The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FMJAM[edit]

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

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

• Delete. Completely unsourced article which contradicts itself about whether the topic is a radio station or a radio program. No reliable source coverage shown at all, but neither radio stations nor radio programs get an exemption from having to be properly sourced per WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NMEDIA I was also unsuccessful in locating any reliable sources for notability verification. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --BCD 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Thailand. MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apantree Prayuttasenee[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP (created before 18 March 2010). Brianga (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article has a total and complete lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is really old. The Thai search term for the article is อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ . Google search [1] found several match, including a clip [2] from Thai Film Archive. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old magazines from 1969 with her photo on the cover: Magazine #1 Kwan Ruean [3], Magazine #2 Phadung Silp [4] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: article is no longer an unsourced BLP. Pinging Brianga and Johnpacklambert. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still support a delete under WP:BIO for lack of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Brianga (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: National-level major pageant winner from the pre-google era. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As best as I can tell the sources involve extremely passing mentions of her, nothing to suggest it is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Thailand as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there has been consensus that there's no automatic inheritance of an article for simply being a pageant member; none of this comes close at all for actually establishing independent notability or substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The magazine covers provided by Lerdsuwa suggest in-depth coverage exists and would be possible to find in a good library. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Thailand as suggested by Northamerica1000. I don't find her to be notable per Wikipedia's standards, but IMO redirection is almost always to be preferred to deletion if a valid target exists. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Subject is not notable under more than one section. This is not even an acceptable stub article let alone a BLP stub. There is just not enough coverage. Placing in the top 15 in Miss Universe 1968 is not notable. One reference even states "But the ultimate success happens in the next six years later, when the name of "Apasra Hongsaku" was announced on stage at the Miss Universe held in Miami, Florida, USA", and she placed 15th? Otr500 (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Typically we keep articles that win their nationally-recognized pageant. Winning Miss Thailand in 1967 strongly suggests there are plenty of off-line sources to verify existence and notability to pass WP:GNG. I'm willing to assume good faith and keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and advise you read the article first before you decide the article should be deleted because you never heard of the subject. --BCD 05:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebbing 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOW! I guess I just naturally assume too much good faith to consider that I have to look at every editor to see if there is a !vote stacking vandal. New area for me--- how does one comment, or use WIkipedia at all, using what looks like an account, that redirects to a car article? Otr500 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha! Well, you'd be surprised. I often double-check diffs for edits to talk pages, especially to make sure signatures and alterations correspond to the correct editors. The popups tool helps a bit. This isn't the first time I've spotted something like this; stealth editing of others' comments happens occasionally too.

        The vote was actually made by an IP, not a logged-in editor. Have a look at the diff. The signature was manually typed out. "On the Internet, nobody knows you're an article about a car." From what I gather, BCD was blocked years ago for seriously problematic behavior. He claims he wants back into the fold, but evading his block to cast poorly-researched votes at AFD is not the way to alleviate community concerns. I don't know why he added ((bots|deny)). Rebbing 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments" Alright, I looked at both references again (translated) after reading " no longer an unsourced BLP" and removed both. There was not even any extremely passing mentions of the subject. Listing a reference, just to show an article has one, is not cool. !Voting keep with "suggest in-depth coverage exists" is not backed by any policy, guideline, or even essay concerning a BLP. !voting keep with "Typically we keep articles that win their nationally-recognized pageant.", means we should take a far better look at beauty pageant BLP subjects that are not referenced or referenced with primary sources only, as there is no inheritability concerning notability on Wikipedia. A primary source can not be used to advance notability. !voting keep with "suggest in-depth coverage exists" might be alright on some article that is not a BLP. Because a source may be "out there somewhere" does not mean we can have an article on a subject. User Montanabw gave the only rationale that might be an actual consideration "Adequate indicia of notability" but again, this is a BLP and the many WP:policies and guidelines like WP:EVENT, and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS provides that if an event is notable then cover it but adding hundreds of non-sourced BLP's just because, does not help Wikipedia. I have no idea what the keep comments from user BCD means.

• A closing admin will know we don't just use a "vote" count on Wikipedia and a !vote for "redirect" still means the editor feels (or better shows with rationale) that a subject does not warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. I have !voted AFD keeps based on some less than ideal coverage but this subject fails notability.

On the WP:BIO notability guideline "This page in a nutshell" states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article.". WP:BLP states "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and this includes Tabloid journalism which is how many of these micro-stub articles are sourced. These things (just a couple) are what we are mandated (by a broad community consensus) to comply with for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia. I am a proponent of articles on local things, and also BLP's, that are more local (as apposed to national or international) but a non-referenced (under referenced or primary sourced referenced) one paragraph entry on a living person is against all Wikipedia stands for.

Also, I looked at the Google search (first example by user Lerdsuwa) and there is still no specific mention of the subject. The second youtube Miss Donaldson's College. Prayuth Seni Miss Thailand is not specfically about the subject. The 3rd: The 20-year-old magazine Phadungsin No. 10 Friday, February 2512 cover of Pat's Prayuth Seni is about Pat's Prayuth Seni and I didn't look at the 4th. Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be placing a little too much faith in Google Translate. Please use your common sense. Just because Google is unable to translate her name doesn't mean that all those links are about someone else. Why else would อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ be in the title? Also, both references that were removed from the article were actually directly supporting the citing statements: that she entered the round of 15 at Miss Universe 1968, and that she played the leading role in Saeng Sun on Channel 7. That they're passing mentions do not detract from the fact that they are verifiable references. I've reverted the removals. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments to Paul 012 : I could get translations on every other name but the subject in both references. You admit there is no notability, per the references supplied but was totally vague with "Just because Google is unable to translate her name doesn't mean that all those links are about someone else. Why else would อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ be in the title?", you then added, "Also, both references that were removed from the article were actually directly supporting the citing statements:". I ran 3 different translators, and I did not come up with the words Apantree Prayuttasenee in any of them. I also ran อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ thru 3 different translators and I will be surprised if your ""vagueness" of a question turns into ---- that her name is in there. Can you please show me the exact passages in the references that actually use the name as identified by the title of this article? I actually do not place much faith in Google translations, as far as sentences, but it seems three of them can be used to identify proper nouns. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Translate is complete rubbish when translating Thai, especially proper nouns which don't appear in the dictionary. Heck, inputting just her name into Google Translate gives "Studies at the University Prayuth Seni." which is obviously gibberish. Why don't you just copy her name in Thai script and search for it in the original language to see if it's on those pages? Anyway, to answer your question:

• The Thairath ref covers her in this paragraph:

  ต่อมาในปีพุทธศักราช 2511 ความงามแบบฉบับของสาวไทยของ "อภันตรี ประยุทธ์เสนีย์" ดีกรีนักเรียนนอกจากปีนัง ยังเข้าตากรรมการ สามารถทะลุเข้าไปในรอบ 15 คนสุดท้ายของเวทีมิสยูนิเวิร์สในปีนั้นได้สำเร็จ ซึ่งแม้จะไม่สามารถคว้าชัยกลับบ้านได้ แต่ก็ช่วยสร้างภาพลักษณ์ใหม่ให้กับสาวไทย ที่มีความทันสมัยและสามารถสื่อสารภาษาอังกฤษได้อย่างคล่องแคล่ว

  Properly translated, it should read something like

  Later, in 1968, the Thai-style beauty of "Apantree Prayutsenee"—with a foreign degree from Penang—also charmed the judges and took her to the round of 15 in that year's Miss Universe pageant. Though she didn't win the contest, she nevertheless helped build a new image for Thai ladies, that of a modern woman fluently conversant in English."

  You wouldn't know though if you relied on Google's translation, which reads:

  Later in the year AD 2511 beauty typical of Thailand's Girl "by Pat Prayut Seni bachelor's" degree students in Penang. The eyes of Can penetrate into the 15 finalists of Miss Universe that year successfully. Although unable to win back home. It helped create a new image for the girl Thailand. With a modern and able to speak English fluently.

• The Khaosod ref mentions her in this paragraph:

  นิรุตติ์ เข้าสู่วงการบันเทิงด้วยการชักชวนของ เทิ่ง สติเฟื่อง สู่วงการแสดงละครทีวี ละครเรื่องแรกคือ แสงสูรย์ รับบทพระรอง โดยมีภิญโญ ทองเจือ เป็นพระเอก คู่กับ อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนี อดีตนางสาวไทย ออกฉายทางทีวีช่อง 7 ยุคขาว-ดำ

  It says:

  Nirut entered the entertainment industry by the invitation of Thoeng Sati-fueang and had his first TV drama role in Saeng Sun, playing the main supporting character. The series starred Pinyo Thongchua and Apantree Prayutsenee, former Miss Thailand, and was broadcast on Channel 7 in the black-and-white days.

  The corresponding passage in the Google Translated version is this:

  Nirut into the entertainment industry with the solicitation of gawky mad career in TV drama. The play was first starring role, with organizations increasingly Thongjua heroic duo with Pat's Bachelor Prayuth SingSinghaseni former Miss Thailand. The seven-run TV channels - white and black.

• The YouTube video that you claimed isn't specifically about her, is in fact specifically about her. Instead of "This past March 21, 2511 Miss Donaldson's College. Prayuth Seni Miss Thailand 2510 to participate in the Miss Universe pageant.", the title should be properly translated as "Today in history: 21 March 1968, Miss Apantree Prayutsenee, Miss Thailand 1967, participates in the Miss Universe Pageant".
• You didn't recognise her staring back from the cover of that magazine, but it shouldn't have been too hard to realise that "Pat's Prayuth Seni" is the result of Google Translate's butchering of her name. And the same goes for all the others.

