at least 20 years. A search in GBooks and GScholar showed only relatively brief mentions, not enough depth to support notability per WP:GNG for an article. I would not be opposed to say, a brief mention in Human enhancement, but as a topic in transhumanism it doesn't seem independently notable. --Mark viking (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This seems to be a term nearly identical in meaning to Directed evolution (transhumanism), but this one never got much traction. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I couldn't find any news reports on it there are plenty of books discussing the concept: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. It is clearly notable enough. (The article needs some improvement though.) --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to !vote delete, but in light of the links Fixture provided above, I say we Stub it into a soft redirect to Eugenics, Cybernetics, Human enhancement and Directed evolution (transhumanism) because this is just a term to describe one or more of those (the article doesn't make it clear which; I suspect it just depends on the context). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be a wiktionary entry. 186.29.209.135 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the Wiktionary entry. See wikt:participant evolution. Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable neologism. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In light of the book sources provided by Fixuture above, per WP:NEXIST. Currently, this is a stub, but the sources seem likely to go into enough depth to expand the article in the future. Even if we aren't, I would prefer a short stub like we have that includes a list of "See also" links to the items MjolnirPants suggested for a possible soft redirect. Kindof like a disambiguation page, except not disambiguation, but more "this is a minor concept in these larger topics". Fieari (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Transwiki can be requested at WP:REFUND I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of nations in Rise of Nations[edit]

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

Unsourced listcruft. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR. No encyclopedic reason to have this content. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT, this isn't even stuff we'd put in the parent article, let alone a stand-alone list spin-out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider transwikifying to http://riseofnations.wikia.com/wiki/Rise_of_Nations_Wiki . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 North Korean uprising[edit]

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

Page as it stands is completely unsourced and appears to be speculation. Looking through news sites there does not appear to be any signs of an "uprising" currently in North Korea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be motivated by a recent CNN piece that speculated "an uprising" could be the the result of social unrest following their flood. Mere speculation. Delete BTW, I think WP:A11 could even apply to this made-up event and I've speedy tagged it accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's based on something at CNN, A11 doesn't apply. A11 is for things like drinking games resembling Beer Pong, or games that are a cross between lacrosse and tiddlywinks. This just looks like wishful thinking, or a good faith attempt to get an article started in advance of the happening. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've declined the A11 speedy deletion tag. I agree that this article should not exist without some kind of reliable evidence that this uprising is actually happening though. Hut 8.5 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can't predict an uprising that hasn't yet happened. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure speculation at the moment. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources become available. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Psychonaut. An uprising in North Korea would be major world news, but there are no reports that such an event is taking place, or has taken place in the past. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. There is no reliably sourced content whatsoever.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is solid coverage in reliable sources then the article can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaunchPadPro[edit]

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

Unreliable, insignificant sources Mar11 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in rambling anecdote form, all sources primary or sponsored - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable, the only sources are self-published, self-promotional platforms. The author asked himself questions on Quora just to add to the ref count. Jergling (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; this is strictly advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Software MacKiev[edit]

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

Article was deleted via proposed deletion, and restored as the PROD was contested: [12]. Since the editor requesting restoration has a COI, I'm sending here for a full discussion accordingly. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or move to draft) in its current state it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG with just a single blog post mention. As Jack Minsky who asked for the refund made it clear they work for the company and thus has a COI they are not in a good position to fix. If they want to try to update it to maybe move to draft and any improvements can be reviewed against WP:NN, WP:COI etc. KylieTastic (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draft - per reasons stated by KylieTastic. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline spam. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a B2B directory. I don't believe moving it to draft will attract anyone to it to improve it. Clearly the creator(s) should not be editing the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well they have a lot of bluelinks under their wing, some pretty famous at one time -- Mavis Bacon, Print Shop, World Book. If they had developed all that, that alone would make them notable IMO. But they didn't, they just own them now, and "at one time" was a while back for most of these and the maintenance is probably pretty minimal. The exception being Family Tree Maker which appears to get fair amount of notice from ancestry sites. But again, they didn't make it, they just bought it. I would still say "Keep" even so, if there were enough references to make a decent article. Is there? Bloomberg give them a bare notice. here is a bit more. And that's about it: End Of Goggle, 14 results. Probably not enough to make a decent article, so delete I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is pretty spammy and poorly sourced, and there is no real indication that it can be improved to meet any of our inclusion criteria. Reyk _YO! 07:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD; simply that the company asks for it again with no actual or anything close to convincing basis, is not enough to keep altogether. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete your account[edit]

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

Another one of those news cycle things from the 2016 campaign. Yes, there are sources, of course there are sources, but they're all from the papers and have an expiration date: there is nothing here to suggest this "meme" has any lasting value whatsoever. If you like, redirect to her 2016 campaign article. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Notability is so temporary it's already long past relevancy. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. As I said in another AfD, it's silly season for politics and every little statement seems to be made into a huge (non)story. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage on its own, only as part of the campaign.

How many more of these ******* things've we got here?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known term on social media; I don't see a redirect as appropriate. It's a very standard term on social media and Hillary Clinton didn't create it (even if her posting it got half a million retweets), so why treat it as hers? Blythwood (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with deletion, but it seems to me the Clinton connection was what made it notable--or supposed to make it notable. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly not notable before HRC used it but now that she has, there has been enough background reporting on the meme to make it clearly notable. The article makes it clear that the meme was around before it got sucked into the election. Let's not increase the suck; Redirect is not appropriate here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - at this point; not notable for stand alone article; trivia. And if not deleted, should be a redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A redirect is not appropriate because, misapprensions of several editors aside, this meme/phrase did not begin with Clinton v. Trump, nor was a single "news cycle" that has "ended." Here: [13], for example, is a recent New York Magazine article that has nothing to do with Clinton. The article is sourced, and passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Like E.M.Gregory says, this meme is as old as twitter. Riveted Fox (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Old meme, not seeing the significant and in-depth coverage or justification for standalone page. Perhaps a redirect to List of Internet memes would be called for. Neutrality^talk

Except that that is a list of bluelinked articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's no reason it has to be such. Neutrality^talk 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We have to set the bar a little higher than this.- Mr X 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

than what? It's now a pretty well-sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of memes that could be sourced. Some that come to mind: We shall overcomb, Ermahgerd, this idiotic one, and Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. We routinely delete or merge such articles because they are trite and because Wikipedia is not an INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. I'm sure a few memes are of enduring historical value, but not this one.- Mr X 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I revised the article, sourced the origins, definition, history of this hashtag/meme. However, I ignored the Clinton section. Feel free to improve whatever you object to, but at least read the article and make a policy based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silly article. We can't document every tweet by a presidential candidate, and then say "oh this other famous person used it 2 years ago". Instaurare (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Silly" is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. Is there something particular in WP:NOT that is infringed here? ~Kvng (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Pls see below; Original comment: per WP:USEFULTRIVIA and article improvements by E.M.Gregory. With the non-Clinton v Trump content, this is a short but reasonably sourced article on a meme, which is not against any policy or guideline. However, I would not support a redirect to Clinton's campaign article; I'd rather see the article deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails WP:EVENTCRIT which states Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. There are no WP:LASTING effects, no WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH. Also per WP:NOTMEMEDIR, every single meme is not important enough to be included unless there is secondary coverage which focuses on the phenomenon of the meme itself. Over here I do not see the solid secondary coverage required for a meme to be notable. There will obviously be coverage like "10 best tweets about X meme", but these are simply proof that the meme exists, not that the meme is notable. I also see that the history section of the article is sourced to Knowyourmeme which is a WP:USERGENERATED source and is not reliable. The rest of the references are all passing mentions. Definitely not notable at this time. I also prefer a delete and not a redirect as the Hillary Clinton campaign is not a major part of this meme. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Objections on the grounds of lack of secondary sources describing the phrase itself, assertions made due assertion / misapprehension that this article is about an EVENT, and objections to a specific source as unreliable have been met in revisions by K.e.coffman, Yoshiman6464, and myself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:NEO, a policy that this article now passes. Note that the policy requires "we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" and that while a scholarly article or 2 on this phrase would be good to have, what the policy requires is "secondary sources... about the term," and that I have supplied the article with several of these from highly RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRIT (in particular WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE) is the relevant notability criterion here as memes are considered events. That still isn't satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This meme has been used before Clinton had tweeted it, and is likely to be used afterwards. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Memecruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this "account". This bullshit is only interesting in context of the ongoing election. WP:RECENTSIM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Not an encyclopedic subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thoughts. I like "memecruft" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this particularly notable? As a meme it hasn't even retained staying relevance such as Harambe or other recent memes. Nagylelkű (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. Should we have redirects for Donald Trump's tweets too? Hillary isn't the first person to say this. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I'm exceptionally closing this AfD early because (a) it has already far more comments than most AfDs, (b) the consensus is so clear to not cover this as an article that it is not conceivable that more opinions could realistically change the outcome, and (c) there is a parallel RfC to decide whether to cover this material in the campaign article. There is no consensus here about whether to redirect this topic to the campaign article, and no clear consensus is likely to emerge through more discussion. I recommend waiting on whether consensus emerges from the RfC before having the redirect discussion. But if anybody does want to have that discussion now, they can create the redirect and anybody else can take it to RfD. Sandstein 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of deplorables[edit]

