The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive direct mail (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 and WP:CORP. No indication of notability. It's difficult to discern what the article is actually about. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a POV fork of Advertising mail. No redirect necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional literature for some device which embeds touchscreens and trackers in spam snail mail. I can't find any source discussing this invention, the patent in question has never been cited, and the sole reference in the article doesn't mention the invention (it seems to be being cited for the claim that direct-mail is a "multi-billion dollar industry", on the basis that the USPS took in $879 million from direct mailers in 2014). FourViolas (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG,OR. South Nashua (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is so poorly written that I'm not sure whether it's an advertisement for a particular company, a screed, or an essay, but none of the above belong in an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original essay. And not a good one. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Iloilo City#Economy. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Jaro (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)

Still unconvinced this is a notable mall. Very small retail area for a mall and lack of independent coverage Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Iloilo City § Economy as per WP:ATD-M. The city article has no mention of this, so merging will improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per North America. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. The consensus have been established with more clarity after contributions from editors outside of the topic. Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles#Associated works appears to be the most agreeable option. Alex Shih^Talk 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard (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'm renominating this for deletion as I said I would during the deletion review. I'm afraid Mr Renard does not meet the minimum threshold for a Wikipedia biography, in that there is insufficient information about him as a person in the reliable sources. The sources don't tell us his date of birth, nationality, profession, or really any other biographical information at all ---- so it's simply not possible to base a biographical article on reliable sources. What limited sources we do have relate purely to his books. His biography should be deleted. —S Marshall T/C 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The WP:DRV for this article was closed less than 10 hours ago as a near-unanimous endorsement of the no consensus closure of the previous AfD [1]. The closer of the DRV, RoySmith, reminded everyone of WP:RENOM#Renominating for deletion, which states "If the XfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus', generally do not renominate the page for at least two months", and of WP:RENOM#Advice on renominating, which states "When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time. Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion." Moreover, the previous AfD was non-neutrally canvassed (including all sorts of false aspersions) here: [2], and the DRV was also non-neutrally canvassed in that same thread. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. At least three books have been written entirely about his books ([3], [4], [5]) and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently ([6]), including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today and at least three books by Wayne Dyer. He has been featured in seven documentary films, and his books have been translated into 22 languages. The article had already had two previous AfDs closed as Keep, and notability is not temporary. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't seem to see where either of the above two comments address the reasons for deletion that I provided.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on the subject's notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, but I haven't said anything about the article's condition. What I've said is, in fact, very simple and with all due respect, it's quite hard to misunderstand. If you have any independent, reliable sources that are actually about Mr Renard then you need to provide them. The article has no future if you don't.—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's no consensus regarding notability; unless a source related to A Course in Miracles suggests he is not notable, it should be kept. His personal website [7] is a source for the biographical details so I don't feel the lack of sourcing for that information is an issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? I didn't realize that we needed to find sources that attest to a person not being notable. Seems like it suffers from the proving a negative fallacy. jps (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the previous AfD was very recently closed as no consensus, you need something more. Without a secondary source that says something along the lines of "key people involved with A Course in Miracles in the 2000s include X Y and Z", I can't see how this can be deleted now. Is Mr. Renard more or less notable than Charles Buell Anderson, Marianne Williamson, or David Hoffmeister? I don't know, and I see no sources that claim to answer that. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a source for A Course In Miracles that attests to the authors of the book itself being notable. Gary Renard is not included. [8] jps (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:SOFIXIT. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Delete Much as I hate umpteen AFD's until we get the right answer I can find no real notability of this person, one book maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge, better solution.Slatersteven (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: This AfD was non-neutrally canvassed at 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (prior to the previous !vote) by the same editor who filed the previous AfD which was closed one week ago, and who non-neutrally canvassed that AfD, and who filed the DRV on that AfD close, and who non-neutrally canvassed that DRV: [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question about AFD's [10], this all he in fact did was to inform a notice board full of people who had commented on the last AFD, thus he in fact notified interested parties. Now we can also see he only did it on the one notice board (rather then contacting everyone). But is this in fact canvasing? I would ask JPS to not respond to this latest attack on his integrity. Lets not have this AFD go down the same road of tit for tat sniping as the last one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly non-neutral canvassing. This is neutral canvassing: [11]. This is non-neutral canvassing: [12]. See WP:APPNOTE: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief".-- Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have a discussion about this I do not think this should continue here. Can this please be dropped now?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to my notice, I answered. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Reynard's books and films are not notable, making it hard to argue that he passes WP:AUTHOR #3. or 4. He fails WP:AUTHOR #.2 because sole claim to notability is writing "books' stated purpose is to reawaken interest in and clarify the core principles of the 1976 spiritual text A Course In Miracles" And also because the books are not notable (I.e., not widely reviewed, cited, or discussed in WP:RS.) That leaves WP:AUTHOR #.1 :"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." And here we have to face the fact that despite the fact that the article has been here since 2005 and this is the 5th AfD, none of the editors arguing for keeping have been able to bring sources that would establish this point. The books cited in the article are within the A Course In Miracles thought tradition (a small, walled garden) and are not notable books. Nor do they appear to give WP:SIGCOV to Reynard's work. Nor, for that matter, does any source I can find. The items that come up on a news archive search (Proquest) are primarily press releases and event listing talks in local events columns. I can find nothing that approached WP:SIGCOV in a soruce independent of Reynard and A Course In Miracles. Nor can I find anything resembling a published profile of him. Topic fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:SOFIXIT. The subject meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Softlavender (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kindly read my comment through to the end, ot the part where I discuss my searches, including a Proquest search, that failed to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst the quality of the writing may not affect (and should not) an AFD an article not having RS added to it to establish notability in 12 years is an issue of notability, not quality.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close as quickly as practical. After three failed proposals to delete and a heavily-participated DRV, this is time-wasting rather than a productive exercise. I also reject the notion that knowledge workers (speaking very broadly) should be judged by the same standards as media celebrities; when the subject's work is notable, and their career can be described, the absence of other biographical data should be irrelevant. Cf B. Traven. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you disagree with WP:FRINGEBLP then? jps (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • After three AFDs and a DRV find no consensus that it applies, I don't think my opinion is terribly relevant. I do think it was primarily intended to apply to pseudoscience rather than to religious beliefs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems like a difficult means for demarcation when it comes to people who argue, as does Renard, that they can channel particular entities that exist outside of time and space and communicate scientific truths to him: e.g.. While there is a religious aspect to some of Renard's claims, there is definitely pseudoscience infused throughout his oeuvre. jps (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep because we literally just had this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• i saw the notice at the ANI thread. :) I went and looked for refs:

• "Gary Renard" NYT search -- nothing.
• WSJ search -- nothing.
• LA Times search -- nothing (one hit but false)
• SF Chronicle search - nothing
• Atlantic search - nothing
• New Yorker search - nothing
• newsweek search - nothing
• guardian search - nothing (well that is just a link to the main site - you cannot save your search there)
• bbc search - nothing.
• I google searched and it was a bunch of in-bubble blogs and what not.