• Sorry about those "vague" comments, I was just rather baffled at how you could believe that searching for her exact name in the original Thai script, อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์, could return results that don't actually mention her exact name in the original Thai script. Even "Prayuth Seni" should have been close enough to make one realise it's part of her name, mistranslated. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a google books search suggests that the winner of Miss Thailand in 1967 was named Prapatsorn Panijkul. I'm not sure what is the disconnect (see Thailand Year, Publicity Services (Thailand), 1969. p95-95, accessed September 29, 2016 at https://books.google.com/books?id=EFEIAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Miss+Thailand+1967%22). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prapussorn Panichkul held the title for 1966. Not sure about the dates either. Perhaps they later retroactively changed how they counted the pageant years? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Thailand per analysis of sources (passing mentions) and given that the article may be factually incorrect, as noted immediately above (Prapatsorn Panijkul being the 1967 winner). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's factual accuracy is supported by a reliable source, although as Smmurphy noted above, there do appear to be contradictions. That book appears to be the deviant one, however. All others agree with the article, including the pageant's official website. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've stricken the comment about factual correctness. This still does not overcome the issue of coverage being of passing mentions. I've updated my vote to a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The preferred spelling of her name appears to be Apantree Prayutsenee, and the article should be renamed as such if kept. Searching with this spelling gives contemporaneous English-language sources such as this Ebony magazine and this Kansas City Times article. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Thailand (Preserve article history) - There are some sources available for verifiability such as this short article in Kansas City Times. But overall, I don't see enough RS at the moment to be able to write an article per WP:WHYN nor enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Should someone be able to later locate RS I will not object to recreation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although this article may be another one that is built only on the propensity for the press to overuse the word "rivalry", there is clearly consensus to Keep it at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry[edit]

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

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

Non-notable and nondivisional NFL "rivalry"  ONR  (talk)  18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe enough sources have cited this as a notable rivalry, and there's enough evidence in the article, along with sources, to prove it. -(user talk:newyorksports38)
• Comment I don't think the fact that it is non-divisional really makes a huge difference. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. First I've heard of this "rivalry", and I'm a big Seahawks fan from way back. USA Today has described it as "becoming a 'must-see TV' rivalry", Rolling Stone (?) said it's the "NFL's Next Great Rivalry", and ESPN asked "Could Russell vs. Cam be the new Brady vs. Manning?", but it's not quite there yet. A memorable clash in this year's regular season (and maybe the playoffs) might seal the deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Needs much better sourcing about being a rivalry. I count 3 sentences within all of the citations which are weakly on point. 1) "The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have such familiarity with each other that Panthers coach Ron Rivera says it’s almost as if they're division rivals." 2) "The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" and 3) "Carolina and Seattle (11-6) have struck up quite a rivalry in recent years, with the Seahawks knocking the Panthers out of the playoffs last season." WP:NRIVALRY ("Sports rivalries are not inherently notable") refers us to WP:GNG and a requirement of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - The article is not good, but there is a good amount of coverage about this as a rivalry:

The Charlotte Observer

Seattle Times

USA Today

Rolling Stone

ESPN

The Sports Daily

KGW.com

KGW.com (again)

Field Gulls

WCCB Charlotte

The Score

Associated Press

24/7 Sports

Rant Sports

Cat Scratch Reader

The Sports Daily (again)

Fox Sports

Charlotte Observer

That's a ton of sources, and most of them actually relate to the rivalry itself - not just individual games. It's not one-sided coverage, either - local, state, and national media seem to agree there is either a rivalry or budding rivalry. Is it enough for a page? I think so. I may actually start work on it to improve it, because the current article just is not very good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are riddled with WP:RS, WP:NOTRELIABLE ("lack meaningful editorial oversight"), WP:TOOSOON, and WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article") issues.

"The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" The Charlotte Observer

"the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years" only use of term in article Seattle Times

"it’s almost as if they're division rivals." USA Today

"the next generation of the NFL's best rivalry is just getting started. It's Cam vs. Russ." Rolling Stone

focus is QB rivalry "we may already be watching the NFL's next great quarterback rivalry." ESPN

"are developing one of the NFL’s budding rivalries." The Sports Daily

"The “Panthers is the Seahawks new rival” theory" KGW.com

Headline: "Seahawks-Panthers renew growing rivalry" rivalry term isn't used within the article KGW.com (again)

Opinion piece contrasting author's feelings; rivalry doesn't appear in Carolina section Field Gulls

" and the budding rivalry will add another entry in to an already exciting catalog." WCCB Charlotte

"the burgeoning Seattle Seahawks-Carolina Panthers rivalry may be in its infancy."The Score

Term not used in article body Associated Press

Points 11 and 9 of 12 re Sea rooting for Car in Super Bowl "You have a rivalry within conferences, but there's a undeniable pride in your side of the league besting the other." and "The rivalry will have much more juice if it's two of the last three Super Bowl winners" 24/7 Sports

"The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have a budding rivalry"Rant Sports

"Carolina vs Seattle is the biggest out of division rivalry in the NFC. Maybe even the NFL" Cat Scratch Reader

"Week 13: Panthers@Seahawks In what has quietly become one of the best rivalries in the NFL this game deserve the prime time billing it has received." The Sports Daily (again)

"One thing that could derail the budding Russell Wilson-Cam Newton rivalry" Fox Sports

Term not used Charlotte Observer

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and even taking an exceedingly generous view of those listed above, we are still failing a plain reading of the WP:GNG requirements ("Significant coverage," "sources need editorial integrity," etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Ones regularly mentioned in media are, and this one has been, many times by reliable sources. I'd also like specifics on which ones you feel "aren't reliable". Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG standard is not "mentioned," it's significant coverage. You're welcome to pull quotes from your citations to establish this as a current (not future) rivalry between the teams (not QBs). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." It is trivial to perform a Google search and pull a single sentence from a newspaper, blog network, local TV station, or broadcast network and claim the results are sufficient for a "rivalry" article while completely ignoring GNG. That's why we don't have "rivalry" stand-alone articles every time teams have simply played each other and generated routine media coverage, ala:

"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry" -no stand-alone article

• "Broncos-Seahawks rivalry recalled in hard-hitting AFC West days" CBS Sports
• "The Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos had a pretty heated rivalry during the 1980s and 1990s." NFL.com
• "Seahawks-Broncos rivalry goes back to old AFC West days" Seattle Times
• "Some critics of bandwagon fans will assume that only Seahawks fans who joined the club in 2012 don’t know about the old Seahawks-Broncos rivalry." King5

"Seahawks-Raiders rivalry" -no stand-alone article

• "Raiders, Seahawks Renew Rivalry" AP
• "Seahawks, Raiders reveling in rivalry" Seattle Times
• "One of the fiercest rivalries grew from those times in the 1980s when the Raiders and Seahawks crossed swords" Tacoma News Tribune
• "Take a look back at the Raiders history with the Seattle Seahawks as the two former AFC West rivals get ready to renew their rivalry." Raiders.com
• "As the Raiders and the Seahawks prepare to renew their old rivalry this weekend in Seattle" SF CBS

"Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry" -no stand-alone article

• "The Seattle Seahawk's rivalry with the Kansas City Chiefs is as classic a head-to-head matchup as you could hope for." Spokesman Review
• "Maybe the Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry isn't as ugly as some of the other NFL feuds" Kitsap Sun
• "The Chiefs have nearly doubled the 'Hawks in the win column (27-14) and have really dominated this rivalry as of late, prevailing in 14 of the last 16 meetings between the clubs dating back to 1991, this after Seattle swept this series in '90." ESPN
• "The Seahawks qualify for the first part of the rival definition when it comes to playing the Kansas City Chiefs." Seahawks.com

This article remains weakly sourced on-point and the coverage being offered is clearly routine. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk)

Again, I can say these sources are fairly in-depth. I might go ahead and sandbox and see what I can do. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the other rivalries don't have articles means either they are not notable or they are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet. Based on the summary of the sources provided here, I'm inclined to believe "the other rivalries are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet".

Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft instead in this case, because there's honestly still not a lot of confirmed substance; there is information, but as an article itself, there's simply not a lot of convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article to inform, not to try and persuade you of something? People would be going to the article for an overview of the rivalry, not to be persuaded into believing it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorksports38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Person, Joseph (2016-01-12). "A look back at past 5 games in Panthers-Seahawks rivalry". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     The Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have met so often the past four seasons, it’s almost like they’re division rivals – if not for the 2,500 miles that separate them.

     Sunday’s divisional-round game at Bank of America Stadium will be the sixth time Carolina (15-1) and Seattle (11-6) have played since 2012, including the Panthers’ playoff loss at Seattle last January.

     The teams will meet again next season in Seattle for a seventh time in five seasons.

     The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:

  2. Condotta, Bob (2016-01-14). "The top 5 games in Seahawks-Panthers history". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     Carolina might not always be in the Seahawks’ minds, as James Taylor sang in the 1970s, but it does seem to often be in their way.

     For two franchises on opposite coasts and in separate divisions, the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle.

     They will do so again Sunday when the Seahawks play at Carolina in a divisional playoff game, the Panthers once again standing between Seattle and the Super Bowl.

     In all, the teams have met eight times in the regular season and twice in the postseason — both of those in years in which the Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl.

     Six of those meetings have come since Pete Carroll took over as the Seahawks’ coach in 2010, meaning they have faced Carolina more than any other non-NFC West team in that time.