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

An egregious WP:NOT, an obvious misuse of Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep News sources I have been watching, including the PBS Newshour, already report this as a very important event in the 2016 presidential election.Borock (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something exists and is being covered may mean that we mention it in an article. It doesn't mean that we are required to give it a stand-alone article as opposed to covering it in another article. --Jayron 32 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I just checked out 47 percent (which this is being compared to) and it is merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 Borock (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Not enough "there" to support a stand-alone article. The event can be mentioned in a paragraph in that article; there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone article, per WP:UNDUE. --Jayron 32 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Developing issue. Mr. Trump has used this in counterattack. There is an ongoing development. In any event, no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Absolute WP:POVFORK, a page meant to be a Hillary Clinton controversy. This material can and will be included on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 once we have consensus on how to include it. There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 that this article's creator, E.M.Gregory, has been involved in, so this user knows that this is an inappropriate end around due to the slow moving discussion. A trout slap could be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Campaign issue. Redirect. We are not the news. Given the ridiculous amounts of coverage every single fart generates--for a day or two--we can write a million articles. There's my African-American. 27 dollars (redirect). Beat the crap out of him. Little Marco. Lying Ted. Crooked Hillary. Many people are saying. They're rapists. If we start copying the news cycle, calling "notable" what talking heads think is notable, we are a long way away from writing an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ^^ Would a proposal along these lines have a snowball's chance in hell of making it into a guideline: As Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a political tool, articles about national elections should be limited to the elections themselves, candidates, candidacies, positions, [and other main topics]. Once the election is over, spinoffs can be evaluated." In other words, there's no reason this stuff can't just be covered in the main articles and then "lasting significance" assessed afterwards. Otherwise we have stuff like this that has to sit there inflating the significance of this subject (and all the others) for 7+ days while a messy AfD transpires. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. It's silly season for politics obviously, and every little thing said seems to draw an immense amount of attention. That being said, it doesn't make this notable on it's own. Side note: Can it be 2017 now, please? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, passing phrase of no real significance. No more appropriate than Trump's egregious crooked Hillary talking point. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Merging is not necessary since the content may or may not be integrated based on the results of the RfC on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. What Timothyjosephwood said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice and deal with this at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#RfC. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and mention it therein with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, per Jayron32 and Kierzek. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Hillary doesnt like being called out on it, she shouldnt say it. Riveted Fox (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is completely irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? It was reported widely. Thats what "notability" means, isnt it? Or do you just not like it when someone yanks wikipedia's liberal chain? Riveted Fox (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep its amazing how transparent the political bias is here. It passes GNG. There is tons of precedent which amazingly has not been given this level of scrutiny Delete your account Binders full of women etc ResultingConstant (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Binders was AfD'ed three times, and nominated for a merge twice more. That it was kept is because we have too many editors who are nearsighted, not because of some supposed bias. And if you're really suggesting that we are so biased we would delete this to clean up Hillary's reputation, then I think I'll build you a wall and make someone else pay for it. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account, and thanks for the tip. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing. If we are so transparently biased, why do we have Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, but not Category:Donald Trump controversies? Drmies (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It may become notable in the future if it is proven it has had some long term effect of notability but until then, it's just speculation on a random quote which we can't have here at the moment per WP:RECENT. The C of E God Save the Queen!

(talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that demonstration of long term impact is not required, merely, this is so for the excellent reasons that a great many very recent events are demonstrably notable. See: WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why should an encyclopedia devote time and space to things that don't have any kind of impact? Someone mentioned that yesterday's weather is just as notable. In fact, I guarantee you that many more newspapers wrote about it. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (first choice) or redirect (second choice) - Per Drmies + WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO. Is silly season done yet? Neutrality^talk 16:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single claim to notability given. Yes, there are sources that covered it, but that does not automatically make it notable; there are sources for yesterday's completely non-notable weather. If a spoken phrase actually does something to someone somewhere, then sure, that can lead to an article (if that something done is properly sourced). Here, there's nothing to say about the phrase, other than it's a phrase. There's zero substance for an article here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major incidents during a campaign, like all major incidents, can and regularly do pass WP:GNG soon after they happen. imho, this one already has already passed our notability tests at WP:GNG, which is why I started the article. I will be back as time permits to continue to expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious, in fact outrageous, WP:POVFORK. Creating editor should be trouted to within an inch of their life. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er..., why? I have been entirely open. I notified editors working at Clinton 2016 campaign page. and Note that I have created several articles about incidents during this campaign season (America (advertisement); Balanced Rebellion; Act of Love (political statement and advertisement)). I created this because the incident is notable; it can and I confidently expect that it inevitably will eventually be linked to a short statement on Clinton 2016 campaign page; including more there would be WP:UNDUE. In addition, as I often argue on other pages, article are far more efficiently created as notable events unfold, because there are so many editors helping create an article at such a moment and because the sources are so easily accessed in the immediate aftermath of impactful events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and mention there only if supported by RS. It's much too soon to know if it will have lasting notability. Jonathunder (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and consider adding a sentence about it, but probably nothing more. Pinguinn 🐧 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same arguments would appear to apply to Binders full of women. Should we take another shot at an ASfD for that one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for now. If this statement becomes as notable after the election such as binders full of women, then it should become its own article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with no strong position on a Redirect) - I'm surprised to see so many experienced users supporting keeping this. Maybe deserves a brief mention in the campaign/candidacy articles because it has received coverage, of course, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and every news cycle "controversy"-of-the-week doesn't need a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE/WP:POVFORK) when we have articles on the campaign, candidates, candidacies, elections, etc. Not opposed to recreation after the election, once lasting significance can be displayed, but it would really need a lot more to merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm. I don't see hardly any experienced users supporting keeping the article. I mean, I see the article creator, a brand-new account, and a glaringly obvious sockpuppet supporting keeping it. Everyone else seems to be pretty clearly favoring merge/redirect or delete. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Admittedly, I was drawing from my experience in other very similar campaign spinoff articles at AfD recently, but I see 3 editors with >7k edits !voting keep on this. Perhaps not "so many" but "too many". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An enormous amount of serious analysis & commentary still needs to be added to this article. I'll be back (and appreciate help with the task,) meanwhile, if anyone is in need of a good chuckle, I recommend this seriously funny Seth Meyers bit [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Obviously not sufficient for a standalone article, and this does smack of inappropriate content forking. In general, it would be helpful if, during election season, we could resist the urge to create standalone articles about every partisan talking point. I would be fine with deleting this article; after all, anyone searching for "basket of deplorables" already knows all about this particular controversy. But maybe a merge is better since the subject arguably deserves brief mention in the campaign article. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Merging or redirecting seems wholly unnecessary. Whether or not someone adds something along these lines in the Hillary article is up to a consensus there, and we probably shouldn't be deciding/forcing that for a such a controversial issue at this AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - one remark in a presidential campaign does not need a stand alone article about it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Iddon[edit]

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

multiple issues but the most pertinent one being notability - WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm simply finding a few pieces of local news stories or mentions, none of this (which includes the listed sources) are coming to a level of actual substance and convincing, especially for his own improved article. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an insufficiently sourced WP:PROMO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My three Maries[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article with no evidence of notability. Qed237 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, this looks to be a TV show, not a movie, although I am having a bit of trouble since I'm using Google Translate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's probably notable - I'm finding a lot of coverage under its original title and I'd probably suggest moving it to Mis Tres Marías unless there's a ton of coverage with the translated title. Here's some of the stuff I'm finding: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading this correctly, then it looks like the show has been receiving fairly high ratings in Peru. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for help from WP:PERU with editing the article. I think that there should be enough here to justify a keep at this point, but it needs a lot of work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as notable in Spanish to Peru is fine with Wikipedia even if not to the United States in English. Needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Spanish sources identified by Tokyo Girl, the article can be improved, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ze Framework[edit]

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

Non-notable software framework made by some guy some day. damiens.rf 12:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any source which features or covers this framework. It fails WP:GNG very obviously, there is just nothing about it. The Github page also has not really much activity, and its discontinued now. The creator of the tool on github is "mananvpanchal"/"Manan V. Panchal" -> the creator of the article is User:Mananvpanchal. Therefore the article was probably some kind of promo entry. Dead Mary (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like it never caught on except for its author? W Nowicki (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Wilton F.C.[edit]

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

Football club that fails the generally accepted notability critieria of playing in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase or at step 6 or above. Examples of past AfDs on clubs in the same situation include this or this. Can provide numerous other examples if required. Number 5 7 11:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to two other examples where you yourself have asserted that a very specific notability criteria is generally accepted is not really evidence that it is generally accepted... is there actually a community accepted SNG that's relevant here? Joe Roe (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can tell me where I've even commented on the first example, it would be appreciated. But anyway, the community has long been in agreement that the aforementioned criteria is the cut-off point, and as I said, numerous other examples from AfD can be provided to back this up: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 8, 9, 10, and there are far more than these (note, if you are unfamiliar with the English football league system, step 6 = level 10). I suspect an SNG has never been created because it's such a specific topic that it would be silly to have a guideline just for this, particularly as consensus at AfD is obvious and very few of these articles are created anymore. Number 5 7 13:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This has a lot of references and it can be proved that it exists. Audi1merc2 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not imply notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - requirement for clubs to have played in the top 10 levels of English football is longstanding and accepted as consensus, as links above show. This club does not fulfill that requirement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ChrisTheDude Spiderone 21:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali-alo[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. I searched with the Bengali name also. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable online newspaper. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sextant Properties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A PR article for a company that is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the article creator is Matcany and the ceo of this company is Matthieu Cany it may be a case of WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted before, should be deleted again for the same reason. Delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt blatant advertising and COI concerns. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. Salt too. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gongar Hajwni Ser Ser[edit]

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

An article on a poem by Ronjoy Brahma, posted by an account which is now blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jekhai Narzary. I had previously placed a Prod on the article with the rationale "No evidence that this new book has attained notability."The Prod has now been removed by an IP so here we are with another of the several ongoing AfDs on works by Ronjoy Brahma. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yet another non-notable poem. Anup [Talk] 13:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean I'd be open to being pinged to reconsider if anyone can turn up sources in another language but when I search, I literally only get our Wikipedia discussions of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:G7 (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Derapur tehsil[edit]

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

Quite useless in the current form that too without any links. Either delete or move to draft Varun FEB2003 11:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 History of the Jews in South Korea as a compromise solution that tries to capture the arguments and concerns presented. The last half of the article discusses a single business dispute. The first half is more relevant, but there is a severe lack of structure with the different facts being presented in a disjoint fashion. Those problems are in theory surmountable, and it's possible that a separate article may be written. However the concerns about the relevancy of the current contents are serious enough that removing the article for the time being is arguably the best option. The history of the article will not be deleted and so may be accessed in case anybody wants to work with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in South Korea[edit]