So... what is the basis for claims that we can write an article about this person that says anything? There are no independent sources. I fully expected to find a book review in some semi-serious publication.....

delete. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep per Lepricavark. I haven't evaluated the notability or lack there of but it's way too soon to open another AfD. It's not like there's be a substantial change since then. Yes the previous AFD may have been somewhat disrupted by the canvassing concerns, but it should have been fairly obvious that opening this when the thread which started the canvassing was still there would just lead to the same result. In other words, this thread is just a waste of time since realistically it's only likely to end up with the same result. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - Take some advice from elsa. Twitbookspacetube 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Protected Redirect complaints about canvassing aside, I've still yet to see evidence of coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly trivial author, unjustified article. His notability in connection with A Course in Miracles is supposed to be having written a book based on it, which is too indirect an assertion--I notice it is not even mentioned in the article on the book. This does not meet the requirements of WP::AUTHOR,, which is the guideline here. Of the 4 books about him mentioned, the first two appear to be self-published. The people citing him seem to be mostly related to his movement,. The results of the first 2 afds were so idiosyncratic, and the 3rd was a non-consdnsus. The essay on renomination does not in my opinion represent WP guidelines and WP practice. A non consensus close can be renominated immediately, tho I usually advise people to wait a few weeks in the hope of getting further consensus. (the essay suggests 2 months, but we very frequently renominate sooner than that. ) Yes, I came here after ANI. ANI is an appropriate way to call attention to peculiarities like this walled garden. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep, and if that is not popular, Keep. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC) update16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Procedural keep" !votes are just a way of saying "Keep because the letter of policy discourages another AfD". I find them to be utterly unconvincing. In fact, that goes for any "procedural" or "technical" !vote about any subject anywhere on this site. The whole point of WP policy is for consensus to trump rules. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

grumble grumble. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me: I understand the frustration of "We just tried this and effed it all up last time! Give it a break!!!" I was tempted to !vote a procedural keep myself just to force some wait time on this issue. But in the end, we're here to decide whether this article has sufficient sources to continue to exist, and the undisputed fact is that it really doesn't. As abrasive as it might be to revisit this: we should get rid of it because it deserves to be deleted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be? Instead we should all stop wasting our time, and actually do something useful which will improve the encyclopaedia. Deleting this article may or may not do so, but it's clear it's never going to happen from this AfD so it's a silly and utter waste of time for us to be here. The sooner people realise this is pointless the better since then they can go back to improving wikipedia. I mean even if you feel there is some urgency to delete this article, this would almost definitely happen faster if this AFD was closed right now rather than staying open for 7 days or whatever, leading to either a keep or a no consensus and possibly another deletion review and so more time before another AFD can resonably be held and probably more acrimony next time. (Let alone compared to the much more resonable situation if this AFD was never opened and we let the past problems die a needed death.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it means. "Procedural Keep" is not the same thing as "This is a waste of time". I can point to AfDs that were closed as delete where people !voted "Procedural Keep". "Merits of the argument" used to mean something at Wikipedia and, occasionally, we arrive at situations where it still does. jps (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be? We do? From the last AfD, a cursory glance would inform you of an obvious "Delete" result. It's only because Ritchie took the time to review the arguments that he realized that nobody was arguing about the article, but about the behavioral accusations. Even if one trims those out, we're left with the "Delete" side arguing "There's no notability, check these search results." and the "Keep" side arguing "Shut up!!!1!" So that seems like an obvious "Delete" to me, as well. But then, look at the !votes here... So I'm not sure what you think the obvious outcome is going to be. There's more people voting to keep this time, but their arguments have nothing at all to do with the notability of the article, which is pretty much a non-argument. To be honest, were I the admin handling these AfDs, I'd have close the previous one as "No Consensus" with a strong encouragement to try again without the bickering. But this one? I'd close this one as "Delete" with a suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my !vote, regardless of whether anyone finds it convincing. We just had this discussion and the closure was upheld at DRV. It is not okay to flout proper procedure because one doesn't like the outcome. I don't like the precedent that could be set if this is closed in favor of deletion. Do we really want this to become commonplace? Lepricavark (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring process-wonkery and examining the actual merits of the content? Yes, please, as commonplace as possible. -- Begoon 01:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be just fine with having anyone who doesn't get their way at AfD immediately opening a new discussion? I'm guessing you wouldn't and that's what I'm concerned about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue of people not getting their way. I not only endorsed Ritchie's close of the last AfD (a "No consensus" close), but I attempted to support and advise him on his talk page. I think Ritchie made the right call, because the previous AfD was a clusterfuck. Believe it or not, my pile of fucks-to-give doesn't have a single one earmarked for this article. I couldn't care less whether it's deleted or not. But this AfD poses a question, to which I have provided an answer. Several other users have provided an answer to a very different question, and are now doing much to turn this particular AfD into a repeat of the previous clusterfuck. I seriously don't get the emotional investment some people seem to make in these discussions? Who the fuck cares if softlavender and jfg are at each other's throats? Who the fuck cares that someone else thought a brand new AfD, right after the clusterfuck was the way to go? The only thing that it makes any sense to care about is whether or not this article meets our notability guidelines. I'm sorry to say; not only does it not meet them, the fact that it doesn't does not appear to be in any serious dispute. So if this AfD gets closes as Keep or No Consensus, then there will soon be another one, and as long as they keep getting disrupted by bad-faith accusations and wikilawyering from a positions of exasperation at the drama this article caused, there will be no grounds whatsoever on which to ban editors from starting AfD after AfD after AfD.