     We could just list the games the Seahawks have played against Carolina. Instead, we thought we’d rate them in order of importance.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Panthers–Seahawks rivalry to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Most series between teams in major leagues have narratives that stretch beyond a single season, and once they pass gng (and thus satisfy nrivalry), I think an article is fine. I think this passes gng, both as a series and as a "rivalry". Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was sceptical but I think Toa Nidhiki05's sources are adequate to pass GNG. I am not convinced by some of the counterarguments to his sources - if the headline states that the article is about a rivalry and the article describes the rivalry, it is not relevant how often the term "rivalry" is used in the article. The source is providing siginficant coverage about a rivalry, regardless of the terminology used. Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not appropriate to strike an unsigned "keep" comment Rlendog (talk · contribs) made here until it is signed. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: would you mind signing your post? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know my signature was omitted. 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Userfy per WP:NRIVALRY which says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." The sources offered above are mostly local to the two teams' cities, so I would consider this to be routine, "hey local team news!" type of coverage. Either WP:TOOSOON or WP:FANCRUFT or both. In either case, not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Fratantoni[edit]

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

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

non notable author. No article in Italian WP. The only book listed in Worldcat is a corona di rose,2013, only 1 library listed. The book made into a film is Felice Malacrita, a travel book about Sicily, that was made into a travel film. The only refs I could find are the ones already in the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Subject is borderline on meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator Burley22 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --BCD 05:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 28 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. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Brett and Sons[edit]

Arthur Brett and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly promotional, created by SPA, not encyclopedic, no checkable references, no claim nor evidence of passing WP:CORP, verging on WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. PROD was removed without any fixes to the article. David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources covering the antiques and furniture trade such as Timber Trades Journal; Arts & Decoration; The Connoisseur, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have access to good paper sources, please do add them to the article :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Pls see below; Original comment: I searched google newspapers and was only seeing trivial mentions in relation to the company producing a replica of Churchill's desk. I could not find anything better. This business did not appear to have made a lasting impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. All I found was a mention in one Google Book (Business India. A.H. Advani. 1991.), perhaps a repring of some academic articles, that "Part II studied four companies in this regard — large ones like British Airways, IBM and Jaguar and a small furniture company, Arthur Brett and Sons. ". I couldn't access the book to check for references or scope of coverage, and nothing else seems to match. Being a one of four case studies for a single academic work would nonetheless help with notability, if combined with one more or so good source, but well, I cannot even cite this one properly, and since no other sources are present... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well-known company in Norwich, where I have resided. The entry needs more reference, and could be made a little more factual and less like puffery. I will try to find some more useful quotable sources.

Roaringboy (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It might be notable , but the article is too promotional to stand and would eed to be entirely rewritten. using much better sources than present here. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Gorst-Williams, Jessica (1997-09-16). "Family beats economic chill with style - Your Own Business". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     EDWARD BRETT, the 58-year-old head of Arthur Brett, a furniture manufacturer based in Norwich, says that "furniture-making is a bug and once it is in the blood you cannot get it out of the system".

     Mr Brett is the fifth generation of his family involved in making fine traditional English furniture. It all started with John Brett, a chairmaker, who was born in 1815. His son, Jonathan, established the family business that is now world renowned, particularly for pieces in the styles of Sheraton, Chippendale and Hepplewhite. Turnover is around Pounds 3.5 million and the firm employs 85 people.

     The cornerstone of the business remains individual craftsmanship. To ensure that skills are passed down the generations, Arthur Brett has its own unique four-year apprenticeship.

     ...

     Notable commissions include replicas for Christie's of its Chippendale auctioneer's rostrum and conference tables for the Bank of England, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Bahrain.

     ...

     Exports now account for more than 50 per cent of business, and the firm has clients in Japan, Hong Kong, Turkey, Greece, the US, Europe and the Middle East. Two years ago it opened a showroom and office in Pimlico Road, London. "You cannot expect everyone to come down to Norwich," says Mr Brett.

  2. van der Post, Lucia (2003-10-11). "The tradition of the exquisitely wrought reproduction piece is long and honourable - Scenes from domestic life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     And up at Nostell Priory in West Yorkshire there's a Chippendale library table which the National Trust asked Arthur Brett, probably this country's leading maker of fine reproductions, to make to special order. It'll cost you Pounds 103,694 (the price is worked out the way Chippendale used to do it: by costing materials and man-hours and adding what Arthur Brett calls "a modest profit"), and in case you're wondering, they've already sold at least three. Arthur Brett is the company to ask if you've been left five Queen Anne dining chairs and the sixth is kaput -they will then make an identical one using traditional cabinet-making skills.

     ....

     Arthur Brett, for instance, tell me that they have recently made a precise copy of a William Vile cabinet originally made for Clarence House -it cost the buyer Pounds 100,000-odd but if you're after an original you'd be looking at something like a million.

  3. Watson-Smyth, Kate (2014-08-16). "A Brit of quality". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     At the other end of the spectrum, Arthur Brett, a furniture company founded in 1860, has also found a new market in Asia. David Salmon, creative director of Arthur Brett, says British design is known throughout the world for its high quality. "It's the same reason people buy an Aston Martin or a suit from Savile Row: if you want those qualities, you want a British designer," he says.

     Like many other furniture companies, Arthur Brett went through tough times when Asian manufacturers started undercutting prices. While many UK firms were forced to shut their doors, the company's tactic was to go further upmarket, raising prices and creating more bespoke pieces.

     "We now export 20 per cent of our work to China," says Salmon, who adds that over the past 18 months sales to the US have picked up on a weekly basis. He says that many US customers have grown tired of buying cheap, low-quality furniture and are returning to the notion of well-made, high-end products, which they find among the UK designers.

  4. Mallalieu, Huon (2015-02-07). "Second-rank auction houses up their game - Collecting". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     It will be interesting to see how a sale on February 17 at Sworders of Stansted Mountfitchet appeals to collectors, since it challenges recent assumptions about the furniture market. It is made up of items from the stock of Arthur Brett, the fourth-generation Norwich business, together with their furniture reference library. The business manufactured furniture, at one time employing more than 100 men. After 40 years in business, James Brett is selling its contents, many of them his favourites.

  5. Burroughs, Katrina (2006-11-17). "Metropolitan metamorphosis". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     The majority of the metamorphs are models of grown-up sophistication, however. Arthur Brett makes furniture based on classic English cabinetry that conceals high-tech audiovisual equipment. The push of a button on Brett's Regency rosewood commode, with hand-carved, fluted pillars and parcel gilt decoration, summons up a plasma television screen (GBP18,148).

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arthur Brett and Sons to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- sufficient sources have been presented by editor Cunard to justify keeping the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a notable company and there has been sustained coverage. I found 2 more in the Singapore newspaper archives. To be honest the second source is essentially an interview. But overall, I get the feeling that the company is a notable English furniture manufacturer with quite a bit of history.

1. The labour of Arthur Brett's skilled men The Business Times, 7 March 1981, Page 13
2. A thorough Brett dyed in the wood The Straits Times, 3 December 1982, Page 4

There are also some trivial mentions which do indicate a credible claim of significance. The article btw is pretty badly written. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure -- no sources have been added to the article and the tone continues to be overly promotional. I'm not confident that using the sources above would not result in the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review, and the article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination, which addressed promotional tone (see its Revision history). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 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. G4 per three prior AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Nazre (2nd nomination) —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Aniruddha Nazre[edit]

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

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

Low notability Connor Behan (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated because it's basically a list of jobs held by Nazre. The harassment allegations against him would be far more notable but there is a repeated pattern of Nazre attempting to remove this information from Wikipedia. I suspect that the single-purpose account responsible for this page is another of Nazre's alts. The fact that his name can be spelled in many ways is the only reason it was even possible for him to create this page in the first place (see past discussions). Protip: when you're notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, someone else will let you know by creating the article for you. Connor Behan (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 24 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) 05:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fricket[edit]

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

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

Chronically incapable of getting sources for any kind of notability whatsoever, and quite frankly reeks of trolling. Was hit with a PROD in 2007 which was removed almost immediately without any justification other than the single word 'notable' in the edit log. The account that de-PROD'd it had a single other edit; dePRODing a redirect page with the same lack of reason and the edit log 'notable'. Had no secondary sources of any kind in 2009 when I flagged it for notability, and it is in no better of a state now. Both citation links on the page are dead, and the homepage of one of them appears suspiciously like the domain was purchased with the express purpose of being used as a citation here. Frankly this page is a farce and should probably have been dealt with back when the PROD was removed without justification in 2007. -Joey- (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability, probably fails WP:MADEUP. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I looked around a bit for some sources, both under the name "Fricket" as well as the various other names it gives in the opening, and I did get some hits. So, it was not an intentional hoax or troll. However, pretty much every source that I do find are things such as blogs and tumblr posts. There has not been, as far as I can find, any actual coverage of this by a reliable source. It just seems like this is a game that is actually played in some parts, but never got widespread recognition or popularity, and thus has not garnered enough notability to have an article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:48, 27 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) ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OwnCloud[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a software product directory. ubiquity (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: Since having been improved, I can see no objection to this article. ubiquity (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are now plenty of references to extensive coverage in reliable sources. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The additional references Rwxrwxrwx has added means the article now passes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of WP:GNG. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability, because searching google with "OwnCloud" shows 2,080,000 results. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yeah, an article about the subject in the Wall Street Journal in addition to the subject-area press makes it meet GNG in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are a few references: [5], [6], [7], [8], Google Books, Google Scholar, [9], HighBeam, .Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. Plenty of sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:02, 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seafile[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a software product directory. ubiquity (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are now several references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability, because searching google with "Seafile" shows 298,000 results. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are some references: [10], [11], Google Books, Google Scholar, [12], [13]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 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. NACTOR appears to be met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Pandey[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. He has appeared in two more films since the previous AfD of this page, but three small roles and some ads do not constitute notability, and the references do not establish it. ubiquity (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A good candidate for WP:NACTOR, he has substantial role in Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania ([14], [15]) and A Flying Jatt ([16], [17]), and probably is the lead in Darling Don't Cheat ([18], [19]. He also the played the lead role in a web series called, Man's World ([20]). One unrelated to movies coverage - [21]. Anup [Talk]
• Keep Passes WP:NACTORPratyush (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --BCD 05:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Fashions[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Advertisement. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:16, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long-established tailor serving the UK (with an unusual and interesting business model), with resultant editorial, not advertorial, coverage in UK newspapers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy Dingley ... and Google News kinda prove it's notable, Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - will be familiar to almost anyone who's regularly read British newspapers or Private Eye in the last decade, and sources exist. Blythwood (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actually instead or at least Draft, because based from the current article, it contains nothing actually convincing, the information is simply what there is to say about the company and the sources are not actually better (there's no matter whether it's long-established as that hardly ever actually means anything to AfD, unless it's something historic); this would need actual showful improvements suggesting it can be a better article, because the current one has noticeable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with the option to convert to an article about the company's founder, Raja Daswani. Several sources cover the founder in much more detail compared to the company, such as [22], [23], [24]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there appears to be a fair bit of in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Blackbird[edit]