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

This article makes no sense. Most of the content does not refer to the topic. More than half of the article is a business dispute between Samsung and Paul Singer. Other than that, the article lists curiosities and examples that do not directly refer to antisemitism. The "history" part starts with a bar named "Gestapo". However, although one of the main agenda of Nazi Germany became the Jewish genocide, naming a bar "Gestapo" is not directly antisemitism. I guess it is known that in Korea, China, Japan and India, many bars refer to Hitler and the Nazis. So sad it is, this shows admiration for Nazi Germany but is not directly linked to antisemitism. Someone would have to provide a scholarly source that see this connection. Making this connection of wikipedia without source is original research. It could be that the people that named the bar do not even know about Holocaust. Then, the article lists at the end of the section two "K-pop scandals". Both do not refer to antisemitism. However, the second refers to unrespectful behaviour. Also, the last sentence in the lead states South Korea, but if you look at the source, it refers to North Korea. But this is only a minor problem. Cause, I also dispute the weight of the article. The important information is already in the article History of the Jews in South Korea. Christian140 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. This would create a more balanced article with information on both the positive and negative views of South Koreans toward Jews. Info on the Samsung thing should be much reduced. Unrelated stuff, the Hitler bars and North Korean pictures of capitalists looking "Jewish" to outsiders, should be removed. There should be an article about the Singer/Samsung thing, and also the existing History of the Jews in South Korea, but this article is really just minor incidents thrown together by original research.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but extensively re-write. Delete, per Christian140's nomination and thoughtful argument below. [Old comment follows.] While this article does have the whiff of original research about it, some of the article's reliable sources (such as this article in the Diplomat and this Time magazine piece) do assert that there's a significant strain of anti-Semitism in Korea. This is definitely a topic of encyclopedic interest, but the article clearly needs a lot of help. A Train^talk 15:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Times article is also about a bar and is not refering to antisemitism. The article just shows that there is some fascination of Nazi symbolism by some people in Korea and the author states that it seems for him that Koreans "hate" Japanese für WWII, but still allow the use of Nazi symbols. So, the author derives the assumption that Koreans lack empathy for Jews. The article also explicitly states: "Nor does Korea, with no Jewish community to speak of, have an anti-Semitic streak." The Diplomat links just reports about a survey of global anti-semitism that can be directly sourced: http://global100.adl.org/#country/south-korea/2014. This is notable as WP:YESPOV. Like with any index, there are limitations and criticism. However, this would be notable in an article about the index. To find out if there is really anti-semitism in Korea, some research is needed, and if there is, it probably had not been published in English (see Google scholar). It is not very likely that much research had been done considering the lack of Jews in Korea and the lack of exposure during history. Looking at the design of the anti-semitism index, one could also conclude that Koreans are susceptible for conspiracy theories since all the question are more about the "anti Jewish conspiracy theories". This is all up for future research. I wrote this in small letters since it should not be considered in this discussion, these are just some thoughts on limitations of the index and possible future research if I was a sociologist specializing on conspiracy theories, anti-semitism and the Korean society. --Christian140 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Christian. There are some statistics, but we lack reliable sources. Well, the Diplomat is a decent source, but can we build an encyclopedic articles on one or two newspieces, with no scholarship to speak of, given the controversial subject? A merge may be better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, man -- that is an exceptional bit of argumentation from @Christian140: and I find myself utterly swayed by it. I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus below that the Samsung incident alone is probably notable enough for its own article, but this article as it stands probably cannot remain in its present form. Changed my position above. A Train^talk 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no claim that South Korean antisemitism ever directly harmed any person. Just commenting. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legitimate X in Y article (cf. WP:NOTCASE) that meets WP:GNG. There are many RS items (such as the Diplomat article above) that make notice of the unusually high rate of antisemitic sentiment in South Korea. Any irrelevant material, of course, should be removed from the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes the case that this is an appropriate standalone topic, and the sourcing provided surpasses the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BUT delete most contents OR leaning merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. As with many similar article, most of it is off-topic and sourced to news, in essence "anti-semitism events in Korea as documented by some random newspaper articles". This all should go, together with the Samsung incident, which could perhaps be notable on its own, but is not very relevant to this topic. However, the sole saving grace of this article comes from one sentence about " a survey by the Anti-Defamation League" which I think should be kept; there are likely few other rankings that could be added. A 2008 survey of attitudes towards religion has data on Korea ([22]), but frankly, this is about attitudes, not antisemitism. But, seriously, one sentence... this probably should be merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a ramble of soapboxing mixed poorly with coatracking of the Samsung controversy. "There's no there there." Bearian (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cut down to avoid the soapboxing and coatracking issues. Most of the content could be merged to the pages of the parties involved (bands, singers, companies, businessman). The topic itself is relevant but how it's presented is unbalanced. There is some decent material to work off of though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be OR synthesis, with the selected material often having no actual relevance to the subject. The "Samsung business dispute with Paul Singer" content might better belong in another article, perhaps at Paul Singer (businessman) where content that covers several paragraphs here merits just three sentences. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note The article references a public opinion survey. People who don't have strong opinions tend to answer "yes" to survey questions. So you get a different picture if the question were to be "Do you think Jews are over represented in some field?" than if you were to ask "Do you think Jews face unfair discrimination in the same field?" Borock (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. Not enough evidence that South Korean antisemitism is a notable topic. In most of today's world people are free to have any opinion they want on any topic. The fact that a few South Koreans have expressed negative views on Jewish people does not seem notable. In fact you could probably find a few anti-South Korean statements by Jews, and I hope we will not have an article based on that.Borock (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most people here find that the survey of the ADL is relevant, however, there are problems with the design. I put this information in the article History of the Jews in South Korea. So, I added the survey result and there is one specific article of a journalist who investigated about anti-semitism in Korea because of the survey and found no signs of anti-semitism. In the article, there is also a statement of the head of the ADL saying that there are some flaws since cultural norms in Korea affected the responses. You can also find more criticism online about the design, like that the sample is too low and that you cannot prove anti-semitism by those questions. But this is more relevant for the article about the survey or for Anti-Defamation_League#Criticism. --Christian140 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article sources barely discuss antisemitism if at all. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Grant[edit]

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

Article created too soon. Create once notable Varun FEB2003 10:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable per WP:NBASKETBALL – she made her WNBL debut last season. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grant played five minutes for the Perth Lynx in the 2015–16 WNBL season, which meets WP:NBASKETBALL. I feel that I must admonish VarunFEB2003 for nominating the article 12 minutes after creation; many articles start as a single paragraph or a small stub and expand from there, and to nominate an article so quickly after creation clearly does not show good faith. It also seems clear that they did not read WP:BEFORE as it took me less than 10 minutes to determine that she did in fact play last season, even though it was only for five minutes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the WNBL does not meet NBASKETBALL. Which is not to say that the subject isn't notable. Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster, per NBASKETBALL – "Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league" – wouldn't the WNBL be a similar major professional sports league for women? If the Australian NBL is listed there, the equivalent is the WNBL i.e. NBA/WNBA, NBL/WNBL. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A fact of life is that women's basketball is not covered as widely as men's. The WNBA (the only women's league listed in the guideline) has the full marketing backing of the most popular basketball league in the world, has a national tv contract, and is covered nationally by pretty much every US media outlet - is that true of the WNBL? The "similar leagues" line is meant to help people trying to determine notability to understand that there are other leagues - like the Greek and Israeli top men's leagues - where players may be also be notable. You certainly can't just claim someone meets NBASKETBALL if they aren't from one of the listed leagues - you have to demonstrate the league really is similar to those listed. This subject played five total minutes in a league that isn't named in the guideline, I wouldn't assume she is notable. GNG should be the standard. Rikster2 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkudlick Request withdrawn Sorry didn't see when it had been created! Please close this AfD I withdraw Varun FEB2003 06:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh chandra gaur[edit]

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

Clearly non notable. Uses sentences that disrespect a country. A social activist is not notable to have a article unless he becomes too too famous. The article on Umar Khalid was also deleted whereas he was much famous than him Varun FEB2003 10:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO, only sources I can find with a google search are either self-published or not reliable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one potentially reliable source (The Hindu) is unobtainable; the rest- YouTube- do not sufficiently demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Equally failing WP:DEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:PERSISTENCE. Apart from the fact that it reads like a f*****g advert or a Yellow Pages! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Girl/Girl Performer of the Year[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the GNG. No nontrivial independent reliable sourcing. Other than passing mentions in a single newspaper story, all references are only industry related promotional materials. The parallel AVN award, which is more consequential, has been deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly falls short of WP:GNG -- no substantial independent coverage in high quality sources. I'd suggest following up this AfD with nominations for all articles listed in the XBIZ Awards template, as I believe all of them have the same fundamental problem. -Pete (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable award, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- has not been the subject of discussion in independent RS. Otherwise, it's just a WP:DIRECTORY / WP:PROMO listing for the group that issues the awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Globe of porn industry doesn't need any dust-dry lexicon promotion... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Less of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK than in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best New Starlet but the extra information are nominees which do not have independent citations which I feel violates WP:UNDUE and photos when wikipedia is WP:NOTGALLERY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course XBIZ will tell us the wrong nominees, so let's take a completely different source... Porn sources are not forbidden. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say (and explain) keep, but as that won't change anything: Keep trolling. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia and its great, big bunch of trivial lists, that's an eternal unification and widely accepted. Where is the substantial independent covarage in List of association football stadiums by capacity? Just try it, you won't be able to delete this great list. However, just keep deleting porn articles for non-sense reasons, which won't work on another topic. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Whitfield Williamson[edit]

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails NPOL and GNG. Billy Hathorn, the creator, was arrogant enough to use something he himself wrote as a source which is generally prohibited. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a small town mayor and holding a few other local positions does not satisfy WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is one of the earlier creations (2008) by one of the many accounts a serial sockpupeteer (SPI 2011). Now banned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician. We have a very large number of articles on non-notable local politicians from Louisiana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician. Lepricavark (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. The book could be a good start but other than that, all we have for secondary sourcing is Shreveport, i.e. hometown, paper. Doesn't offer a lot in terms of giving outside perspectives. It's too bad, to be candid I think well-sourced entries on small-town politicians could enrich the encyclopedia. Doesn't seem like we have the material for it in this case though. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Withdrawn by Nominator. - Mar11 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Pillar Global, Inc.[edit]