So this problem has a fairly simple solution; delete the fucking article and we can all move on with our lives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is closed with the deletion of the article, it will set a potentially dangerous precedent for other articles to be repeatedly taken to AfD until the desired (by some) result is achieved. I don't think that is a good precedent to set. I don't know why you would tell me that it doesn't make any sense to care about that. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is closed with the keeping of the article, it will set a potentially dangerous precedent for other AfD's to be derailed from an obvious consensus (6 to 1 with no arguments even claiming suitable levels of sourcing) with a few well-placed accusations. The appeal to consequences goes both ways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it does, although IMO insufficient attention has been paid to the very valid concerns I've raised. The hostility displayed by a certain editor (not you) toward anyone who disagrees with him, as if we are enemies of Wikipedia, has perhaps intimidated others from speaking up. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is distinctly possible. It's also possible that the WP:BLUDGEONy accusations of canvassing are discouraging editors as well. As I mentioned before, this and the previous AfD seem to be giant clusterfucks, and I really wish everyone would ignore all the drama and just !vote on the policy/content, so we can put this to bed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the case. The delete !voters don't seem the slightest bit discouraged from chiming in. It's easier for you to say "ignore all the drama" when you haven't been repeatedly misquoted and insulted, but I do see your point. Lepricavark (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing User:S Marshall of acting in this way? jps (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substantially for the reasons as laid out fairly conclusively by E.M.Gregory. Does not meet GNG as an individual. Highly unlikely to given the lack of independant sourcing. No significant coverage. This !vote brought to you by way of strident ANI indignation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that in my! vote. E.M.Gregory is diligent at a) doing careful BEFORE searches before they !vote at AfD and b) doing the work of actually fixing articles during AFD with refs they find. Their !votes at AfD should get a lot of weight, either way they go. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - I have not participated in any of the previous deletion discussions. I read the arguments and the sources, and did some searches of my own. I was going to abstain based on procedure but DGG made a good point about how exceptions to the two month wait after an AfD close are allowable. The only two arguments in favor of keeping this article that I could find are that there are 1,084 reviews on Amazon for his book The Disappearance of the Universe [[13]] and the book is ranked #15 (although in a very narrow category - #15 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult & Paranormal > Ancient & Controversial Knowledge) [[14]] But, I can't find any mainstream coverage on him or the book. So, absent reliable coverage, this article clearly fails WP:GNG. That being said, it's a well-known fact that there are church groups that mobilize en masse to attend religious movies and buy related books, and so there's a large "hidden" subculture that is ignored by the mainstream media. To address this, I recommend a compromise - taking some of the info about the book and putting it in a new section called A Course in Miracles#Associated works, and redirecting this article there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMazon reviews of books or anything else are user contributed, and the number of them reflects not the number of readers as much as their desire to write a review. Any look at any useer review site will show that the people making comments are those who are inveterate fans beyond rational belief, and irrational despisers, likewise. Only those people are motivated to write the review--the conclusion from this is that only a few people read these books, but those fe are violently POV about them. That is not the same as notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per DGG. Not notable. No independent sources. It shouldn't have taken this long to get this inappropriate article removed. -- Begoon 00:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to a new section called A Course in Miracles#Associated works per Timtempleton (talk · contribs). I was able to find significant mainstream coverage about Gary Renard's book The Disappearance of the Universe in two sources:
  1. Garrett, Lynn (2005-03-07). "'Disappearance' Appears Big Time". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2017-08-08.

     The article notes:

     What propels a book to the number 2 spot on Amazon—second only to the new Harry Potter—when there have been no major trade reviews, no advertising, no national media exposure and no placement on any regional or national bestsellers lists? What motivates 141 readers to post glowing reviews? In other words: What's the deal with Hay House's The Disappearance of the Universe?

     Originally published in May 2003 by Fearless Books, Gary Renard's Disappearance—subtitled Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness—was picked up by Hay House, which published its edition in October.

     The book sold 25,000 copies in the Fearless edition and more than 30,000 for Hay House before the author and Hay House decided to turn up the volume. Renard hired Peggy McColl, whose company, Dynamic Destinies, does online marketing for authors and publishers. Renard paid McColl's consulting fee; Hay House pitched in for the contact lists and other costs, and Fearless publisher D. Patrick Miller contributed his labor.

     ...

     Much of Disappearance grows out of Renard's study of A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies. Renard said Disappearance (his first book) took him nine years to write, "and it's all true." It describes Renard's conversations with a pair of "ascended masters" (spiritual guides) who began visiting him in 1992 (they recommended he study the Course). He added, "Yes, it was a great campaign, but it also took a strong book to make it as successful as it was. The book was already an underground hit—it had great reviews and a strong Web site presentation, as well as excellent word of mouth in the spiritual community and an author who has flown 100,000 miles in the last year to promote it."

  2. Wilson, Brandy (2006-07-29). "Community of Faith: NEWS FROM HOUSES OF WORSHIP: 'Disappearance of Universe' author to host workshop". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2017-08-08.

     The article notes:

     Author Gary Renard received some strange visitors while meditating in his home alone one evening.

     Renard claims in his book, "The Disappearance of the Universe," that he opened his eyes from a meditation session to find a mysterious young couple sitting on his couch. In 17 subsequent conversations with the couple over the next nine years, Renard says they revealed themselves as ascended masters sent to teach him about the "divine intelligence of the universe" --- religion, reincarnation, forgiveness and more.

     To those unfamiliar with Renard, his claims may seem a little hard to swallow. But through word of mouth, his book, based on teachings from and time spent with the couple, has found a significant place in the spiritual world. Its even been compared with the spiritual society's signature book "A Course in Miracles," by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Both books are based on the author's writings on a series of divine visits and conversations. Renard's book also contains analyses of some of Schucman's primary teachings.

  I have searched extensively for sources about Gary Renard and his books; these are the two best sources I could find. Most of the other sources I found were passing mentions in newspapers or extensive coverage in self-published books, which is insufficient to establish notability. As these two articles are primarily about his book, I do not think they are enough for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Two sources about a book are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The Publishers Weekly review can be used to establish notability for The Disappearance of the Universe. But as an article about an event listing, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution source likely is not enough to establish notability. Since there is only one solid source about The Disappearance of Universe, I do not recommend creating an article about the book since it probably would get deleted or merged.

  I therefore support a selective merge to a new section called A Course in Miracles#Associated works per Timtempleton because the Publishers Weekly and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles clearly connect Gary Renard and his book, The Disappearance of the Universe, with A Course in Miracles.