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

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Looks like there are better sources here... Jclemens (talk)

• Keep Has been mentioned in prop auctions: here and here. It's mentioned in episode recaps: [25]. It's covered in multiple series-oriented books: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. Frankly, all of these together paint a more central picture of the fictional craft than I remember, not having watched the show since its first run. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As per usual, you've just grabbed every single mention of the topic without bothering to filter for anything actually useful. In what world is being one of several props auctioned off a indicator of notability? Cursory glances of those shows almost nothing at all useful. TTN (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, I've done nothing of the sort, and you would actually know that if you ever, even once, had expended any modicum of effort in WP:BEFORE searching. It's a plot element, represented as a prop. Found the physical prop mentioned: real world mention. Found RS'es discussing how it was made within the show, and multiple ones discussing how it was used in the Resurrection Ship arc: commentary from outside the fictional world. Have you even read, in context, what I put up? Or have you just assumed that since I didn't include an annotated commentary on each source there must be nothing there? Actually, that would be consistent with your particularly and consistently myopic view of article potential... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's one of many props. There is literally nothing at all notable about its status as a prop. It has no more or less attention in either of those articles than any other prop. You'd have a point if they were articles on the singular prop being given exclusive coverage or even just paragraph of attention in those article. As it stands, they are utterly trivial. Are you seeing something that I'm not? Other than source #2's couple minor development facts, all of those sources are pretty much singular mentions of the topic in the context of the plot of the series. Source #2's couple minor development facts aren't bad, but they're trivial if that's the only good source. Please do not try to argue that being mentioned a single time in an entire book is an indicator of notability. The definition of trivial does not change depending on topic matter. TTN (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by Jclemens. That Jclemens managed to provide sources shows there was no attempt to improve this article before sending it to AFD. This is just another one of those AFD's where sources were out there, but the article simply did not have any references. You don't send articles to AFD if an article can be improved. You send articles to AFD if an article can't be improved and the content absolutely has no place on Wikipedia. —Mythdon 00:03, 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 keep. Sufficient sourcing appears to have been found. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lee (criminal)[edit]

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

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

I frankly would've PROD but it may simply be driveby-removed, none of the sources here are both substantially convincing and significant, they are simply from that time for a large case about the rapes and the events from them; my searches are then simply finding exact news for this but only from those set times and events, nothing else to suggest there has been anything else convincing after the case was closed, and that's not surprising considering this has in fact not actually changed since then; note the article had to be changed because of apparent copyvios. I also was going to note that although the ChineseWiki has loads of information and sources, the basis seems to still be that what is here is all that exists, now that the case was closed, therefore there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move and repurpose as "Justin Lee sexual assault scandal" or similar, to conform with the equivalent article on Chinese Wikipedia. This is a case of WP:BLP1E where the 1E was highly notable, with the Chinese Wikipedia citing 25 news articles spanning over 3 years (definitely "persistent coverage"). Deryck C. 14:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Still, it is still in fact for only one event, the 3 years was because that's how long the case was, and that's common with all law cases. But there was still essentially nothing else after that, for then a convincing article after the fact, especially if once he was simply sentenced. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A disturbing crime, but Wikipedia is not news and nothing about the crime elevates it above that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; this is routine police blotter. No lasting impact or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable in the end; as noted Wikipedia is not a newspaper and as this was disturbing, unfortunately not uncommon type of behavior or events that occur in our world. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly notable with long-lasting significance, #1) His dozens of sex/rape tapes can be found on every single porn site in any language with millions of hits even if his name isn't always associated with them (some of the western porn sites even identify him as Japanese or Korean). #2) Many of his victims/ONS partners are believed to be high-profile actresses/models, so even though their identities were never officially disclosed, some actresses still active on TV are widely believed to be "that girl in that video", which ensures continuous interest even if only privately. #3) His father was a director of a major financial company in Taiwan who had to resign because of this scandal, see his profile on Bloomberg. #4) Several China Times reporters/executives were indicted and sentenced for violating privacy while reporting this case, see [32]. I doubt the deletion proponents above performed WP:BEFORE in either English or Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....Having been listed at sex and porn websites is not convincing here for an article nor should it be, the concerns have stated that there still has essentially been nothing aside from this one event, and the claims of not having searched are entirely not so, because I searched as my analysis showed above and others have also noted their own concerns. Simply having been connected to supposed "high-profile celebrities" is not a claim at all for his own actual notability and as the comment above states itself: "they were believed to be" meaning it was all simply entertainment claims and nothing confirmed as facts (therefore any such claims like these are not linked to his own independent notability), and the same can be said about his father, who was never at all actually focused with this event itself, since it was his son who was involved with the legal and law cases, therefore the father's positions in all this is not at all actually convincing for the son's independent notability and article. Never once is this comment above either actually acknowledging the concerns listed, and instead is counteracting, stating that the commenters must not have searched or considered the article, when the consensus is showing there is still none of that of which is needed for his own substantial article, all this was for 1 event and nothing else happened after that 1 case. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of Chinese sources (even the nom admits it has sufficient foreign language sourcing), we need someone who can speak the language, this is yet another case of western bias. This was a major scandal in Taiwan and has long lasting effects, we do not need english sources if foreign language ones exist, english is not a requirement. We really need a editor who speaks the language, not deletion. Just think, this crime happened in Taiwan yet the article is in 5 wiki languages, which proves sourcing exists. (P.S if the Chinese wikipedia has "loads of sources" then why can't you give the English wiki those too?)GuzzyG (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Google his mandarin name 李宗瑞 and look at all those sources, from Sep 2016 no less, shame i can't speak the language or i'd fix it myself. Serious western oversight going on here. GuzzyG (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename It is true that this almost a BLP1E, but the event itself is highly significant. This is possibly the biggest sex scandal/drug rape case in recent years in Taiwan and it was all over Singaporean media (which is mostly English btw). One claim of significance is that it involved quite a few well known celebrities (who I am not naming per BLP concerns). The second was that there was a constant news coverage about this incident. You can see some English sources if you search "site:asiaone.com "Justin lee" Taiwan" - Some of them are here [33], [34], [35], [36]. There were some other effects as well for example the reporters who published the photos were queried and the issues as briefly referenced during the 2016 Taiwan election. This is definitely one of the more notable events in AfDs I have seen of late. A rename of the article (to avoid BLP concerns) is best here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of reliable and good sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goodie Ibru[edit]

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

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

Glorified PR article that focuses too closely with not only PR-like information and claims about specifying his career and businesses, but it's actually then not substantially sourced, let alone for notability convincing; my searches are then only finding "news" about mentions, his businesses and then for some apparent law case troubles that led to his being removed from the company positions. Searches at Nigerian newspapers are either mirroring this or not finding anything at all; anything there is here has nothing suggesting the significant improvements we would need, let alone for a nearly notable article. I'll note this has not actually changed since starting over 2 years ago by what seemed to be a likely PR agent. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - per nom. Results on the subject majorly brings up court issues concerning the ownership of a business venture. Not enough to merit a stand alone article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hotel operator who does not reach the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toxik Ephex[edit]

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

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

PROD'd in 2010, PROD removed in 2012. No referenced improvements to show notability since then. Standard searches not showing any usable significant mentions. Fails WP:BAND -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE for bands from before the Internet era involves Google Books at the least, where I immediately found [37][38][39]MRR featured article and leads on contemporary paper coverage. On this basis I'm leaning keep - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a very good tip! Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And... unless anyone objects, I will withdraw this AFD soon. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:-) We're really spoilt for sourcing in the post-1995 era. There's been a pile of articles where I know for a fact extensive paper sources exist, but I'm on the wrong side of the world to even look them up ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)[edit]

Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously AFD in 2005 resulted in delete. Article re-created with no sourcing. Standard searches not showing enough coverage to reach notability per WP:ORG -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with userfy/incubate on request  Delete as per WP:DEL7, plus WP:IAR for the requirement of "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify", as such attempts do not create in-line citations, and WP:V is a core content policy.  Obviously this is a notable church.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Removing !vote as the article has not been tagged as not meeting WP:V, which is WP:BEFORE C3.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm always inclined to keep articles on significant historic buildings like this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is rather thin on detail, but may be worth keeping, in contrast with most on local churches. It needs to be tagged for sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an interesting point that the tag in the article said that the problem was notability.  Notability requires no sources in the article.  I've retagged the article and struck my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but someone still needs to produce some sources to demonstrate notability. Anyone? StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well written with sources, any questions? --BuickCenturyDriver 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebbing 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - where are the sources? I don't see any. There are two external links: one to the church website, and the other to a blog. But no actual sources. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous GBooks results indicate that this is not just an ordinary church. I also found this, which I will add to the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the church is 175 years old and has been cited in numerous books relating to Canada, the church/religion, and social order there. see also http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA4000H.pdf p17 Bpc.sg (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if sources aren't in the article, plenty clearly exist, and that is generally enough, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3) by David Gerard . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Phillip Adams[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Googles for "Daniel Phillip Adams" and "Daniel Adams chef" don't return much of anything other than a couple random podcasts, which aren't significant enough to confer notability. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no way to verify any of the information on this article.WikiGuy1980 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as hoax - any 15 year old that had worked in "best restaurants in the world including The Fat Duck" would be all over the papers. You don't work in a Michelin star kitchen as a kid and not be huge news, and then set a a new restaurant with a weebly.com webpage. KylieTastic (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Kylie beat me to it. Blatant out and out hoax. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The federal union[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, no citations, no indication that it passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of significance, much less notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is/was notable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, WorldCat lists almost 1000 libraries holding this book[40], so there might be something in it. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Smartyllama nominated this an hour after it was created and has successfully scared off the new editor who created it, so it's not particularly surprising that it isn't well referenced. But it appears to be a notable entry-level review/textbook on US history: per Coolabahapple it is held by many libraries, was widely used enough to have a student's companion written to it is frequently cited and numerous re-editions (the latest twenty years after it's original publication and coauthored by George E. Mowry). We don't have an article on its author John D. Hicks, but he appears to by highly notable ("one of the most influential historians of our day"). Did the nominator and delete !voters do their homework? Joe Roe (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a famous textbook -- one that I personally assigned for a number of years. It was often mentioned at history convention panels on how to teach college history. It introduced new techniques esp in terms of illustrations & maps. Over the decades it's where hundreds of thousands of Americans (several million I think) learned history. (Used copies were sold and resold over and over.) I still have and use a copy. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I would expect an undergraduate textbook, even if now superseded to be notable. I note that the form in which not is nominated had been changed to a correctly capitalised one. Whether the redirect remains useful, I am not sure, but redirects are cheap. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that this looks like a notable textbook. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixpanel[edit]