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

Doesn't have enough reliable sources right now to meet WP:COMPANY Marvellous Spider-Man 10:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - At the moment, the article contains some independent secondary sources from reliable news organisations which I think are enough to pass it GNG. - Mar11 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn @Mar11: , I searched according to article title "3Pillar Global, Inc.", but searching for 3Pillar Global (removing Inc.)shows many results. The article name should be as per WP:COMMONNAME. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legends Football Phone-In[edit]

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

Seems like a run of the mill local radio programme Echetus Xe 08:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is far from a local radio programme. If you look at the article properly you will see that it is broadcast across the entire North of England, a substantial area. Seasider91 (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication this radio show has gained anywhere near the level of significant independent coverage required of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Lubala[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Non notable businessman. The article is more of an advert for this products than a bio. None of the references listed mention him Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldnt find any source mentioning him, apart from usual twitter profiles and his linked-in account. The same is for his premier product he apparently invented, the "ELIE MiFi Solar Lantern". His company "Elie Technologies" exists, but has no coverage anywhere too. He fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO pretty obviously. The article has been created by a user called User:Febuaryco. Said user has created an article about an artist called Febuary (artist), which is also up for deletion in AFD. The manager of this artist is .... Elijah Lubala (according to this). So guess WP:PROMO applies here. Dead Mary (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not notable, no sources found.ABF99 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt because this is yet another attempt at clear self-advertising since this was deleted once before as it is, nearly immediately after this current article; the article goes to specifications only either his own website or job listing would care to mention. There is nothing at all close to substance here, and the fact the only sources listed are his own websites and otherwise unconvincing, explain this also. If no one could first at least either see how articles actually work or at least consider using Draft instead of actuslly starting yet another advertisement, it suggests the PR is eminently persistent. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page lacking in RS. Salt is a good suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article has already been deleted (it was speedied yesterday). (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurved Sutra[edit]

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

Not entirely sure if Ayurved Sutra is notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency preparedness[edit]

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

Information in article adequately covered by Emergency management. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it back to the redirect since the added material was copyright violation. For the same reason, I revision deleted intermediate edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: thanks, I had a feeling it was too but I couldn't pin it down at first. Withdrawing and closing. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The deletion arguments are basically (1) WP:LISTN, one of many ways of applying notability analysis to lists, which there is not a consensus to apply here, nor is it clear that approach would be most helpful or relevant for this kind of list; and (2) that the awards/nominations listed are excessive or indiscriminate for this particular topic. There is no argument that this information is unverifiable or otherwise clearly contrary to policy, and so this discussion then boils down to an editing dispute over what awards/nominations it is appropriate or relevant to list for this topic, and whether the information is then substantial enough to merit a WP:SPLIT from the parent bio article. And if it isn't, whether anything should be merged or the title just redirected to the corresponding section in the parent article. Editors are encouraged to continue an informed discussion on either the list or parent article's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain[edit]

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

Nominations are no longer part of WP:PORNBIO, so they do not contribute to an actor's notability. The award nominations themselves are non-notable. The awards proper are already included in the main article Sandra Romain, so the list is unnecessary. The subject fails WP:GNG as there's no significant secondary RS coverage of the topic; the article is exclusively cited to WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not count towards notability.

Edit: the nominations themselves are meaningless due to rampant "award inflation" in the adult entertainment industry. For example, one of the major awards I looked into had 50 categories, further subdivided into "fan" and "editor's choice". AVN's awards include 15 nominations per category, and including such nominations is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and provides no encyclopedic value, and appears to primarily serve as WP:PROMO for titles and other actors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't remember only notable honours to be listed in a complete list. The topic is a composition of Sandra Romain's success, not of the awards themselves. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A parallel: Cameo of an actor does not make him notable, so it's not allowed to list that in his filmography. Yeah, that logic really makes sense... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion. What does PORNBIO have to do with a list of honors? Will you nominate for deletion List of accolades received by Lincoln (2012 film) and hundreds of similar articles because they include honors that don't "count" toward notability? You're comparing apples and oranges. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I added the reason above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per Malik -~~ fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Davey2010: Per Malik? Rebb ing 07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebbing - I have absolutely no idea why I've put Per Malik I really don't!, Thanks for spotting the error & notifying me :), Delete per nom. –Davey2010^Talk 11:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:LIST and meeting WP:SAL and WP:LISTPURP. For a proper list, meeting GNG (or not) is not the deciding factor. And since the list lede states "The following is a list of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain throughout her pornographic film career", it is specific, encyclopedic, and not at all WP:INDISCRIMINATE to readers who wish to better understand the topic. Further, MShabazz's points are well made and convincing, and comparing the short version in subject's article to the far more complete list, it is easy to see that the subject's article does not contain this more comprehensive information. inclusion criteria are met. Readers are enlightened. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Although I can't speak to the merits of including all these nominations, they don't appear to me to be wholly indiscriminate. And, aside from the subject matter (I don't even have words for the fact that a film named Cum Fart Cocktails merited a sequel), this appears similar in principle to articles like List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift.
However, the notability requirement applies to standalone lists the same as any other article. See WP:SAL § Content policies ("Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to . . . the notability guidelines."). The difference between this and the Swift awards list is that the subject of that article (the nominations and awards won by Ms. Swift) has received significant independent attention, whereas the same cannot be said here. List of accolades received by Lincoln (2012 film) is "other stuff" and may be appropriate for deletion for all I know. Rebb ing 07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic says that if parts of the list are not notable, the notable rest or actually the composition of everything together isn't notable either. In that case I guess, we have to delete Swift's list as well, as I'm not so sure if her listed Channel V Thailand Music Video Awards, FiFi Awards, IFPI Global Recording Artist Award, iHeartRadio Music Awards, Bravo Ottos, Do Something Awards, mtvU Woodie Awards, Myx Music Award, Neox Fan Awards, American Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, Los Premios 40 Principales, Radio Disney Music Awards or Telehit Awards have received "significant independent attention" and therefore are notable enough for the ambitious rest of the list, a list, which should of course be anything but complete... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misread my vote: I didn't say every entry in such a list had to be notable, see WP:NNC, but that the subject—the awards as a collection or even multiple individual awards—must have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I see no such coverage here, whereas it is clearly present there. Rebb ing 10:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, K.e.coffman, you're just lying again. The last time I called it "manipulate". As you keep alleging the same undifferentiated view, I'll call it "lie" this time. Once again: "please differentiate a bit instead of manipulating, more than half of the categories are not personal but for films, studios and websites. There are ca. 20 personal categories from which again a part is for producers. Current Performer categories are 12 (excluding 3 honorary/achievement categories)." Most porn awards are for film productions, their companies, distributors etc., only a little part of your very objectively named "award inflation" is for performers and personal (which means not scene-related) and makes notable (actually not even that as we see in grotesque AfD "inflation"). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the discussion of the value of the awards is secondary to the fact that the article does not meet GNG. What is the significant RS coverage that covers the topic of "awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain"? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, your reasoning was that nominations do not contribute to her notability. Deleting the whole list because parts of it are not notable on their own does not make sense, so you adapted your reasoning. However, you lied (or just didn't understand) in order to keep disrespecting those nominations even more by claiming that she would generally be able to be nominated in 50 categories, which is absolutely wrong but will easily influence everyone's first opinion. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "notable parts" (i.e. the awards, vs nominations) are already present in the main article on the actress; nobody is trying to delete them from there. Thus, this article is an indiscriminate list that does not meet GNG as a stand-alone list (see WP:SAL). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to clarify: A list is to inform readers, and per governing guidelines, MOS:LIST and WP:SAL and WP:LISTPURP, as long as they are verifiable items in a simple and discriminate list are not themselves required to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this is not how I'm reading WP:SAL, which states:

Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

So the subject of "awards and nominations received by X" does need to meet the notability guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing policy and guideline as if absolutes need examination. Our content policies instruct on Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and No original research (WP:NOR). Yes, WP:SAL does briefly mention WP:N which itself advises "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and itself qualifies that the WP:N "guideline only outlines how suitable a topic is for its own article or list". A list that is neutral, verifiable, and not original research, is not forbidden nor disallowed. I will grant that a merge to Sandra Romain#Awards is suitable under policy WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to ask the nom to please stop editing the deletion rationale at the top of the page in violation of the talk page guidelines. Once other editors have responded to you, please follow WP:REDACT if you feel the need to edit your own comments. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per malik shabazz. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- so far, no RS have been presented that cover the subject of "Awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venerability does not require a source to be expansive. Just as SAG can confirm SAG Awards, XBIZ and AVN can verify the awards they give for their respective genres. And if you choose to look, the SAG Awards article is lengthy and poorly sourced but is itself seen to meet WP:SAL an WP:LISTPURP despite that "weakness". Will you be bringing it here next, or are you somehow picking your targets? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article under discussion is not AVN Awards but awards and nominations received by a specific performer -- we'd need secondary sources that discuss the subject of "awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain" to meet WP:SAL, not just about AVN awards, or any other awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessive coverage. the main article is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy King[edit]

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

Cant find anything notable about him, Doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:NMUSIC.The whole article is written like a advert, probably a case of conflict of interest. Razer^{Text me} 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:30, 13 September 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) 06:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Seems to be a promotional page, already speedy deleted twice. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteI object to the deletion, It was speedy deleted twice because of low content and no information but I have uploaded information about the subject Wikipedia is all about encyclopedia which means to provide information about a personality and who has a digital presence too, nothing in this article is promotional and nothing is offline research based, all the stuff in this article is based on the information which is spread over internet and boosted by internet.Rahilljoshi5 00:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete non-notable musician who does not meet any of the musician notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds not notable should be notable in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahilljosh15: Please read the notability guidelines and tell us which criteria this person meets. It doesn't have anything to do with where he is from. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this simply means that this article should be accepted because this person is notable in India.Rahilljoshi5 02:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs)