  Cunard (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, we do have the rather bizarre situation (elsewhere) where the book is notable, but the author is not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (And no, Softlavender, as you said last AFD I wasn't canvassed to either discussion) Same reason as last time. He wrote a book, or a couple of books about a subject that is notable. So what? Just because you write about a notable subject, doesn't make the author notable. I don't see anything in the sources that Cunard puts forth that proves that the author is notable, just the book. Valeince (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just added info to A Course in Miracles#Associated works in case the closing editor wants to close this with a redirect. I'm not vouching for any of the sources I copied - it was a straight cut and paste from here, with some grammar changes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Timtempleton (talk · contribs). I have added more information about Renard's book to A Course in Miracles#Associated works.

  Cunard (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not oppose this merge, which is entirely justified by the sources. Nevertheless, my position is that if the close is "merge and redirect", then the redirect should be fully protected to prevent this rather longstanding and persistently-defended walled garden from being restored against consensus. Alternatively, the article could be deleted and then a fresh redirect created, preserving attribution by one of the methods suggested at WP:PATT. I really don't want to have to watch this, please; my watchlist is quite full enough already.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and was actually thinking that same thing myself. Since enough info is at the new redirect destination now, would a pure delete and then a recreation as a redirect work? Despite having come to this late and not really having any skin in the game, once this is deleted, I'd be happy to recreate Gary Renard as a redirect and monitor it in case the content has already been saved somewhere in a sandbox by persistent keep advocates. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A delete-and-recreate would work but you used the pre-existing article as a basis for the text you added to A Course in Miracles ---- so we have to give the people who wrote that material credit for their work (which is in the terms of use). They still own the copyright in their contributions. Wikipedia uses them under licence. Normally, credit to content authors is by means of the "view history" link, but if we delete the article then we hide the history, so we have to find another way to give them credit for their work. This is what WP:PATT is about. I expect the closer will avoid that though ---- I expect they'll just fully protect the redirect, keeping the history, and add ((afd-merged-from)) to Talk:A Course in Miracles (as has already been done in respect of another article that's been merged there). That's the least laborious way to do it. Strictly speaking, you should have added a merger template when you copied material from one article to another, but to be fair the rules on copying within Wikipedia are rather obscure and not widely known! The closer will probably sort it out.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the section, keeping the sources. Does that work? Interesting that entire articles are added to mirror sites where there is no attribution, yet a section can't be moved within Wikipedia from one article to the next. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that's up to the closer whether it's sufficient, but personally if I was closing, I wouldn't be completely comfortable with that. Although I'm sure this wasn't your intention, rewriting it to avoid attribution has a faint whiff of an end-run around the terms of use. The ((afd-merged-from)) route is really quite easy to use and gives us an ironclad assurance that we're fulfilling our copyright licensing promises.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on recent events: The DRV for the last review was closed 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) with linked advice not to re-nominate within two-month's time: [15]. Three hours later, after seeing that the DRV was closed, I began improving the article by adding text cited to reliable independent third-party sources: [16]. Two hours later, jps, who filed the previous AfD and who has repeatedly non-neutrally canvassed these AfDs, gutted the article by removing 1,772 bytes of text instead of tagging ((cn)): [17]. Three hours later, defying the advice of the DRV-closing admin, S Marshall opened this fourth AFD less than 10 hours after the DRV close. To repeat what I've stated previously, the subject easily meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. The current state of the article does not change that fact. The fact of the matter is that providing abundant sourced text for the article is more time-consuming than it was several years ago because of the current state of how GoogleBooks and Google itself works, and also because Amazon no longer allows "Search Inside This Book". Searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time. If there hadn't been all of the drama created by the four-fold non-neutral canvassing (of the previous AFD, the DRV, this AfD, and the ANI) and the immediate (less than 10 hours after the DRV) re-nom, this article would have easily been drastically improved in two month's time (the time length indicated in the DRV-closing admin's links). Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been little more than fancruft even since is was first nominated back in 2006 when it looked like this. It has never been an encyclopedia article. Even Cunard who is pretty much dependably inclusionist could not support keeping this. So I don't get it... Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on the subject's notability. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since your position is that you haven't had time to provide sources for this article that's existed since 2006, then how about we make a deal? Here's my offer. If, at any time after this is closed, you ever find the two (2) independent, reliable sources containing biographical information about Mr Renard that are the minimum standard for a Wikipedia article about him, then post them on my talk page and I will personally apologise to you, bring it to Deletion Review, and see that it's restored.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I stated or implied anything of the sort. Nor is AfD about making "deals"; it's about notability. This subject clearly meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, as I demonstrated in my !vote: [18]. Moreover, WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating, which RoySmith linked to in his close of the DRV in addition to the two-month hiatus guideline, states "Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." Softlavender (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, when you said searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time, I understood that to mean that you needed time to find your sources. If I've got that wrong, then please post them now.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:BADGERing; "Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." [19]. I am under no obligation to fulfill any of your demands, requests, stipulations, proclamations, or timelines, particularly not when you have egregiously violated WP:Renominating for deletion#Renominating for deletion and repeatedly violated WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you've edited this afd more than I have. How can it be me who's badgering? Surely it's you who's doing that?—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating: "When you do renominate, .... Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." (bolding mine). Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop badgering people to stop badgering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that'll happen, OID. Softlavender's quite heavily invested in keeping this article. Unfortunately for him it's a poorly-sourced article about an un-notable person who peddles something somewhere between a fringe religious position and pseudoscientific woo ---- and Softlavender is, it's quite clear, unable to offer any better sources than the desperately inadequate ones already mentioned above. So Softlavender's response is to try to turn it into a conduct dispute about the terrible behaviour of the evil nominators. Jps played into this strategy by making a note on AN/I that could be portrayed as non-neutral canvassing. I have not, so Softlavender is trying to leverage an essay that RoySmith mentioned in his DRV close to stop me from answering him ("badgering"). If he relinquishes that position then the article has no further defence, so I anticipate persistence.