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

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

My extensively informed PROD here boldly removed with the sole changes of adding unconvincing sources, here's why: the first source clearly is supplied with interviewed information by the business itself, see "Mr. Cooley was seen as a great catch. He had been an early employee of New Relic, which does software analytics, and had built the sales team to about 150 people....Mr. Doshi said he tried a couple of executive recruiting firms, which run around $80,000, but had no luck. So he decided to do the job himself.". The only uses of actually mentioning that itself is to fluff and puff themselves, and as always, to woo clients and investors to come and look at their business. Surrounding this listed information then goes to state the specifics about both their careers and then the company's and then stating their philosophy and plans. No honest journalist would add or think of mentioning it unless the intentions were to fluff and puff the (quote) "starting company Mixpanel". The next one, TechCrunch (which is notoriously becoming PR-based by companies) only mentions the flashy specifics about what there is to advertise about the company, with only 7 thin paragraphs, putting aside the obvious company-supplied information, there was no actual journalism efforts there. The next TC link not only consists of funding "news", but it goes as far to actually state the specifics about the what business is, how it works, what it looks, etc. and both being supplied by the company information and businesspeople themselves (quote) "The company told us....", that was hardly journalism there. This same article goes to finish with talking about the specifics of investors, again, no actual journalism. The same can be said about the next one, which is equally PR-based as the other, none of it swimming again from the PR pools it bathes in. The last one listed is simply a guide, granted, to show how it works; it's likely not independent coverage and, certainly not guaranteed to be non-PR. I'll state that my PROD was essentially similar with even stating the concerns about the initial information and sources, so if there's simply additional PR to add, that's not saying a lot at all. Also, looking again at the history as I had before, it shows a noticeable underused history, and this was in fact accepted in 2014, clearly enough time to have improved and clearly enough time to suggest that Review was as questionable now as it would have been then; I would not have accepted at all if it was solely PR-based. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are out there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per sources listed above. Sources like this WSJ piece provide WP:SIGCOV. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For the sake of this AfD, I explicitly and clearly stated all of the concerns with the links above because they are the same trivial and PR sources listed in the current article; a Keep vote cannot be substantiated by a "it's sourcing" comment if it is not considering the concerns explicitly stated above; this link above itself consists of PR since it begins with "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company Mixpanel Inc. and has just raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true", that is churnalism by all means because no honest journalist would add that unless they blatantly let the company say it; this exact article goes to specifics about not only the businessman himself but the company and what its plans are (see the blatant "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is not only wooing clients and investors but presumably attempting to woo the journalist); that is another case of no actual journalism efforts because the man himself is supplying everything, the article itself ends with the company supplying information about its current investments; simply because it comes from a national news source is not convincing if the contents themselves are explicitly PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. With the exception of the book source, these are bylined news articles that provide significant coverage, written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources which adhere to journalistic objectivity. The sources are not press releases, nor are they public relations content. Per this coverage, the topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Also, there's a long-time consensus at WP:RSN that the Wall Street Journal is reliable. In addition, there's WP:BIASED. Even if one were to argue that the WSJ piece was biased in some way (toward the company, say), that doesn't disqualify us from using the source or from the source helping the article subject meet WP:GNG. The important thing is that our articles here are neutral. Consistently hearing that bylined news articles at major national newspapers are "churnalism" seems like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument at this point. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Sufficient sourcing. -- GreenC 12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'll note my listed and extensive concerns above saying that those exact sources in themselves are not actually convincing because there are PR-based and otherwise influenced by the company itself, especially when it comes to actually mentioning the company's information, services, etc. Simply stating GNG and CORP, without actually looking and considering the coverage (again, after I have analyzed them as shown above) is not the same thing as actually explaining why this Keep vote thinks otherwise. I'll even note that this is not only a business blog, but the header itself contains "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic", that's not something an actually genuine journalist would say, that's exactly what makes that source unconvincing. I'll note that, in the past, I've seen such blatant attempts at masking press releases, that they would list a journalist's name to simply show it for ghost uses. Once again, I'll note the following: After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding. is entirely PR in that it's explicitly and solely advertising what there is to say about the information, the specifics of people involved and then the specifications about what it involved; none of that would come from any other source than the company itself therefore that's not even close to independent coverage. This same article itself then actually goes to contain a photo of him exactly next to this said information, so that essentially hints at being an attempt at not only PR, but an attempt of a job listing, granted, to woo clients and investors, that's what business PR signifies. These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid. Even then, I'll note something that has been extensively seen here at AfD, and that is that these said major news sources are notoriously becoming baseplaces for PR, and if we have the excuses that they therefore are significant and independent coverage, that is essentially acknowledging and allowing thinly veiled press releases by the sheer fact of "it comes from a news source" (as it is, it has been obviously clear that's exactly what these companies are intending and still plan to intend, by taking advantage of the fact news sources will happily publish anything, especially if there's no means of efforts by the journalist lest risk budget cuts because of it, so the companies offer pre-authored information as "news"), that's exactly what churnalism is, it's therefore still advertising. In a time when Wikipedia is being bombarded enough as it is with advertisements, we must take these matters seriously, by fully considering and acknowledging the concerns, not by thinly defending that they are, again, "news". To add, simply a note abuot the exact quote "doesn't disqualify us from using the source or from the source helping the article subject meet WP:GNG. The important thing is that our articles here are neutral", this is not entirely convincing in that we are in fact able to completely remove and list as unacceptable, a source that is in fact again influenced by the company and is not contributing to any forms or shapes of actual coverage, hence my exhaustive comments above. SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I reviewed the refs on the article, the refs noted above, and did my own search to confirm that additional indy RS sources exists. The significant coverage meets WP:CORP. I would also like to again thank the nominator for using the Streisand effect to bring our attention to so many interesting notable companies. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Forbes and WSJ are independent and definitely WP:RS. I don't buy the arguments that simply because a major publication chooses to cover a company that has issued a press release it is advertising. Other sources in addition to those two are icing on the cake. This might be a snow keep at some point soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I find it astonishing how people argue against the sheer fact of actually analyzing these sources, because it not only shows someone is paying attention to them, but also showing the concerns of them, that's what a nomination is; if anyone is actually upset about this, it's because they are not actually taking in what the concerns of these sources are, not simply because of what's perceived. For example, once again, the Forbes and WallJournal are still in fact containing PR themselves, to quote the Forbes, "Mixpanel already provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement", That is essentially self-advertising the company itself, because it is only focusing with the flashy parts of what there is to know about the company. The other parts of this Forbes then contains information about the company's activities such as fundinding, which is by far expected and trivial if that's the best there is to say about a company (not to mention the sheer fact any hoping-to-establish-ground company will say this. That article then actually continues to then have a stated quote by the businessman himself; finally the other part of that article is then stating how the services work, that is entirely PR from the PR book itself. As it has been shown, the news media's current state is in fact willing to accept company-assisted information, if it means no budget cuts lest there be risks of spent time for journalism, it shows how the current state of news journalism is willing to be used, and it shows by the fact Wikipedia is continuously bombarded by advertising. It is unacceptable to cite WP:BLUDGEON, as that is neither a policy or a behavioral guideline, it's a user-started essay about what was thought by said user. Using that is essentially simply using it an argument, fighting to keep this article, despite its concerns, that is not how the AfD lines should work, if analysis is being shooed away. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all positive articles are solely PR-worksmanship. Publications will publish positive pieces on companies because a part of their editorial mission is to expose successful businesses. Something not being investigative journalism does not automatically make it trivial or not a reliable source. Also, of course Forbes is going to cover funding for a new company, that's what a business publication does. You might not like that fact that Forbes or WSJ choose to run articles like these, but that doesn't change the fact that they as editorially independent and very noteworthy sources do in fact chose to do so. That meets the criteria of WP:RS. If these were just press release recycling factories that would be one thing, but they are generally respected business publications. I'd be more open to your argument if it was just one of them, but being the subject of articles in both clearly meet the standard required by WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article quality could use some clean-up, but the subject matter appears to be verifiable enough per WP:GNG to merit an article. --Jayron32 15:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- when "the investment values the company at $865 million" this begins to approach a level of significance, and WP:TOOSOON no longer applies. I see them discussed as a leading player in the space, so they are likely to become more notable in the future. I'll go ahead and clean up the promo language. I think this is acceptable as a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There has been consensus here at AfD that $865 million is not alone convincing for notability in and of itself; it may perhaps be different if it was a multi-billion dollar company, but even then we would not only need non-PR coverage, but enough to level a both notable and non-advert article; I myself noted the businessman's interview above where he himself counted the company as a "billion dollar company" but that's not independent since it's not only his own words, but his own attempts at company PR. Suggesting that they may be notable soon, is still thin if there are still concerns now; we cannot compromise perceived information for the risks of PR and otherwise advertorial coverage. That said, noting WP:GNG is enough (while may be common at AfDs) can and has in the past been outweighed by the facts of removing PR and advertisements alone, which is not only damaging to Wikipedia, but to its meaning and significance as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per existence of bylined reliable sources under independent editorial review. The content of these sources being "poorly written" by the opinion of one wikipedian, or containing content that is disagreeable or boring or irrelevant to some, does not matter. ST's claim that "$865 million is not alone convincing" is correct... merely having $865 million is not notable. However, independent secondary sources reporting on the fact that someone has $865 million, that IS notable. Simply by being talked about by multiple reliable sources is the very criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability. Reliable sources discussing someone, not the validity of their discussion. Otherwise we could delete all the articles on the Kardassians, because who can really argue that the discussion on THOSE idiots is valid? But everyone talks about them, so they are notable. Likewise here. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A comment noting that they criticize other comments listed here but yet suggests that we keep this because we keep the "idiots Kardassians" is not suggestive or relevant here to this AfD alone (this AfD has become overpersonal with personal comments as it is); the fact I have noted my concerns and concerns that we need to take seriously, instead of making WP:OSE arguments, is why my concerns have still not be acknowledged to the level that they need to. Once Wikipedia becomes a PR platform simply because we accepted shoehorned "news" (I'll note that I mentioned the supposedly called "bylined acceptable sources....independent editorial review" is not answering the concerns I specifically noted above that the contents themselves were PR and PR alone in the fact the company supplied the information about themselves, including the fact information only the company would know such as what their plans are and where their own money is going, any of that actually being called news is exactly what damns Wikipedia because, whereas this is intended to be an actual encyclopedia, advertisements should not be given the benefit of doubts or accepted at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument. I'm arguing that I don't care about the contents of the articles except to the fact that they are about the subject, they are independently written, and bylined under editorial review. Because that's the inclusion standard, not the subjective quality of the articles. PR does not mean what you seem to think it means. PR is non-independent writing, by the subject, for the subject. A positive article by someone else is not PR by definition. If a secondary source buys into someone's PR, that does not make the secondary source PR! A secondary source is not, and CANNOT be PR, because PR is defined as being written by the one benefiting from it (or having someone paid to do the writing, which amounts to the same thing). Secondary sources are not advertising, unless they were paid to be written by the beneficiary. If Mixpanel did not write the article, if Mixpanel did not pay the secondary sources to write the article, it is not advertising, regardless of how positive the article is. Fieari (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of analysis, what makes it PR is the fact the CEO himself talked about what his plans were and what his plans were now about the company, that is the businessman advertising the company himself. Also "provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement" is something from a sales pitch, because it glorifies what the company believes of itself ("the company believes in moving"). Also, there's "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is also the man himself advertising the company himself, because that's company-supplied information, in that it's his own thoughts and comments about the company itself, not the journalist's or news publisher's. Simply because not every comment may seem like a blatant advertisement is not saying it's not or that it's guaranteed to be non-PR influenced. See again "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic" and "After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding" also "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company....raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true" (this last one not only advertises what the man's thoughts are, but it advertises those and the person who funded the money), that is not only advertising the company's own achievements and what became of it, but then advertising what there is to know about the company's financing. If a news source goes to specifics about a company's finances and what the businessman's own thoughts are, that is not (quote) "independently written, and bylined under editorial review"; this is exactly what churnalism is, mirroring "news" by using news sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because these concerns have not been taken genuinely or with serious acknowledgement, it's suggested they are simply sticking with their "but there's sources" comments, this would benefit from a relisting to allow better taking in and considering to my concerns above.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Kays[edit]