How is he notable in India? Please read the criteria and tell us which one or ones he meets. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT: Non-notable person and the article is written like advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:REFBOMBing to hide the fact of unnotability of subject. It fails both WP:NMUS and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 10:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep you can find much more result, if search is Crazy King Rapper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The subject is popular in regular search, might not much in news, but popular in newspaper Rahilljoshi5 06:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Rahilljosh15: We get that you are telling us that he is 'popular'. We need to know how he is notable. Please read the guidelines here and tell us how. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for his live perfomances, specially when he dedicated a song to Akshay Kumar and his no worries attitude, which was marked a great impression when, daringly commented on Honey Singh, his performances with Dharmesh Yalende, Vrinda Dawde and Paulami Mazumdar and his last song Apna Star which is now becoming popular. He is a youth Icon according Hungama Music, as his rap has a complete Marwari+Hariyani touch. Rahilljoshi5 00:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) As I put all my points till date, wiki has its own rules and every wikipedian is an intellect. So, I respect all of you, what you people decide would be happily acceptable. If this article is deleted then I will make sure that whenever I redesign this article, there should be optimum pre-requisite completed and I will be thankful if it is accepted. :) Rahilljoshi5 05:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty tricks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination for Eduen (talk · contribs), whose rationale was This article seems to suggest the phrase "dirty tricks" can only refer to cheating in US politics. This is simply ridiculous but also this article has already been nominated for deletion before. It clearly has not been improved and I really don´t see how one could improve this thing which should have been deleted a long time ago. Also see this on the talk page. ansh 666 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe that this should have been deleted a long time ago. It obviously violates WP:NOTEVERYTHING, since it is not that of need in an encyclopedia. Dirty tricks also could refer to a more, much wider coverage of a certain subject, like "pranking". I also don't find it notable, despite the fact that indeed, dirt tricks are common in some places. But again, being famous doesn't mean it's a free pass to an article of itself. Dirty tricks usually, (just usually) don't have such reliable sources rather than news articles and these don't even focus on the nature of the so-called "trick". Should be deleted as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:N. | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 09:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a common English usage that does not require defining. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unneeded as WP is not a WP:DICTIONARY. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Room (The University of Melbourne)[edit]

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

non notable reproduction, seems promotional for the school and the architect DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previous PROD nominator. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only because of lack of sources. The room itself seems to be important enough for an article here.Borock (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists, has some history, and was significant enough to be recreated in the new Melbourne School of Design bulding. And there are plenty of sources to be found that mention it, here are some: [23], [24], [25]. "promotional for the school and the architect" - you could say the same for any example of architecture or interior design ever created! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - two sources, neither independent. Fails GNG and makes a fairly poor effort at asserting notability ("The Japanese Room is historically significant as it was built during 1963." - what?) yet it does seem plausible that sources could exist. Perhaps the article creator could help with that? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lee (voice actor)[edit]

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

A voice actor on video games, I can't see anything that would suggest he meets notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - voice actor does not establish notability independent of primary sources and databases. Lacking any sort of recognition in a reliable published source, this article is essentially a resume disguised as a Wikipedia article. —Mythdon 10:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ...tending towards Keep with the sources provided and the supporting Keep !vote post the re-listing. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HousingAnywhere[edit]

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

Appears to be an advert, non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely, none of what's listed is actually coming close to actual convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete advertising The Banner talk 09:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Source #1 - Forbes - Going Dutch: Sharing Economy Turns Student Project Into A Global Business

Source #2 - De Telegraaf - Woonruimte in 21 landen (Living space in 21 countries)

Source #3 - Der Freitag - Projekt Shelter Anywhere: Die Villa ist voll (Project Shelter Anywhere: The Villa is full)

Source #4 - Südkurier - Zeppelin-Universität führt neue Wohnungsbörse ein (Zeppelin University introduces new housing market)

Source #5 - emerce.nl - 1 miljoen dollar voor studentenplatform HousingAnywhere.com (1 million dollars for student platform HousingAnywhere.com)

Source #6 - universitypost.dk - New site could help student accommodation mess

This !vote was decided based on the General notability guideline. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources listed above, this company meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as nothing else has been suggested otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EPIK[edit]

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

Seems spammy: a company/government program that exists, but has next to no coverage about itself (the usual few mentions in passing can be found in the Google, of course). Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google Books search uncovers plenty of independent, reliable sources on this. The article itself is unfortunately poorly written and incorporates only sources that are not independent. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you cite some of those sources? Please keep in mind that mentions in passing do not suffice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sourcing seems sufficient; pls see, for example, a chapter from Globalization of Language and Culture in Asia: link. Here's substantial mention in Secondary School English Education in Asia: link. I believe this should be enough to sustain an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. User:K.e.coffman located and linked sources which are sufficient to address my concerns. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beaty[edit]

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

No evidence of real Notability. Appears to be (or have been) an ammeter Sunday League & Five-a-side Player who then played a couple of seasons of amateur American Football. A Similar article by the same author was nominated for deletion and the result was delete (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Thomas (American footballer)) Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not an expert of American football in Britain, but a quick Google search in the news turns up lots of articles about other people with the same name but not this individual. It also seems to me (unless I missed something) that the sources on the article fail WP:RS for the determination of notability. That, to me, points to a failure of WP:GNG. I would change my position if other information were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Z1 Android Watch-Phone[edit]

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

Article is not notable, product not available in retail Daylen (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of it.. Say, if it's a first [Android] watch, that is also a phone, then I think it's notable. Maybe even if just announced (is there a date announced when it will be available? For movies that is considered good enough). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. It doesn't seem to be particularly notable; there are other watch-phones out there. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chetvorno, any older you know of? I'm on the fence here, if it IS the oldest, then it's notable even if a market failure. It has a review. I did find others. At least if article deleted do not rewrite history, implying Android Wear have first watches with Android. I think it would be good to have an example of any older, or at least the oldest one in an article, such as smartwatch (and (Form factor (mobile_phones)]]), these and a lot of others link to it, supposedly including Android Wear (but I can't locate..). comp.arch (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I performed a Google search and it suggests that it does not receive coverage independent of retail sites or customer reviews. Mere product placement. —Mythdon 10:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Singing Ambassadors[edit]

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

A university choral group without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Xin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no reliable sources for notability. The previous afd had some keep opinions based on his work on Spark, ~~but he was just one of the people employed on that notable project--his highest position seems to have been release manager for one of the releases.~~ The other possible notability is his role in Databricks. Unfortunately, all the evidence for this comes from Databricks own blog,or from others sources simply quoting him on its importance, such as the wired.com reference (no.8) DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Xin's official title at Databricks is Chief Architect [26] Michaelmalak (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He's not really an academic, but looking at his citation record [27] he has some highly cited papers, but a relatively low h-index. I think this is an indication more that this is an especially high-citation area within CS, and less something that could be used to pass WP:PROF#C1. His current position in industry makes WP:GNG a more appropriate notability criterion but the case there is also weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally, it takes 20-30 years for technology to transition from academia to industry: Simula in the 1960s vs. C++ in the 1990s; Engelbart's mouse in 1968 vs. Macintosh in 1984; Engelbart's hypertext in 1968 vs. WWW in 1994. Spark breaks this pattern. It went straight from academia to industry; actually in an overlapped fashion as the researchers such as Reynold Xin had to finish their PhDs while Databricks was being launched. Therefore, in the case of the Spark developers, either looking at academic work in isolation or industry work in isolation does not portray notability. The combination must be considered. Reynold is the lead author on papers that constitute half the technologies in Spark, and Spark is one of the most important technologies in industry today.[28] Therefore, I think it's appropriate to consider the industry dollars as validation of Reynold's academic work. Michaelmalak (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Update 2016-09-21: I've edited the article to include WP:SECONDARY sources and work on new major components of Apache Spark. Michaelmalak (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with the deletion analysis, the concerns are listed here, and then there's nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reynold here. First of all, thanks for being considered. I am not going to comment on anything else because as I understand that is not the protocol. However, I would like to address one comment of David Eppstein's: "this is an indication more that this is an especially high-citation area within CS, and less something that could be used to pass". The reason I had a relatively high citation count (compared with the number of papers) is because three of the papers I wrote were some the most cited papers in their respected areas. My SIGMOD 2011 paper on CrowdDB was the paper with the highest number of citations in SIGMOD in 2011, and my SIGMOD 2013 paper on Shark was the highest in SIGMOD 2013, and my SIGMOD 2015 paper on Spark SQL was the highest cited in 2015. And the reasons why these papers have been highly cited are mostly due to my work on Spark -- it is the most popular data engine and all researchers working on these areas need to cite these and compare against it. Y10k (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdraw the nomination as sufficient has been presented to show his role. low h index is no bar, if what is published is important and much cited. As there's been another delete comment, I can't close it. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although a weak one) I still see it as a WP:TOOSOON.

The papers in SIGMOD are good, but I note that (1). There's just a couple of highly cited ones and (2). The citations rates in Computer Science are quite high and the values needs to be looked at in perspective. In addition Google scholar over estimates citation counts. For example, Scopus gives an h-index of 8 with the 159 citations for the best paper. This is much lesser than the Google scholar rates. I don't think this passes WP:PROF
The coverage in reliable secondary sources (independent of the subject) is sparse and considerably less than what is required.