And the truth is that I am "badgering". I'm positively required to do so by the second paragraph of WP:BLP ---- a consideration that far outweighs the essay on which Softlavender would like to rely. Policy demands that I am, and I quote, "very firm about the use of high-quality sources". So badger, badger, badger.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: SL is female per her page. And on a more substantive point, if this gets closed a NC or keep are you going to open up another one? At _some_ point we need to accept it when consensus goes against us. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets closed as "keep", then certainly not. That would be disruptive. But a "keep" closure based on this debate would be unlikely to survive DRV, don't you think? If it gets closed as "no consensus" then I will begin a discussion with the closer about the standards of sourcing the community requires for biographical articles about living people.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect at this point, I see no reason not to redirect to A Course in Miracles. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I would not consider the book to be notable either; Publishers Weekly is rather cursory and indiscriminate in its reviews, and it looks like there's nothing else better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. Note the term "merge", rather than "delete and redirect". I've no objection to keeping most of the scant additional material that's here, but there's so little of it I can't see justification for a separate author article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Protected Redirect. I myself do not really care if the history is kept, to be honest, so either one is fine with me, but I don't think there is any reason to delay the redirect as is often the standard operating procedure when a "merge" is decided upon. To be clear, the sourcing right now is not up to standards for a stand-alone WP:FRINGEBLP and it is clear to me that there are no WP:Independent sources to be had. The content is easily included in the ACIM main article, properly WP:WEIGHTed, of course. jps (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I !voted "Delete" above already, but I'm perfectly okay with a protected redirect. To me, they're functionally the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• also am good with that. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge/Redirect. There's no sourced info on the author -- the subject of this page. After all this time and attention, there's still no article here. Per BLP, we cannot have this article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not happy with having the AfD so soon after the last. But we do now have a better solution. So Merge per Cunard sounds right. Were it not for that, I'd probably have gone with a procedural keep. As always, thank you Cunard for your sources and work. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in A Course in Miracles — I desisted !voting on the last AfD. After doing more searches now it seems that Renard does not have the necessary independent coverage to have an article. Thanks to Jytdog for search link suggestions. Template:A Course in Miracles should also be adapted. —PaleoNeonate – 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinton Feldberg (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge/Redirect - unremarkable person...^{Atsme📞📧} 13:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Protected Redirect to A_Course_in_Miracles. Superficially it looks like he might be notable, but after a closer look it's apparent that notability depends on a literary walled garden whose participants are not independent of Renard and his unorthodox beliefs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully pro league JMHamo (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time as he becomes notable, at which point it can be re-created under the correctly capitalised title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debraj Shome (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)

DGG (talk · contribs) thinks this is spam. But an article that has survived nine years since its creation and five years since its last AfD discussion deserves better than speedy deletion. I have no feeling on the matter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. a few quotes will illustrate :"Dr. Shome who is regarded as one of the best plastic surgeons in Mumbai & India" ; "Shome, the facial plastic surgeon was conferred with prestigious "India’s Most Promising Face in Facial Plastic Surgery Innovations” at Satya Brahma founded Indian Affairs India Leadership Conclave 2015" "several peer-reviewed national and international publications to his credit. " (highest citation figure is actually 51, from review journals; highest research paper is 31, which in inconsequential in this subject area) No major awards; no editorships; no faculty appointments. "He is a columnist for the Times of India, Hindustan Times, and DNA – Daily News and Analysis, " -- and so are all plastic surgeons who are looking for patients. This field has been a quagmire of advertisements, both on and off Wikipedia. WE have removed about half the WP examples. Most still in WP have presidencies of major societies of editor in chief of major journal of major international prizes or distinguished professorships in major research universities. Those are the only safe criteria. (There are also a few who specialize in major celebrities--whether that should be a special case seems dubious to me, but some have had keeps.) The references are advertorials at best. The previous two AfDs were non-consensus, not keeps & thus no precedent. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am just an onlooker and a follower and I do not even necessarily know how to make edits to Wikipedia. But, I have a couple of comments here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.28.255 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well,publishing multiple research papers with very high citation counts will do it, or being editor of a major journal, or distinguished full professor at a major university. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete DGG presents a detailed and persuasive case. Shome is not notable enough, and the article is far too heavy on advertising. Plus, at least some of those are vanity awards, so one has to be sceptical about the rest. Edwardx (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dr. Debraj Shome is a much recognised, much awarded and very highly renowned Indian plastic surgeon. If he does not deserve a Wiki mention, then Wiki should not have any surgeons at all! If the article is poorly written, get it re written! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.8.71 (talk)
• Delete non-notable person and per DGG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trisha Paytas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas (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)

There already is a discography section at Trisha Paytas — that's sufficient when virtually all of these songs appear to be self-released. Anyone can self-release songs; that doesn't make them notable. This article is a blatant attempt at promotionally adding more and unnecessary pages to Wikipedia in order to further her brand — including by inappropriate addition of purely decorative images of artists in no way involved with the subject and only here to make this seem more notable and important. The main article Trisha Paytas is constantly beset by promotional and evidently WP:COI edits. Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find evidence to suggest that this meets WP:LISTN.  gongshow  talk  00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Trisha Paytas. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Trisha Paytas. No harm would be done to WP if it was deleted, 19 songs is hardly significant. NB. Is it only me that is offended by semi-related pictures of other artists on these lists? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am as well. See my original post. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back this trivia into the main article of this marginally notable singer. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Dixon (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 writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G5 - article created by sock of a blocked sockmaster (checkuser block). Delete Clearly failing WP:BASIC and hence WP:CREATIVE also. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, The author's account isn't tagged as a sock, there's no SPI in his name, nothing indicating he's been previously blocked linking to his userpage or to his talkpage. I'd read Jpgordon's refusal to unblock as a comment on Liam's being master of involved IPs rather than being sock of another user. It would be great to get rid of this nonsense article on a speedy rather than waiting another 5 days - could you provide some material to make WP:SNOW please? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd wanted to make a comment I would have; no need to reinterpret. My checkuser on this account found another sock account; I blocked that too when I indeffed Speedydixon. Process question: is there any reason this isn't A7? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this page is just a continuation of the author's narcissistic self-promotion & vandalism under a different title. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet notability criteria and an obvious self-promotional piece. The only reference provided is written by the article's subject and creator. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 07:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. self-written unsourced self-promotion, G11 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kishnani (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)