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

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

My extensively informed PROD here was boldly removed with the sole changes of simply adding sources, sources that even simply consist of one questionable source (TheArcadia), three clearly stated interviews; none of that amounts to anything close to comparably removing the PROD if it itself stated the concerns, my searches and examinations how he was not satisfying any substance. Even the 2 articles that are the only ones to come close to "news", TheArcadia and i-D, are still only noticeably set apart with time, suggesting the news was not even consistent. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per sourcing listed above, this Telegraph piece in particular is good WP:SIGCOV. Esquire wrote "Even in the notoriously unpredictable, whimsical sphere that is the modern day art world, commanding the sort of attention that young British artist Hayden Kays has in the last few month takes some doing." Seems to be a modern artist of note. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this vote is not taking in my analysis listed above and there's simply nothing, again, to suggest those listed sources are actually convincing, not only is his career simply not actually convincing, there's nothing for any means of substantial notability. Note the Esquire is actually only an interview, satisfying his talking about himself. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I reviewed the sources on the article, the sources noted above, and did my own search to confirm enough significant coverage exists. It does, passes WP:ARTIST. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One, the keep vote is not at all acknowledging the analysis and concerns above, so a Keep vote cannot honestly be taken to fully thoughts if they haven't cared to look at all of the concerns listed. Also, having explicitly mentioned 3 of the sources listed are mere interviews, that's not "significant coverage", this would essentially be the equivalent of republished PR and calling it coverage, because both consist of simply firsthand subject-supplied information itself. Also, as noted, he is not notable an artist because it explicitly shows there are no museum collections, major publications or actual non-interview or unconvincing coverage; simply stating that major news sources are listed is not the same thing as actually examining them and stating the concerns. The article itself is then filled with claims of other people, such as "He sold a piece to this person" and then "he was involved with this other person and this group", not only is that coatracking but it's clear attempts at PR by shoehorning names. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Allsopp, Ashleigh (2014-04-29). "Typewriter art by Hayden Kays stars in Stereotypewriter exhibition". Digital Arts. International Data Group. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     Typewriter art is to be celebrated at a new solo show in Brighton, showcasing the work of London-based artist Hayden Kays.

     ...

     Hayden's work has been featured in the Independent, on book covers and in other newspapers, and also hit the media when One Direction's Harry Styles purchased £20,000 worth of pieces from the artist earlier this year. Plus, Hayden designed the artwork for the Kooks' new single and album.

     He's also starred in exhibitions alongside David Bailey and Damien Hirst at the Saatchi Gallery, and has recently published his first book, 'Hayden Kays is an Artist,' which features a collection of his work.

  2. "Photo Flash: Hayden Kays's 'Those Who Suffer Love' Presented to Sadie Frost for 50th Birthday". Broadway World. 2015-08-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     Hayden already has a list of high-profile collectors including Chris Martin, Matt Smith, Lily James, Noel Fielding, Brad Pitt, Billie Piper and Sharleen Spiteri.

     London-based Hayden Kays is one of the most provocative artists of his generation.

     Kays is both classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play.

     As a painter, sculptor and printmaker, Kays is entrenched in art history, but retains an unashamed love for popular culture, using everyday references, his work relates to and subverts the canon of the Pop Artists of the 1950s and the Young British Artist movement. He was recently heralded as the man who is spearheading the evolution of the YBA movement in the UK today.

     His take on society and pop culture has already caught the eye of art alumni Jake Chapman, pop royalty Harry Styles and film luminaries such as Jude Law, who are all avid collectors of his work.

  3. Alberge, Dalya (2015-03-23). "The great pop art swap shop: Artists trade works with one other for reasons of friendship or even rivalry — and to save money". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns — they are among some of the greatest masters who have swapped works of art with their contemporaries. For some, it was a mark of mutual respect, the extension of an exchange of ideas; for others, a mutual rivalry. Or both.

     As a tradition spanning centuries, swapping continues today. Jake Chapman, one half of the Chapman brothers, has just agreed to swap certain pieces with Hayden Kays, a pop artist who borrows imagery from mass culture and whom Chapman describes as “acerbic, witty, shallow and subversive … quite brilliant”.

     ...

     Victoria Williams, director of the Cob Gallery, London, where Kays will exhibit this spring, says: “It’s amazing for so established and well-recognised an artist as Jake [Chapman] to be recognising Hayden … and swapping.”

     Kays can pick whatever he wants, Chapman says, having himself chosen one of Kays’ sculptures, “This Is Not A Brillo Box”, a variation on Warhol’s iconic “Brillo Soap Pads” boxes.

     Link to Jake and Dinos Chapman.
  4. The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and Safehaven86 (talk · contribs).
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hayden Kays to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis of the sources - Again, the first one is what I mentioned above in my nomination, the sourcing and information alone focuses with the fact he was involved with someone, and that someone bought his artwork; if everyone came to Wikipedia and said "Hey, someone bought my artwork, can I have an article?" If we wanted to conserve what this encyclopedia means, we would not automatically start one until we ensured that we had not only sufficient coverage, but also non-PR and trivial coverage. The next article not only starts with his own clients, but it goes to say unsubstantiated things about him such as "classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play....He is entrenched in history....an unashamed love for popular culture"; the last sentence then focuses with his clients again; that can hardly be confided as substantial and untouched-by-subject coverage, if it focuses that heavily with clients, yes although the journalist may have been interested, that's not what gets an article confirmed here alone. The next source then has a beginning paragraph about something completely different and it's not actually about the subject himself. The information listed then goes to only mention him about 5 times and that's because he was involved with someone about art; that alone is quite thin and cannot be held to be substantial enough for an article alone. This then concludes all sources listed, so that's simply not saying a lot if that's the best sourcing added. As for the comment stating that "other sources were also listed" is not considering or acknowledging the concerns about the article that have been listed here, including I challenged the sources above and explicitly showed they either contained PR or interviews alone; the next challenged line of sourcing was because of not only named mentions but also then the mere fact it was a known news source, without even actually stating the contained information, that's not the same thing as then also showing the concerned parts, as I have noted myself SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After reviewing the sources, I find them to be valid and able to establish notability. I reject utterly the notion that interviews are not a valid source, or that interviews cannot be used to establish notability. If the interview is published by a secondary source, it is no longer a primary source, and it is independent of the subject, because it underwent editorial review and was selectively published. Fieari (talk) 01:10, 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. The outcome hinges on the quality of the available sources. Normally, closers don't weigh in on this, as it is a matter of editorial judgment. But here, we have several "delete" opinions that discuss the quality of the available of the sources in considerable depth, and only one "keep" opinion at a similar level of detail and engagement. Given this level of detail in the discussion, the remaining "keep" opinions must be accorded less weight because they merely assert that sources exist, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality. In other words, based on the discussion among editors who have studied the sources in some detail, we have consensus that they are inadequate.  Sandstein  09:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleStrong[edit]