The subject might be notable soon, but as of now this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 This has gone on long enough. Vanamonde (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barikad Crew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Sources discuss the band in relation to a tragedy that occurred, (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32]), but I have not found significant coverage about the band itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Barikad Crew was "responsible for the start of hip hop in Haiti."[33] [34] There are plenty sources via Google Books. Quite frankly this nomination was made without any due diligence and/or overlooked and is a waste of time. No offense, but this article just needs adequate sourcing. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Savvyjack23 (talk · contribs)'s sources. Here is the book source Savvjack23 listed:
2. Hall, Michael R. (2012). Historical Dictionary of Haiti. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810878100. Retrieved 2016-09-26.
  The book notes:
  BARIKAD CREW. Haitian hip-hop band. Established in 2002 in Port-au-Prince, the group raps in Kreyòl about lifestyles and living conditions in Haiti's slums. Barikad Crew released its first single ("Projé Project") in 2003. By 2006, Barikad Crew was one of the most popular music groups in Haiti. At the annual Kanaval celebrations held in 2006, their song "Trip N'ap Trip" was greeted with great acclaim by their fans. The 11-member group released its first album in 2007. Three of the group's members died in a car accident on 15 June 2008, and one of its members, Young Cliff, died in the January 2010 earthquake. Neverthless, Barikad Crew has managed to rebound from its losses and continues to perform.
Cunard (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'm seeing mentions of the band in academic / book sources such as Obeah and Other Powers: The Politics of Caribbean Religion and Healing; Del tango al reggae. Músicas negras de América Latina y del Caribe; and Construction d'une Haïti nouvelle: vision et contribution du GRAHN, among others. It's not frequent that you see these types of mentions for run-of-the-mill music bands. Appears to have been a notable development in Haiti's popular culture. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bone Collector Williams[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NSPORTS guidelines, specifically WP:NHSPHSATH. WP:NCOLLATH is debatable though. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in ESPN, USA Today, NY Times and Bleacher Report. Easily passes GNG. BlackAmerican (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Seniors Insurance Agency[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable. The refs are not what they seem: they just discuss general problems, and just mention the company, or they are disguised advertorials using the company as a source. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, promotional and the sources are problematic as noted - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an insurance agency sourced only to routine coverage of the financial results of a firm with whom they have a relationship, and which does not mention the subject of the article. As to the firm itself, there is some press coverage, predominantly in January 2016 relating to the announcement of their Over-50s product, but I am not seeing anything to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I've found some RS, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I could find was this and this, which is basically about routine product announcements, and which doesn't include enough information to build an encyclopedic article on. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Cabrera[edit]

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

Alicia Cabrera was Miss Kansas USA. This alone is not enough to make her notable. I have searched for additional sources. I found an article that may have been written by her at a time she may have been working as a journalist. However I found no clear evidence this is by the same person, and her name is very common, there is a medical doctor in Florida by this name, who based on photo comparison is clearly not the same person, and YouTube turned up a competitor in the Miss Nicaragua 2014 competition with this name. She is one of five Alicia Cabrera's identified by IMDb, none of whom are anywhere close to notable. Neither source in the article passes the reliable and indepdent source critria, since one is IMDb which is not reliable per our guidelines, and the other is her own webstie. I did find this source [35] which is no where near what we would want. At first I thought it was the Kansas City Real estate agents congratulating Cabrera, but on further review it seems to just be her employer doing so. On further digging I did find this source [36] which seems to be produced largely at her urging, when your listing is Aliciacabrera.tv I think that is unlikely to be indepdent, but it does suggest the news article I found might have been written by her, but having a news article you wrote published is far below the notability guidelines. I actually made all edits to this article, except a few related to categorization, so I probably could request speedy deletion, but I am going to let this go through regular review. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added an article from Topkea's Capital-Journal on Cabrera winning the Miss Kansas USA title. Still not enough to overcome the one event issues with Miss USA state level wins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worthy of inclusion in the main article but not finding anything to pass WP:GNG or any other measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polly O'Flynn[edit]

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

Non-notable artist - this might look impressive at first glance, since her work appears to have been exhibited at the V&A and Royal College of Art, but on closer inspection both of those were as part of shows of student work, for a program that she was enrolled in as a student. This is not enough to confer notability per WP:ARTIST (which requires that their work be a "significant part of a substantial exhibition" - I very much doubt a student exhibition counts) and there's no evidence of the depth and breadth of coverage in independent reliable sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not had exhibitions on the level that would constitute notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. No significant critical attention, no exhibitions or monographs. Mduvekot (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platform9[edit]

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

A very small and non-notable company. The references are the usual routine notices that all new technology companies get. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a student article, would anyone mind if I just moved it into their sandbox where (hopefully) they can find better sources (if they exist)? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC) (See my comment below. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

since this is a student article, wouldn't it be s good idea if WikiEd helped the people running to become themselves better educated about WP? I recognize the difficulty in getting people to write non-promotionally when their world is filled with advertising but the changes since nomination (apparently by a different student than the one who wrote the initial version) have made it even worse. This does not augur well for the likelihood of further improvements. Ian (Wiki Ed), where can we find a list of other contributions from this class? DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG - I managed to misinterpret the page history entirely. (I should know better than to try editing before coffee.) You're quite right. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Course page is here. Full contribs are here Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination & WP:ROUTINE. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. Maybe if it stays around long enough to attract more notability, but far too much product detail in this one for such a small company. W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. With content such as "Motivation: Cloud and IT service providers are expected to provide public cloud features like scalability..." this is a WP:WEBHOST articles for the company's product brochure / investment prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator is exact with his analysis; the only apparent explanations and uses this article serves is for PR and PR only; none of this actually substantiates a both notable and non-PR article. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like this will be deleted as per WP:NOTPROMO. For what it's worth, a neutral article could be written, based upon available sources that are not public relations content; the topic itself meets WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, bylined news articles written by staff writers have been published in independent, reliable sources about the company. Source examples include, but are not limited to, the examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

You should know better than those Forbes links - those are blog post, not articles from Forbes the RS. Both explicitly state right there on the page "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The other links do suggest there might be substance for an article, but whether it's longer than a paragraph is another matter. But someone could do a rewrite in place easily enough before we finish here ... might be, ahahaha, a student exercise - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Well the Forbes articles are Forbes contributor articles, but I do know better that WP:NEWSBLOG often allows these types of sources to be used when the articles undergo the news organization's normal fact-checking process. I wonder if these articles went through such process or not. The statement "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" is surely true, but if Forbes published it, one would think that Forbes editors approved it in some manner. As a business magazine with national circulation in the United States of around 931,558 (a significant readership), I doubt that Forbes would allow tripe to be published on their website. Also, inre the credentials of the authors of these articles, upon viewing the biographies of them, they are professionals in the industry, which is a stipulation of WP:NEWSBLOG for such sources to be usable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"if Forbes published it, one would think that Forbes editors approved it in some manner" You might think that, but it's observably false about the stuff they allow on forbes.com/sites - unless it says "from the print edition" or "Forbes staffer", it really is just some random blogger, usually writing a corporate-sponsored op-ed. (I can't find it at a moment's notice, but there's a nice article I read by someone who ghosts corporate op-eds for Forbes blogs as a fabulously lucrative freelance gig.) And yes, many people think Forbes are setting their brand on fire for this. But they are in fact doing it. tl;dr if it's on forbes.com/sites and isn't a paid staffer or "from the print edition", it's some random bozo with a blog; if it isn't, then treat it as an RS. If it's a blogger who is a notable source, then maybe it's an RS - are they, say notable enough to have their own article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- even with the sources above, I believe it would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. For example, the Network World coverage is titled "Platform9 is the latest to ease the container deployment woes" and contains quotes from the founder:

“For forward-looking organizations that are taking a containerized approach to applications for greater agility and efficiency, Kubernetes provides a powerful orchestration framework for DevOps workflows,” said Madhura Maskasky, co-founder and vice president of product at Platform9.

This type of coverage indicates to me the company is an up-and-comer, actively seeking publicity, and the subject is not ready for an encyclopedia article yet. "The latest" in the headline above also indicates a run-of-the-mill company, not a pioneer in a given technology. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Polak[edit]

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

Rapper, but there are few sources and nothing I see suggests he passes Wikipedia:Notability (musicians). Also, no article on pl wiki, and that has a much more lax criteria for inclusion, which is a red flag. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. Does not meet WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable raper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeesa DeFlorias[edit]

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

I figure with fewer than 20 beauty pageant related nominations pending it is safe to open more. In this case, DeFlorias is a particularly clear case of being non-notable. At first I figured it would not be. However although I found evidence that she has worked in television reporting, nothing at the level of reliable source evidence to show she is notable for such. I found her Linkedin page, which cannot be used as a reliable, 3rd party source, which shows a few more recent positings and suggests she is a sbstantial journalist in the Pensacola, Florida market. However we would need actual reliable source coverage showing she is impactful and notied as such to go anywhere with it. Actually she evidently came back to Phoenix just over a year ago. Linkedin is meant to be promotional, but it seems like this was a step down for her, although media markets are funny things. Still, not everyone who has been a main news anchor of a big three (ABC, NOB, CBS) affiliate is notable. looking at the article we have on WEAR-TV we see no mention of DeFlorias, which is not direct evidence, but it shows there is not any sustained attempt to have articles on all local TV news anchors. Beyond Linkedin all the sources I could find were YouTube clips, IMDB (mainly for her being in the Miss USA pageant) and Wikipedia mirrors. I did not come across any media mentions of DeFlorias winning Miss Arizona USA. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking a High Beam search might help. It didn't. I learned that Nafeesa DeFlorias was master of ceremonies at Miss Asia Arizona one year, which suggests to me she might be Filipina, but I can't say. I also came across two sources that discuss an Arizona State University service learning course, that are both largely dependent on an ASU press release, that include a quote from here just because she had taken the course. Nothing substantial at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summary This article is currently built on no reliable sources, and my searches have produced none. Other than her winning Miss Arizona USA, she has worked in various media markets as a TV news reporter/anchor, but nothing that has gotten substantial coverage, she is no where near passing the General Notability Guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. Also agree we're at a point where opening more is sensible now that the backlog has cleared and I appreciate the nominator's care this time around. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isifa Image Service[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Prod declined by anon years ago, but the rules still say we have to take it here, so - sigh. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems unusual that a digital economy firm would have an Under Construction sign as its website presence, apparently for a year or more. My searches are finding only directory listings for this firm, the best being the profile here, but that is insufficient as evidence of notability whether as a local agency or in its own right. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Poorly sourced and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 nomination and the "delete" side contend that the article fails WP:N and WP:V for having no substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject. This is an argument based in core policy, and it would need to be rebutted by the "keep" side with references to reliable sources that indeed provide the sort of coverage we require. However, I don't see "keep" opinions that actually cite any sources. Instead, they go on about how important the award is, how the "delete" side are prudes, etc. These opinions must be disregarded for not addressing the arguments for deletion, as must the ones that do not actually provide any arguments, or that insist that a special standard of sourcing should be applied to porn articles: there is no such exception in WP:V or other policies. Taking into account only opinions based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we have unanimous consensus to delete. Sandstein 20:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Award for Best New Starlet[edit]