He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:FILMMAKER. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diamond Bus#Black Diamond. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson's Local Buses (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 bus company, Sources were added in the prev AFD however 2 years on and we have nothing that confirms notability, Fails NCORP as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a notable company per WP:NCORP.Charles (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to the company now being closed and merged with Diamond Bus, perhaps this article could be deleted and the Diamond page updated to reflect the merger? Yamhamdan (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Yamhamdan, Unfortunately I have no idea where in that article it can be merged into, I don't want to just randomly stick it anywhere ...., FWIW as a general comment I wouldn't object to redirecting however this should be deleted first, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diamond Bus § Black Diamond which has some content about this company. A valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diamond Bus#Black Diamond. Finchfrog (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per above. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I originally closed as Redirect however bizarrely one editor who !voted Redirect appears to have an issue ... I'm dumbfounded but regardless I've reopened and relisted .... It's a shame this place has become so bureaucratic. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bizarre about expecting an AfD to remain open for at least a week and that it should not be closed by the nominator. People who might want to comment need a chance to see it.Charles (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diamond Bus#Black Diamond per above, since the company has been bought out. There is some information in the standalone article not (yet) reproduced there, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic enough to warrant being copied over. Good job finding the relevant destination for the redirect, North America! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After extended discussion, there is a clear consensus favoring deletion of the article as it stands at this time. This is without prejudice to the future creation of an article on this topic, if reliable independent sources are found to support such an article. Editors who believe that an article meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion may consider creating a draft at Draft:Mavenlink, excluding the sources deemed objectionable and instead providing reliable independent sources, and submitting this draft for consideration through the usual process for evaluation of drafts. bd2412 T 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mavenlink (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)

Blatant Promotions. Highly misleading, Press coverage online blogs presented as source for notability. Light2021 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly advertorial content, with sections such as "Funding & Investments" and "Product features". Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editor. Simply a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just read about them yesterday in the Orange County Business Journal and went to this article to learn more, and saw they were nominated for deletion. I added the coverage, and deleted the promotional info. Looks good now. Still missing some funding info - will have to look for it later when I have more time.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But business journals are explicitly considered unacceptable by both WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG, so how they can considered acceptable in this one specific instance? SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claim that business journals can't be used to source information about businesses. I'm not sure what WP:ORGIND is but can you show me specifically in WP:GNG where it says that? Forbes, Fortune and Crain's (from various cities) are all used quite extensively as Wikipedia sources, and my local business journals are also great sources of info on local businesses. In this specific case, from what DreamyShade added below, PC Magazine, CIO magazine and Computerworld are all considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Discounting them as worthless hurts your credibility as an AfD voter or AfD delete nominator of business articles. If you tried to delete those articles, you'd find this out from many others besides me. I'm also going to have to disagree that a funding announcement is not news. Funding announcements are very good indicators that a company has gotten to the critical point and is finally ready to take off. There's a term called Unicorn that specifically refers to companies that are valued at $1B due to recent funding rounds. I know you wouldn't (or at least I hope you wouldn't) suggest that since funding is immaterial news, that article should be deleted as well? Funding is very reliable info - companies have to file Form D financial statements within 15 days of funding - they can't make the numbers up. Also, you and I have discussed this in at least one other prior deletion discussion, but saying that media coverage that is spurred by a press release should be ignored on principle, I'm sorry to say, just shows a misunderstanding of the role of public relations in business. Thousands and thousands of press releases are released every day. Journalists only cover the ones that seem to be notable to them. Business journalists don't sit outside of most business offices trying to get scoops - they scan the wire services. Finally, per your note and examples below, I agree with you that there's a COI trend here, maybe not all of them but at least from the single article editors, but if there are 2-3 people working together from a company, and none of them are as experienced with Wikipedia guidelines as you and I, it's conceivable that this could be innocent editing. Once they get bitten and realize that they screwed up, I don't blame them for wanting to stay low and not declare a COI. For all they know, you could be passionate and volatile - they don't whether or not you might try to do PR damage to the company. The nominator has been sanctioned for tag bombing articles and canvassing, and narrowly avoided another ban. These are not CEOs and business owners themselves doing this editing - they are likely rank and file employees who could very well fear getting fired for what happens to the company as a result of these notability attacks and tag bombs. But this shouldn't be grounds for not allowing others to try to improve articles and maybe save them, as I'm trying to. Otherwise, your best intentions will likely only drive more people to paid editors. Did you catch this? [[20]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient sources available for WP:GNG. Several of the existing sources are to newspapers or established online publications with editorial practices, not blogs - Orange County Business Journal, The Next Web, Yahoo Small Business, ZDNet, VentureBeat. I found many additional third-party reliable sources with a Google News search, such as:

• "The 7 best project management mobile apps", CIO
• PC Magazine review
• "Business Power Tools: Mavenlink's CEO Shares His Favorite Tech", PC Magazine
• "London calling, Mavenlink opens up", Enterprise Times
• "Irvine Software Maker Raises $39M", Orange County Business Journal
• "Mavenlink's New Resource Planning Tool Helps You Think Long-Term", PC Magazine
• "Flock of Church and State business incubator is flourishing", KSL TV
• "Mavenlink offers a consulting service, because services bring protection", Computerworld