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

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

I still confirm my PROD here which was extensively informed about what the concerns were, yet it was boldly removed with no actual substantial improvements, the sources (like mentioned with my PROD) are all consisting of PR, event listings, company employee information, company achievemebts and investments. None of that substance ties any notability at all, and the gistory itself shows this was clearly touched by the company and likely their PR agents. In fact, not one thing comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. For example, also, simply examine the overall nature of those sources, one of them states "fresh acquisitions", I have never seen that mentioned at "news" unless it was a PR piece. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:BEFORE. We don't judge the notability of an article subject by the state of a current article but by the available sourcing. First Post and VC Circle are WP:RS that provide WP:SIGCOV of this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, the comment is not stating where they find my nomination "supposedly unconvincing" if I stated clearly and fluidly where the concerns are, why there are there and why there are unacceptable. These two links offered above are essentially the same thing, PR, and the fact one of them says "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions" is basically telling us what the company's plans are, not only to simply say them, but to get clients and investors interested; that is not at all close to actual journalism. Saying that the company got a landmark investment, is another bold attempt at wooing clients and investors, something I actually mentioned above, so stating the contrary that it's "significant and convincing" is not showing the considerations of my comments above. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom - what refs there are demonstrate neither WP:CORP nor WP:CORPDEPTH, and are indeed promotional fluff - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a non sequitur - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of significance. A private company going about its business. The sources provided above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, for example, from First Post:

• "HR is increasingly becoming the cornerstone of successful businesses," said Deepak Parekh, Chairman, HDFC Ltd, in a press release on the investment sent to the media. "I visited PeopleStrong during one of their product launches and I find PeopleStrong ahead of its times. Its founders are competent to take the company to much higher levels. We are happy to be a part of their journey and wish them success for their future growth."

I looked as well and the coverage I'm seeing is PR-like, about partnerships and investments, etc. Not sufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has sufficient sourcing to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORP. Also WP:GNG. -- GreenC 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unavailability of sources other than PR and ROUTINE coverage, makes subject ineligible for inclusion failing WP:CORPDEPTH. A news coverage ending with,

  PeopleStrong enables Business Leaders and CEO's in transforming their people agenda. It has implemented some of the largest HR Service Centers in Asia Pacific. They are delivering employee services across regions and time zones for more than 300,000 employees and have hired more than 40,000 employees through a unique technology interface coupled with high end decision making Tools for people data.

doesn't signal green for RS. That's Firstpost. Most of the sources are related to HDFC investment into this entity; and they all are either PR or reprint of the same. Anup [Talk] 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Dutta, Diksha (2014-03-03). "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions in contingency staffing, HR analytics space". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions.

     ...

     Last year, the company made a strategic investment by infusing capital in Gurgaon-based Integrated Learning Solution Pvt Ltd, which runs an online skill assessment venture under Wheebox.com. Bansal did not disclose the exact amount put in the company but said that PeopleStrong holds a significant equity in the firm.

     ...

     Bansal did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people.

     ...

     PeopleStrong has received $10 million in funding since 2005, the year of its inception. It has raised funding from angel investors like Pramod Bhasin (former chief of Genpact), Santrupt Mishra (of Aditya Birla Group) and Raja Varadarajan (HR veteran who has also worked at PeopleStrong) between 2006 and 2013. The company received institutional funding from HDFC Holdings and Lumis Partners around a year ago.

  2. "PeopleStrong to set up 'talent stock exchange' by December". Business Line. Press Trust of India. 2012-08-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     At a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year.

     ...

     The company already has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network.

     ...

  3. Datta, Nandita (2008-09-06). "In Through The Out Door". Outlook. pp. 71–72. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The magazine notes:

     PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management.

     ...

     PeopleStrong recently worked with an organisation where an external interviewer had earlier identified work-life balance issue in one of its branch offices as a pain-point. "When we studied their attrition, we found the problem was limited to just a few top performers. Overworked and frustrated, they were leaving, prompting their team members to quit as well," Bansal says. PeopleStrong conveyed this assessment to the company, which admitted that there was some problem with the branch head. The company then put in place an action plan that ensured that communication issues were sorted out with the corporate office. "It was our ability to slice the data that gave us the breakthrough which the other external interviewer could not identify," Bansal says. Over the last two-and-a-half years, PeopleStrong has invested heavily in this business; but Bansal refuses to divulge how much.

  4. Sengupta, Devina (2014-12-30). "Wipro's India division to handover staff recruitment responsibilities to PeopleStrong". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said.

     ...

     PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. "This is good news and shows a step in right direction that big firms want to outsource their HR work. If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants. The staffing firm's fouryear-old RPO business is its fastest growing vertical, expanding at 60% a year.

  5. Burroughs, Tim (2013-06-14). "Lumis, HDFC invest in India's PeopleStrong". Asian Venture Capital Journal. Mergemarket. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed.

     Founded in 2006 by Pankaj Bansal and Shelly Singh, with seed funding from Withya Group, PeopleStrong is headquartered in Gurgaon and has branch offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. It provides ...

  6. Datta, Aesha (2012-04-27). "Even appraisals are now outsourced". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.

     ...

     Both Aditya Birla Financial Services and Kotal Life outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PeopleStrong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • per SisterTwister's analysis, I remain unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Analysis of the listed sources - The first source is not only noticeable of not actually having efforts of journalis, but it goes to begin with "PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions....The company made investments with [named companies and information]....did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people....[Company] has made investments with [named people and stated amounts involved].". The next source says "t a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year....The company has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network". That is not anywhere close to actual journalism because it's all information of the company and by the company; no journalist would have added that if they genuinely were an investigative journalist, and not a look-to-the-side while the company supplies its own PR information.". Next we have "PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management....The company worked with....". None of that is a journalist's own words, it's the company who is willing to advertise their own company. An outrageous one is the next one: "WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said" which is clearly the company businesspeople themselves, because no one else would have been involved with the company's activities....than the company itself and the company alone. The next one is: "Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed....The company was founded in...." That's another that contains PR-supplied company information and that alone; no actual journalist efforts. PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015....Both companies outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong; none of that, yet again, is actual journalism efforts because it's simply company-supplied information complete with the blatant last sentence of "Companies supply their HR needs to PeopleStrong". The state of the current media has been bombarded by PR and this is why churnalism exists, to cut media budgets and then let the companies advertise themselves at no costs. Accepting this as "coverage" is essentially accepting company PR therefore we are accepting advertising. Note compare this and this, not only is there the blatant similarities of still PR and PR alone by stating company information, blatantly including clients and company information, but there's still no actual transparency or alleviation of the listed sources by actually making the article better of PR concerns (every single PR article still exists, what simply happened is that the sections were cut). SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the above sources are not convincing, as they are mostly PR-like and convey information likely emanating from the company, and would not be suitable RS to establish notability. Content includes:

• PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. " If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants.
• .... has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.

So this is mostly puffery (investments, plans, and partnership announcements) not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources are clearly problematic. WP:CORPDEPTH requires reliable sources independent of the subject which is not satisfied here. Reprinted press releases and sources which publish them are WP:SPIP and cannot be used for notability.

1. VC Circle Routine news/redressed PR. Note that the source tend to publish press releases.
2. Hindu Businessline 1 This is the Indian version of PR Newswire. The article seems to be a reprinted news and half of it is quotes by the CEO. Sorry, but that doesn't make it an independent source. CORPDEPTH tends to consider these are routine.
3. Outlook quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources This is not secondary coverage and is considered routine per CORPDEPTH
4. Economic Times Routine news of merger Doesn't help to satisfy CORPDEPTH
5. Asian Venture Capital Journal Patent WP:SPIP, also fails WP:AUD It's very clear that they publish any "news" in the investment/merger area. This kind of sources are never useful because they are in effect a directory. Using these sources for notability goes specifically against WP:NOTDIR.
6. Hindu Businessline 2 3 sentence coverage of which 2 sentences are quotes by the CEO. Also, 2 articles from the same sources are not considered distinct for notability This is patent ROUTINE coverage.

Every single sources I found is either trivial our routine coverage. There is not one good source which shows that this company is notable. The point about Churnalism by SwisterTwister is spot on. We need to examine the sources properly rather than take them at face value. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which says:

  Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

  I do not consider the VC Circle article (source 1) to be "Routine news/redressed PR". I consider it to provide "deep coverage" of the subject by discussing its history, products, and plans.

  A little less than half of source 2 (Business Line) contains quotes from the CEO. But the non-quoted portions provide significant coverage of the subject. The article is from the news agency Press Trust of India, which is the Indian equivalent of Agence France-Presse in France, the Press Association in the United Kingdom, and the Associated Press in the United States. I reviewed the non-quoted portions and did not find them in any press releases.