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

This "product" produced by Adult News Video (AVN) has no coverage in independent and reliable (third party) sources. 51 out of 52 references are promotional AVN materials and are therefore do not qualify as independent coverage. The only other reference not so far mentioned provides only very brief passing mentions twice in the whole article. Fails GNG, CORP, ORGIND, and INHERITORG. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not a directory and is not a repository per WP:DIRECTORY. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you serious? I keep getting speachless. This award is 30 years old, existing since the first AVN Awards, the 2nd highest honour a porn actress could ever get and has not randomly been the probably first award category to get an article here (more than 10 years ago). "[Brooklyn] Lee won the coveted award for Best New Starlet at the 2012 AVN Awards.", says ABC. Once again, why should someone prove an award winner with a random news source instead of a watertight, complete and official list (your so called "product"). Also, even if there were no other sources (which is NOT the case) trivial statistic articles are extremely common. Please stop fantasizing about the opposite. UEFA Euro 2016 Group A consists of nothing but official UEFA sources. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your source has a barely passing mention of this award, maybe three words; five words if you include the name of the awardeee. This is not significant coverage per GNG. The age of the award and the age of this article has no relevance without sources that independently give significant coverage to this award, per WP:NRV. And unfortunately the watertight list you refer to is full of leaky holes when it comes to determining notability because these are not independent of the topic, in fact they are enmeshed.

As I wrote above, 51 out of 52 article references are AVN promotional materials, and AVN is the company that uses these awards to promote porn videos. It manufactures fantasy histories for its performers - even WikiProject Pornograhy says that. What you call random news sources, which sounds like indpendent sources to me, are exactly what is required to have a stand alone article on Wikipeida. To see why we have this criteria please see WP:WHYN.

I see that you wrote, "Even if there were no other sources (which is not the case)..." This is exactly the case. There are no reliable sources, which are the other sources you seem to be referring to - other than promotional materials that promote AVN as a company and magazine. Unfortunately, UEFA Euro 2016 Group A is not related at all to this discussion. There are many articles on Wikipedia that need work or to be deleted such as UEFA Euro 2016 Group A. This is not a rationale for keeping this or any article WP:OTHERCRAP.

It seems there is an unfamiliarity with notability criteria - as if any random assertion or source confers notability. I shouldn't have to write a wall of text to point out discrepancies regarding GNG or ORG and so on.

Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that I wouldn't feed the (actually pretty arragont) troll too much by wasting my time with satisfying his non-existant believes of Wikipedia list articles. So, I took a random serious source, noticed that it was only one sentence but didn't want to waste more of the time I've already so much wasted for nothing here (instead of writing the article of an Argentine 19th century politician I wanted to write weeks ago), hoped that your common sense would let you understand what it means when ABC calles your so called "product" (only the oldest AVN Award from a time, when there was definitely no popular porn promotion) "coveted" and mainly just wanted to go to sleep and would have prefered to never see this grotesque man-on-a-mission-AfD-hell again. Oh, and how hard is it to understand that sources report from a whole award and not single award categories? Btw, "which is not the case" was refering to research! At the same time I negated the need of such sources with "why should someone prove an award winner with a random news source instead of a watertight, complete and official list". --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC) P. S.: Please try to delete the system football articles have established in many years. It won't work because it isn't porn.[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is not an article, but a malformatted list, a coatrack to display preferred images of porn actresses. That its supporters think an image of Jenna Jameson in lingerie sticking her hand into her crotch has encyclopedic value is pretty telling. In no other field do we maintain articles in this format -- oversized images, nominee longlists, absence of meaningful text, etc. If this list is to be kept, it should be restored to a more normal format, like this version [37], rather than the current porn-only anomalous display format. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice insult: There is nothing prefered but fully historic. It isn't my fault that we only have one 90's photo of Jenna Jameson you have such a big problem with. I would wish to have a better one on Commons, but a 2008 photo for a 1995 honour is definitely not a better one... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image of Jenna Jameson sticking her hand in her crotch is the result of User:Guy1890's insistance that all photos in this catagory must have been taken in the year the performer won the award, regardless of how bad the photo is. I guess this is the only photo of Jenna Jameson that WikiCommons has of Jenna taken in 1996. Glenn Francis (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quinn has obviously not done any research himself and merely has checked references created by the creator. This type of nomination causes fatigue in other editors as they are not forewarned about developments and may suddenly have to work-off schedule. That is obviously a sign of disrespect towards fellow editors by Steve Quinn. Also, articles such as sexophobia prove that an animus towards explicit forms of sexuality is not fiction, and such editors' eligibility for nominating or editing anything related to sexuality may be under question due to an inherent bias. In a nutshell, the reason this article should not be deleted for the same reason the BBC Sports Personality Of The Year shouldn't be - its the most prominent award in UK sport. Likewise, AVN and its derivatives constitute the most prominent award in the porn world. It goes without saying. I believe such a nomination is so out of the ordinary that its possible even newspapers or tabloids might find it worth reporting on it how odd it is. Lets ask Quinn whether he would accept the most prominent technology-related award-related article to be deleted from Wikipedia? No? What about eh most prominent body-building award? No? Sounds ridiculous right? Then why shouldn't this sound equally ridiculous? Its illogical nominations like this that make me consider quitting Wikipedia for good. Whats the point of creating content when editors purge content on the flimsiest of grounds. There should be a warning on the article creation page that the prevalence of deletionists on Wikipedia is actually quite surprisingly high. I've always been astonished by the logic (or is that illogic) employed by prudes. You would think if they dislike certain content they would try to avoid it. Instead what Wikipedia prudes do is they go after it relentlessly. As if it is their hallmark to attack anything representing the naked body. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I haven't done any research myself then prove this by producing reliable sources, which means independent of the subject, and significant coverage. Appealing to sympathy is not an effective argument for keeping an article - I can't seem to find "forewarning" and "work-off schedule" or "suddenly" in the notability criteria.

Phrases such as "sign of disrespect", "animus", "prudes" and "bias" as personal attacks are not convincing arguments for "keep" - I don't see these in the notability criteria. Also, the way you have confused sexuality with porn is a POV issue. Asserting this is the most prominent award for anything does not make it the most prominent, and is so far not backed up with independent reliable sourcing. Also, as per the above - notability is not inherited - for any product WP:INHERITORG.

Also, per WP: PRUDE - "we can't keep articles with topics that don't meet the notability criteria because we are not designed for indiscriminate collections of information and images WP:IINFO - a core content policy. Sorry about that." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 'Best New Starlet' is one of AVN's most important awards. This is Porn. Major reliable mainstream publications who fact-check and investigate everything they say do not regularly feature articles on porn - in fact it's very rare. And rarer still is any investigation or fact-checking because nobody really knows, or even really cares, what goes on in the porn industry including most of the people who are in it. Steve Quinn's insistence that only articles from reliable fact-checking Mainstream publications who are as clueless about the porn industry as a new-born baby are allowed to be sources. And since these types of sources who regularly run articles on porn are virtually non-existent, Quinn insists that since porn related articles are not sourced from non-existent sources, they should be deleted. And that is the basis of practically every one of Quinn's misguided arguments. Glenn Francis (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia requirements for WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources do not get suspended because "Major reliable mainstream publications who fact-check and investigate everything they say do not regularly feature articles on porn". This goes along the lines of Special pleading and is generally discounted in deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with Wolfowitz's contention that the article format needs to change from the current style to one more in line with other articles. Tabercil (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shall e. g. every politician in a list of government posts have a photo helping the reader to understand their name but a winner of the highest award which he/she could reach in their entertainment genre shall have as less (so bad and of course only porn fans "satifying"...) photos as possible? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting is a maintenance edit. This is not a convincing argument for "Keep" based on content policies or notability guidelines. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable award, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as all pornography articles, you dont like it. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man - This, This, This and This all indicate I do like pornography articles, Might be a good idea to read and fully understand WP:IDONTLIKEIT before accusing others of it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is at best a list of those who received the award, and were nominated for it. The article says nothing meaningful about the award itself and no sources are provided that discuss the subject. I also note that 15 people are nominated each year, making the list of nominees essentially meaningless, making the article a WP:DIRECTORY / WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DEL8 as clearly failing GNG, the relevant notability guideline. Feigned shock, polemics about deletionists and anti-sex bias, and inept comparisons to notable awards notwithstanding, there is simply no significant coverage of this subject in independent, plausibly-reliable sources. (Good Morning America 's description of the award as "coveted" is not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination.) Also, there is nothing wrong with the article's use of primary sources: the problem is that primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. See WP:NRVE. I strongly suggest that the retention proponents make some minimal effort to locate independent sources that do more than mention the award in passing, as the existing votes are unconvincing. Cf. WP:NEXIST ("[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."). Rebb ing 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could be considered a content fork for the AVN Awards for one of its most significant categories. The problem is, is it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK since the information is there in the page; just hard to quickly view year to year with the other categories there too? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually considering the extra information in the individual articles are nominations and photos, I'm going to vote delete. Wikipedia is not a gallery and the nominations can viewed from the main page through the external links to the archived AVN pages or individual years' articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Verifiability is a core content policy and it states that we need to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The vast majority of the references in this article are published by AVN itself and are therefore not third party sources. One source is a brief ABC gossip item that mentions that someone tweeted a photo of Bill Clinton standing next to one of the award winners. That is a passing mention and not significant coverage, and therefore does not establish notability. This article fails a core content policy and a widely accepted guideline. Any article about an award in any area of human endeavor that relies on such poor quality references should either be deleted or brought into compliance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and therefore does not establish notability." As at least 70 % of the Wikipedia lists do not, as well. I'm really happy now that bad quality and lacking (but still existing) sources (brought to the article from a random article author) are work of the so called "quality management" sites in the German Wikipedia and no accepted AfD-reasons for a generally relevant topic (defined by meeting our relevance criteria).