Dreamyshade (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually GNG says we cannot accept funding announcements or interviews which three-fourths of what's above is exactly this. Adding to this, GNG also says that editorial discretion is not a sole factor in notability, but actually the weight of whether the content is actually independent, so because the information is interviews and mentions, it cannot be valid. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article has received some copy editing after the nomination for deletion to address concerns with promotionalism, and per a source review, the topic meets WP:GNG. Any additional concerns with promotional tone can be addressed via further copy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further consideration struck my !vote above. It appears that the SaaS is notable, rather than the company itself. Consider the above to be a comment at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I analyzed the sources and easily found them to be promotional, see: 1 is an indiscriminate list which violates WP:Not guide given an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not, 2 is only 1 review, 3 is like the 1st one and, worse, because it's a company interview therefore not independent at all and 4 is following this, 5 is a funding list which cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND since it says "anything directly or indirectly by the company or where the company talks about itself, routine announcements or listings", 6 is like the first one, and actually from a local TV station (therefore not substantial or significant) and The tool, dubbed Mavenlink Resource Planning and Management, intends to treat your projects and resources as interconnected cyclical processes more akin to enterprise resource planning (ERP) rather than one-off tasks. This pivot is designed to give managers and planners the ability to address company changes that might affect multiple project timelines, budgets, and profitability. The solution spans the service lifecycle from sales commitment to project delivery and postmortem analysis and finally 7 and 8 are once again anything directly or indirectly by the company since it says Upstairs at Mavenlink, employees are helping fast-growing businesses navigate digital obstacles. Andy Leavitt of Mavenlink describes the company's mission this way: "Anybody who bills for a fee, we want those businesses to come to us." and the company quickly expanded into Utah to find the tech talent it needed to help clients manage projects all over the world. As WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT state quite clearly, we are not a promotional webhost and suggesting that we make exceptions simply because of publication name is violating our fundamental pillar WP:Neutrality. As for GNG, it actually says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" and "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" (links to WP:What Wikipedia which is cited as a guaranteed policy factor). To analyze the Keep votes, one of them suggests a local trade publication but these are exactly "directly or indirectly by the company", the next offers the same business journal and none of that actually gives us new material to examine. See also WP:GNG which clearly states Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article so GNG cannot be an instant guaranteed it can be accepted since there are still valid concerns. As for copyediting, the specific page about this process actually says "Promotion cannot be improved if it still other concerns", and this is especially valid when considering clear COI as this, this, this, this, this and others, so suggesting that we brush it under the rug in absence of taking action on it, is not part of our goals here. Considering these were repeated back-to-back patterns, it's highly likely to say they were company employees, worse when they themselves were either sourcing back to the company website or pasting from it, therefore we have applicable concerns in our Terms of Use violations. In fact, the only changes made here were to remove a few pieces of puffery but the promotionalism was still noticeable, that is instantly evidence for WP:Deletion policy as unsuitable encyclopedia material. Suggesting that we act closer to a news source and cover special interests or trade subjects, would be violating WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper (policy). As the nomination states, "Blatant promotion" is in fact perfectly applicable. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While Mavenlink software may be notable per PC Mag review linked, I don't see anything like reliable coverage of the company - it's business as usual through press releases. We are not yellow pages or PR-summary site. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put a longer comment above, but just wanted to make sure the closing editor is aware that your delete vote is based on the sources being press releases, yet I hope he/she confirms for themselves that there's not a single press release there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the case at all, this and this which are clearly printed in the company's name and are in the current article. These are the 2 especially blatant cases and, worse, the other similar "announcements" are heavily based off this, therefore that throws into question those other sources, as by policy WP:V. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the link you posted in the article, but it turns out that the Yahoo Finance link [[21]] which is dead may have been PR. I deleted it per WP:OVERCITE. Much easier to fix than nominating and deleting. You can see from time to time in my editing history that I cull PR from random articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected above - meant overcite, not overlink. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found in Dreamyshade (talk · contribs)'s comprehensive search for sources and the eloquent, incisive analysis by Timtempleton (talk · contribs) at 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  This article is not routine coverage. The article contains detailed analysis and questioning of Mavenlink's decisions:

  While this is the obvious next step for Mavenlink in its expansion it may be making an error. Currently the SaaS company is hosting its data on AWS in Oregon with a disaster recovery centre in Virginia. Asked whether they would be opening up a European instance Mavenlink responded: “Given the networked ecosystem architecture of our application, we are leveraging the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for data privacy, and leveraging other, modern methods to deliver performance across global geographies.”

  While Mavenlink are now certified under the EU-US privacy shield this may not be enough to win some clients. This is especially true in Germany where data sovereignty is especially important. The EU-US privacy shield was criticised heavily last year. Most major hosting companies now have European data centres there seems little reason not to have an instance in the EU. It will be interesting to see what the Mavenlink strategy on this will be going forward. It may be that they are awaiting a critical mass of companies before opening up a non-US instance. The risk is that without that data centre in Europe they may find that some companies will not want to sign up.

  This article from Computerworld is also skeptical of Mavenlink's decisions:

  MyPOV
  
  I'm not convinced. Not because I believe the hype that SaaS requires no professional services, but more because Mavenlink has a difficult job to do here. For one thing, it has to differentiate its own product from the on-premises offerings out there. The general way that SaaS vendors do that is by articulating the ease of use, reduced time to value, better economics and easier integration that SaaS products bring. But by introducing MavenOps, Mavenlink needs to start articulating the very opposite: that SaaS is hard and that consulting is needed to deliver value.

  I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I suspect Mavenlink's move has more to do with a difficult economic climate and pressure to deliver financial results than with any customer-facing factors. One to watch, but I'm not sure they're onto a winner here.

  Critical analysis of a company's actions is neither routine coverage nor an advertisement.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even with 2 controversies, this is not the multiple coverage needed in WP:GNG, see multiple sources are generally expected and, even then, it would be a matter of WP:1E because of circumstantial events considering the articles are each from 1 (2017) and 1 (2016); this is not the Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability...sustained coverage is....notability. How should this interpreted any differently you provide this a basis for keep, but I quoted the exact excerpts from it and the level of news coverage actually needed? SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is sufficient coverage in multiple sources to meet GNG's requirement of significant coverage. There are sufficient sources unconnected to the subject to satisfy GNG's requirement of independent sources. TimTempleton did the work to WP:RESCUE this one. Cunard's analysis is spot-on. David in DC (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would this address the policy-based concerns and the detailed analysis given that GNG shows WP:What Wikipedia is not takes priority? Policy is what matters here and it can't be negotied or exchanged on anything. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's easy to see what's available on the subject isn't what notability is about, or even what counts as significant; see this or this; since no one ever actually made any improvements after the nomination either, I'm not convinced this is actually going to show notability or that we should expect it any later, if couldn't happen now. As always, Wikipedia is not a webhost for "articles to possibly improve" since GNG says articles must be labeled notable there and now. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional, and intended to be, showing multiple signs recognizable as the typical production of the typical promotional editor, from the self-serving introduction on "[the founders] sas a gap in ..." (every new business is started because the founders see a gap in whatever provision of whatever service or product they propose to do business in-- it may be intend as human interest but it is just boilerplate) to the list of multiple company social media sites at the bottom, a practice prohibited by our rules on linking, but an almost invariable part of the less competent variety of PR. An uninvolved ed. whom I respect , but who frequently tries to keep articles in this and related fields has been trying to improve it, by removing the worst of the references, but if it is finished there is not going to be enough substance left. The data on subscribers comes from a small section on the company in a "Multiple application that ..." article on a web site, and normally repeats only a PR claim. The funding information is PR-junk; it is included in promotional articles for two reasons--first, it is of some obvious importance to the owners of the company--and, except for the private investors-- nobody else; second, there are invariably announcement of this funding to be found, because it has for at least a century been the practice of financial enterprises to make sure they get published--and therefore it is the sort of trivial material that is specifically prohibited by our policies. I have myself tried to improve many poor quality articles, but I try to limit myself to those which are important enough to be worth the effort, and where there is decent material to be found. I no longer do it for run of the mill promotional articles like this, because the contributors of such material need to be discouraged, not assisted. It is in my opinion a misguided approach to try to lower the level of the encyclopedia. Promotional editing is prevalent enough from true promotional editors without the NPOV editors assisting it. There's no point discussing the details of the sourcing, because the entire effort is misguided -- the only way to help the encyclopedia increase good coverage in this area is to delete material of this sort. I'm writing this at longer length than usual in the hope is getting those editors still open to argument to think again about the effects of what they are doing. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG as promotional and damaging to the encyclopedia. I will add that a company's notability is always dubious when the most significant coverage comes from a content farm such as those run by Forbes and Computerworld. Coverage there is routinely bought and sold on websites such as Upwork, just like Wikipedia articles. Rentier (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I very much agree with DGG's words above, and SwisterTwister's in depth source review shows that the sources do not pass our high threshold for sources as mandated by WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Merkley (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 23 July 2017 (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/2017 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 4 August 2017 (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/2017 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete has not played at a level described in WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There appears to have been a misguided campaign earlier this year of comprehensively BLPing every single person who got picked in the Ontario Hockey League entry draft — but the Ontario Hockey League is a junior league that requires a player to pass NHOCKEY #4 (preeminent honours) before he qualifies for an article, and does not represent an automatic inclusion freebie for every player who exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Skogsletten (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)