  Cunard (talk) 06:43, 28 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) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Work[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article at first glance appears to be well-sourced, but many of the sources are the company's own web pages, and some of the references, such as the one from D magazine, do not mention the subject. ubiquity (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom - if cut to RSes, this article would not exist - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my earlier PROD: "Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH" shoy (reactions) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• We have added references to Fastcompany and the New York Times, Dallas Culture Map and Dallas news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybyers (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination for deletion. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 27 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 Amazon Echo#Overview of operation. czar 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVONA[edit]

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

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

The only reason this company could be considered notable is because it was purchased by Amazon. Other than that, this article either reads like an advertisement or is too technical for the average reader to understand. The technical information come from non-independent sources and does not prove notability. Proud User (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the proposed deletion. Ivona was/is one of the leading text-to-speech products and deserves a place on wikipedia, just like any other of the thousands of software described in other articles. The article could/should be modified so that 'it doesn't read as an advertisement' (NB: AFAIK Ivona stopped selling its products to privates) but the page should definitely stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0rents (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this company is successful and known enough that there should be no problem finding reliable third-party information. There's obviously room for improvement, so that the article doesn't read like a press realease. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion, this is AfD so now's the time to show the secondary sources czar 04:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I found no better sources. @L0rents: We don't decide whether a company "deserves" to be here, it's whether article on that company meets the standards agreed upon by the community. @Kpalion: I concur with Czar. While it seems like there should be better sources out there, we shouldn't be deciding on an article based on speculation--this is precisely the time when those sources should be found and added to the article. I tried and failed. Note: @MBisanz's double-relisting (and self-reversion) on 1 September caused this page to be commented out of that day's daily AfD log. I've fixed this--as that was the "third" relisting, there should be no more after this. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation, where the company and TTS are mentioned. Considering this is one of the better TTS systems out there, I was surprised to find little in the way of independent reviews or history. Ivona appears in lists of best TTS systems, such as [41] (looks reliable) and [42] (seems well researched, but it is a blog). There is basic verifiability, but these fall short of WP:GNG notability thresholds. Its biggest claim to fame is as one of the foundation speech technologies in the Amazon Kindle and Echo devices. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, we should preserve verifiable material instead of deleting it. Until more independent sourcing becomes available, a redirect to it most notable use seems the best way to give readers a little information about the TTS without outrunning the sources. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation per the above - Article is clearly promotional and the sources aren't amazing, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation where it is discussed. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation I don't see enough sources to show that it is independently notable. The only sources talk about Amazon acquiring it, so I guess a redirect works fine. I don't think a merge is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:40, 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 speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Chandra[edit]

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

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

Failed WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR, She has not done any major role in any tv show also she was not the individual winner of Family Antakshari per this source as stated in the article. I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:14, 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 Speedy keep (WP:WITHDRAWN; see comments below). (non-admin closure) -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew John Schofield[edit]

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

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

Lack of secondary sources to confirm sufficient notability; some primary sources may not be reliable enough to back up claims in the article. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the article he unambiguously meets WP:PROF #C2 (Maxwell Prize), #C3 (Fellowship of the Institute of Physics) and #C5 (Pro-Vice-Chancellor). Citation record and a Scopus h-index of 23 also suggests he'd meet #C1. We can assume an academic of Schofield's stature is notable for their work even if they aren't frequently mentioned in secondary sources. Joe Roe (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, okay - I was unaware of WP:PROF. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia it's that there's always a policy you don't know about! Maybe consider withdrawing this nomination, in the interests of expediency? Joe Roe (talk) 16:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Poong Electronics[edit]

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

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

Suggest merger with Young Poong Group. This is not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete entirely and only redirect afterwards if needed, because the current article is honestly speedy material in that it only mentions what the company's services are and who the clients are! SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 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. Further, itt seems like the text is not useful for other articles, so no merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brightman anti aircraft machine gun[edit]

Brightman anti aircraft machine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability:the only reference is a patent and no evidence can be found that the gun was ever in significant use (despite online and library searches). Initial discussion of a merge is at Talk:Volley gun#Merge in proposal; the result of that merge discussion was this deletion proposal Klbrain (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that even prototypes were made or that the military gave this weapon any consideration. Per WP:PATENTS, a patent alone is not sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found nothing. Vaporware.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. No showing of notability, nor any RS citing as to one being built, tested or used. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no RS and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like everyone else, I also found nothing of note.--RAF910 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too have found nothing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to volley gun. A single patent[43] as a source is enough to support a brief note in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. As I said in the original merge proposal, there are numerous similar patents. There is nothing special about this one except that it has a Wikipedia article. Keeping it on Wikipedia because it is already on Wikipedia is circular reasoning. SpinningSpark 13:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that this isn't a "machine gun", in the general sense of a recoil(sic) activated automatic repeater. It's a volley gun of the mitrailleuse type, a type which was notable once but would generally considered obsolete by the 1930s. It's not notable, but the idea that new volley gun designs were still being considered in the 1930s does have relevance to the volley gun article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did I, or anyone in this discussion, say that I thought this was a machine gun? All the links to patents I gave in the original discussion (and I am sure there are many more) are for volley type weapons. The Brightman gun is not even the most recent. The first in my list of links was published 1973, and even that is not the most recent. You say that this gun was being considered in the 1930s, but you have offered no evidence that it actually was. There is no demonstration reported, no development contract, no discussions with the military, not even a report in the press. We simply don't report at Wikipedia every crazy patent that ever was. SpinningSpark 14:18, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continue (Wax album)[edit]

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

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

NN indie rap album. Fails WP:NALBUM, no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Barely passes WP:NALBUM by charting in Switzerland. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This album contains the hit song "Rosana", which can be merged into the page if needed. If this page cannot be kept, merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable album which fails GNG, IMHO no album should get an article just because it's charted in 1 country (1 country out of 195!), Regardless of where it's charted it still fails the notability guidelines here, I see no point in merging either as that would just be confusing and IMHO non-sensical, Better off being deleted .–Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If this article cannot be kept, it should be merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 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. Unnecessary to leave this open after being relisted. The only delete vote seems to be weak, and even then it is based on the now-resolved BLP issues brought up by the subject. Consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Sudetic[edit]

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

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

OTRS request from subject ticket:2016082810003061 S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sphilbrick: – What are we editors without OTRS access supposed to comment here? Judging from the article history, the purported subject requested deletion multiple times, accompanied with some legal threats. The subject satisfies the GNG and WP:AUTHOR, maybe not so much that we must have an article about him, but reasonably over the normal bar for an article. I also don't see anything problematic in our article, except the now-removed religion category and over-reliance on primary sources (i.e. sources writen by Sudetic himself). But it's a pretty solid "keep" on notability grounds otherwise. No such user (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: I included the OTRS link in case any agents wish to see what is in the ticket. If the subject had provided a rationale, and had given me permission to copy it here, I would have included it here. Whenever someone writes to OTRS to request an article be deleted we give them a set of options including instructions how to request deletion themselves but we always include an option that we will nominate it for deletion if they so request. That happened. I think you should judge the article on its merits, although I believe that in the case of close calls, some editors would give some weight to the subject's wishes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I implied, in my opinion this is a "close call" enough taking into account the subject's wishes – I would normally !vote "keep" but Sudetic is not that much above the GNG bar, and not that much of a public person, that we wouldn't accommodate him a courtesy deletion. Still, I fail to see what made him so upset. After all, he is (or was, if he prefers thus) an investigative journalist himself, bringing other people's tough stories to the public. Or is he having second thoughts now – the onwiki actions of his (?) seems so out of character that I imagined from his books and news articles. So, delete, I suppose, on the balance of BLP and everything. No such user (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Author appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, but is also a notable reporter having been covered in multiple independent sources [44], [45], New York Times. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He wrote several important works and is deserving of an article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, no !vote. The IP user (who claims to be the subject) has left a relevant message on my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and closing of this Afd, given the subject's communication with zzuuzz above, where the subject has clarified that after zzuuzz's edits, the subject is satisfied with the said article. Not that we need any subject's approval for keeping or deleting an article, but BLP requests should always be seen with extreme empathy, given the amount of damage wrong information in a BLP can cause to people in their real lives. Lourdes 12:25, 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 redirect to Software engineer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Software Engineer[edit]

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

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

Original research. Arbitrary specifics given for a position that, in fact, can have many different sets of responsibilities in different companies and even different projects at the same company. Northamerica1000 removed a PROD tag with the rationale "Seems worthy of expansion, covering various aspects of this term/title/career/position" (and marked the article with an OR tag). But, the thing is, there are no aspects of a position that might be titled "junior software engineer" that are any different from aspects of being a software engineer, about which we already have an article, at all other than, trivially, being at a lower level of skill, responsibility, and expectation. Further, the information that's already in the article may be the description of a position with that title at one company, but it's completely untrue that any of this is intrinsically in the nature of this position, and it might be something very different at another company. At my company, for example, junior software engineers have nothing whatsoever to do with "gathering information about a program's speed, usability, and other various metrics" or with "testing programs". So the article right now, stating that such-and-such is what a junior software engineer is, is a falsehood. Even if someone might conceivably create a valid article under this term some day, the current article calls for WP:TNT. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Software engineer and Speedy close this Afd. Lourdes 12:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Software engineer; does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect While sources could easily be found that use the words, I doubt there will be sources that actually discuss the position in-depth, uniquely different from a software engineer. The title "Junior" can be added to any job description. -- GreenC 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Software engineer per nom.Dialectric (talk) 18:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Tech Academy (Highland Springs, Virginia)[edit]

High Tech Academy (Highland Springs, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is not a school. It is a small program (only 2 teachers as far as I can determine) which is part of the Advance Career Education Center at Highland Springs (ACE) high school. http://henricoschools.us/pdf/Schools/SecondaryProfiles/HighlandSpringsTech.pdf ACE is a small (22-teacher) high school http://schools.henrico.k12.va.us/acecenterathighlandsprings/ which mostly deals with vocational studies. I would suggest merging and redirecting this to the ACE article, but we don't have an article for it. We do have an article for the school district: Henrico County Public Schools. Meters (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only significant content edits to this article in the last seven years were made recently by an SPA with an apparent COI (the username is that of the curriculum developer and head teacher}. Meters (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG, as is part of a non-notable entity Advance Career Education Center at Highland Springs. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Neither this program nor ACE, mentioned by several above, is technically a secondary school. As Meters mentioned above, this is not even a school, it is a program at ACE. ACE is not a secondary school but a technical education center used by several legitimate secondary schools. The students that attend here take their core classes at those secondary schools, actually graduate from those schools and only receive vocational education at this school. It's not an uncommon educational model, and by all means it should be discussed at the district's article, but I see no reason for an article or a redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 24 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) 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Eadie[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. While consensus did once accept Winnipeg as prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass just for serving on city council, the original basis for that consensus (its presence in one of the lists of cities that were formerly present in global city) is no longer true. Current consensus on a number of recent AFDs has now deprecated Winnipeg as not internationally significant enough to hand its city councillors any special status anymore, as it was listed in the "self-sufficiency" class of "honourable mentions", and is not actually classed as a "global city" per se by any external source either. And none of these articles is sourced remotely well enough to pass WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]