And I've naively thought it could be better here (as we have many deletion discussions as well), but it is not. It's the opposite. I'll mainly say goodbye, English Wikipedia (especially AfD hell), and just keep on spending your time with AfDs about topics you naturally probably don't care about. I have done that enough now (I'm not really that much of a porn fan, actually, niether a fan of deletion discussions in general and have very different interests in my everyday Wikipedia) but poorly wasted my time with trying to save some articles I had never a chance with. I guess Larry Sanger was not too wrong with demanding a chief editor and topic experts, as in that case we wouldn't have to hold these horrible deletion discussions. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Just to get it clear: I might occasionally give the one or the other comment in AfDs, yet, hopefully I won't.[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence that this is more than just PR for the award. Teh refs, as has been noted, are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding me? This is a highly important reward, very notable. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- notable according to whom? What are the independent reliable sources that discuss this topic directly and in detail? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to a lack of reliable third party sources. If mainstream publications don't write fact checked articles about something, that's usually an indication that it is not notable, and I see no compelling reason why porn should be given a free pass on this count. Absent that, the only sourcing we have here is the usual astroturf and marketing fluff we see in promotional articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Remy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been nominated before, and I fail to see where this isn't WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the coverage says "Jerry Remy's son" or some variation thereof, especially the non-local coverage like the Daily Mail (which I thought we considered a tabloid anyway. This is not a WP:CRIME-type article where the crime itself is noteworthy. The majority of the sources are local, with 24 references from just one Boston Globe article. None of this would be notable if this was some random person, especially in the United States. As it stands, it's only maintained such because of the connection to Jerry Remy. MSJapan (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes this article has been through two previous AfD with clear Keep results. Little more than 2 years ago. This one clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. There are also good sources to verify. BabbaQ (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including the Boston Globe, Seattle Times [38], Bangor Daily News [39], RDS [40], ABC News [41], CBS News [42], USA Today [43], and LA Times [44] for three separate incidents over the course of eight years. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom is misreading NOTINHERITED in putting a spin on it the rule doesn't warrant. I quite agree that if Jared Remy wasn't Jerry Remy's son, the media wouldn't give a damn about him, just the same way that no one would give a damn about the Kardashian sisters if Kim Kardashian never had been in the public eye. The GNG, however, makes no value judgments as to the reason someone is in the public eye, and we have no business doing so either at AfD. Jared plainly meets the GNG in his own right, however many of those sources namedrop his father. Ravenswing 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Babba et al. --Seduisant (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references prove notability. Possible snow? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Editors who argued in favour of keeping this article largely cited WP:PORNBIO as the subject is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. While true, this is a guideline on notability, and does not replace the core requirement for articles to have been the subject of secondary sources of reliable information, as argued by delete/redirect voters. No such reliable secondary sources were presented and no convincing arguments were made that a lack of independent sources was acceptable. I thus find that there is a stronger argument against keeping the article, with a redirect being the most sensible option. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha (actor)[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY listing of a BLP on an unremarkable actor, with no meaningful bio data present. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet GNG. The award category "Unsung Swordsman" is not significant and well known thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO.

Edit: the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion (diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability. The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN.

Edit #2: The article now contains an additional paragraph, but the sources are either primary (IAFD) or run-of-the-mill, such as Class of 2016: The AVN Hall of Fame Inductees from AVN, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does his award meet WP:PORNBIO? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the "unsung" portion of it suggests that it does not. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO AND GNG–Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below - Having relooked at the discussion redirect is more beneficial to the reader than simply wiping them off of the entire project, IMHO you shouldn't just get an article just because you've been in some hall of fame (just like I don't believe singers should get their own article just becuase they've had 1 charted single ... I'm going off topic here, Point is all articles should meet GNG which this doesn't however redirecting is better than deleting.) –Davey2010^Talk 03:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors with both a well-known/significant non-scene/ensemble award win and an AVN Hall of Fame induction. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A proposal to delete a performer who's been inducted into AVN's Hall of fame? - That is not merely unconscionable, but rather criminal insanity! Glenn Francis (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion (diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability; the entire article consists of "Sascha (born 24 October 1976 in Leonberg, Germany) is a German pornographic film actor and director"; list of awards; and infobox.

The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN; the article provides no meaningful bio data, and redirection to a list would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You did see the Hall of Fame? (and just didn't even mention it) While a Hall of Famer is a great sign for a probable article improvement, being a stub is no general reason for deletion. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only unique contribution for his Hall of Fame but also for starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, Who's Nailin' Paylin, an iconic feature, which has made Lisa Ann extremely famous. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing in such a release doesn't satisfy PORNBIO. Lisa Ann is the only star of that video; just look at the boxcover. A settled issue; this claim doesn't make the cut. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the box cover says it all... Who cares about the persons who e. g. pictured Hillary Clinton, Condolleeza Rice or Bill O'Reilly. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've noticed now that the box cover even has the names of the male performers written on it, something, which is very unusual for porn covers and probably only done because the movie has been so popular. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Another BLP without biographical content or independent reliable sourcing, for a performer known only by a generic mononym. That's how this would be handled in any other field, if such an article would be kept at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no this is actually absolutely not how a stub of e. g. Football tournament participants would be handled. I would rather guess that at least 80 % of 1908 olympic participants (in all sports) are stubs. Oh, and did you notice that there are also other known entertainers in this world that have a mononym? Like Cro (singer) who actually nobody in the world knows about who he is without a mask. Oh, and funnily it just came to my mind that there is a German singer called de:Sasha (Sänger) as well. However, it must be impossible to be known in the world if one doesn't have a last name. Great argument. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO per criteria (2) for being member of AVN Hall of Fame. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. The subject seems to meet PORNBIO points 1 and 2(c), but it doesn't appear there is any nontrivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is meaningful coverage that may or may not meet GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. Cf. WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); WP:Notability § Why we have these requirements. Rebb ing 04:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our core content policy Verifiability require that we base articles on reliable, third party sources. This article lacks any reliable third party sources. Interpretation of PORNBIO (a guideline which is a failure as a useful tool) cannot override the failure of this article to comply with a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with a quote from the recent close of the AfD for the Kristina Rose article, deleted on 27 August:

"Finally and perhaps most importantly, arguably meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on WP:BIO, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a WP:BLP about a sensitive subject matter."

More details at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose for the additional closing arguments. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD decesion has already been a big joke, when I've read it the last time. The whole explanation says in short: Discussion is irrelevant, I [the Admin] will uncompromisingly decide it anyway (and for whatever reason only name delete comments in my whole explanation). I would already have brought that to WP:Deletion review if I would speak English more fluently and have more time. Also, may I remember you about WP:OTHERCRAP? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't remember since when stub articles (which are also absolutely common in sports) are forbiden. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Stub articles are not forbidden, but like every article, they must comply with our core content policies. This article doesn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a stub in any way comply with content policies about sourcing when the definition of a stub is that it literally consists of nothing more than 1 or 2 basic sentences? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SamWinchester000: Acceptable stubs that will not be deleted will have at least two references to reliable, third party sources. Many stubs have much more than two sentences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep NOTE: I've recently made some preliminary edits to the article in question here for the time being, and I'm sure that the article can be expanded further in the future. The subject here (who's full stage name is apparently "Sascha Koch" - maybe this article should be moved there?) "has won a well-known and significant industry award" (namely the XRCO Award, which is one of the longest-running & most well-known adult film industry awards, "Unsung Swordsman" award, which is a significant award category) and has also been recently inducted into "an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame".

I would note that the recent proposed change to PORNBIO (which apparently does not seem to have consensus yet?) did not remove the "is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame" wording from PORNBIO. Also, the recent "Kristina Rose" AfD is irrelevant to consideration of this article here, since Ms. Rose has not been inducted into "an industry hall of fame" at all. Guy1890 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per guy1890. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, IAFD isn't a "primary" source - it's a site that usually gets its information from the adult film industry producers that have to verify that their performers are of age and/or legal to shoot adult films in the USA. It's actually been a rarity that I've personally seen IAFD-related info be proven wrong by other sources. Guy1890 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- @Guy1890: isn't IAFD substantially similar to IMDB, which is not considered RS for establishing notability? The linked article states:

"It is similar to the Internet Movie Database, in that it is open to the public and is searchable. (...) Like the IMDb, forms are used for submitting data corrections, though the IAFD's form is considerably simpler than the IMDb's. ...

A clarification would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb isn't considered reliable for its biographies, only for its filmographies (the IMDb awards sections are often very comprehensive though - I personally wouldn't use them as a first choice to cite award info though). IAFD is widely considered reliable for its basic biographical information in the adult film industry, which would hardly ever qualify anyone as notable on Wikipedia in any event. IAFD is certainly not a "primary source" by any stretch of the imagination. Guy1890 (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy1890: it appears that we agree that IAFD does not represent WP:SIGCOV for the purpose of establishing notability or meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Harrington[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Coverage is extremely minimal and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (actress) (2nd nomination), UK Adult Film and Television Awards is not a qualifying criteria for WP:PORNBIO. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 13 September 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) 02:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis and per the case made in my original PROD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails pornbio & gng. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHYN -- no meaningful biographical content or RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhisa Yamada[edit]

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

Director for the third series in Robotech and episode directed many others from the 1980s. However, not much sourcing to write up a biography. Retain as stub? 25 entries in MADB though. [45] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable animator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A number of credits but most of them are for random OVA's or shared roles on tv series. A problem with shared roles is episode counts. I'm not sure there is enough here to warrant an article.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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