Too soon, has not broke through yet in a sufficient fashion. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication the article could satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons noted above; maybe one for the future, but not right now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.Per WP:G7 by User:Cyp. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Jovcevski (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 with no indication of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:MUSICBIO. Notability claims to be an international audience following a 2017 single, but the ref cited does not state this. Comatmebro (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sourcing doesn't exist to get the subject past the requirements of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete promotional material of a non-notable subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Nevé–selbert 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William and Mary (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)

Redirect to Glorious Revolution#William and Mary made joint monarchs with a hatnote to the College of William & Mary. This article is a stub and a wp:fork. --Nevé–selbert 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the reign of William and Mary is an important part of British history, starting with the Bloodless Revolution and following King James II's being deposed (the last time a British monarch was deposed). Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has not only not advanced a reason for deletion, but seems to be under the impression that this is a forum for a name change or the article's content. Procedural close on the basis that it is not- the article talk page is! (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 07:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Filled Toronto (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 have tried to modify this page to show Jam Filled's true history. Jam Filled did not purchase Arc Productions, It did not change it's name to Arc Productions. Arc Productions went bankrupt and Jam Filled purchased some of the assets only. The contracts were renegotiated with the client and many ex Arc employees were hired many people back. In stead of removing this page, I suggest changing it back to Arc Productions and stating that is went bankrupt. Jam Filled is celebrating it's 10th year anniversary this year, and we do not want to be associated with the past of Arc Productions. Although we now share some history, we have our own and would like to create a page for that.

On a side note, over the past 12 years, I have worked for all the companies continuously from DKP, IDT Entertainment, Starz Media Canada, and Arc Productions. With more authority than most people (if not all), I can clearly tell you that Jam Filled is not the same company.

560 Employees that worked for Arc Productions can tell you same.John Hickson (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Even if Jhickson's assertion is correct, Arc Productions and Starz Animation satisfy the notability requirements. An article should exist on that company. Whether the history of JFT needs unwound from that article and put in a separate article (or not have an article at all) is a separate matter. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsure if being nominated as district judge is a credible claim of notability (i.e. may be CSD-A7). Kleuske (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All federal judicial nominees have an article pretaining to their nomination, regardless of the outcome of said nomination. All federal judges have information regarding their nomination process and both biographical and legal background information. So I'm at a loss as to why this article should be deleted, when all nominees (and potential judges) have an article. How is that not notable? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I merely applied WP:GNG after finding only passing mentions. Are nominees exempt from that? Kleuske (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kleuske: I would think so because a short bio comes out on the White House website, so that gives content for an article. Plus, once their nomination is received in committee, then there's a more extensive background to add due to the release of a questionnaire. Not to mention if they're an accomplished lawyer or state judge (say like a state Supreme Court justice) then you can easily find additional information from their bios within law firms and/or courts. I've done numerous nominee articles in the past and this is the first I've ever had this issue come up. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed the short bio, apparantly, unless you mean "A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, vice Cameron M. Currie, retired."^here, which IMHO does not qualify as such. Can you provide a link? What about the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG? Kleuske (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the link I'm referring to: It was made available earlier today: "President Donald J. Trump Announces Sixth Wave of Judicial Candidates and Fifth Wave of U.S. Attorney Candidates"; he's the sixth nominee listed. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a short bio, which doesn't mention basic biographical facts (date/place of birth, etc). As an aside, since POTUS nominated the man, it can hardly be argued this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which WP:GNG calls for. Kleuske (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Date and place of birth have already been added from another source. As more information becomes available, it will be added, but for now, I think what is there is sufficient enough to keep the article. As I've said, there's precedent for many other judicial nominees having articles and I don't see how or why that would change now. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By longstanding precedent, articles have been created on Article III Judicial nominees at the time of their nomination. While technically these individuals may not satisfy the Wikipedia notability guidelines at the time of their nomination, we find it easier to create such articles now, rather than to wait for their confirmation. Additionally, Article III Judges who have been confirmed have a presumption of notability, per long precedent. I see no reason for deletion, which could lead to a deletion spree of other recently created articles. If this nominee ultimately fails to be confirmed, we can pursue deletion at that time. Safiel (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm... "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Admittedly there's an "in practice" clause following that, but that's still WP:TOOSOON. Kleuske (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But even said clause assumes they will be confirmed, thus, implying notability. "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent. At worst, the article just needs a (ref improve) tag, in which more sources will be added once additional research is done independently. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that an Article III nominee is inherently notable. Being nominated by the President of the United States for one of the limited number (about 3000, counting appellate courts) of Article III lifetime positions is notable, end of story. Can anyone possibly imagine that any such nominee is not subject to immediate coverage in reliable sources? Even if not confirmed, the circumstances of the confirmation failure or withdrawal gets sufficient coverage to ensure WP:GNG. I acknowledge Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability says "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable," but I disagree. Looking at the edit history to that page, it seems largely the work of a small number of editors thanklessly trying to corral and codify the Wikiproject's positions, but cannot be seen as actually representing a consensus of Wikipedia editors of of that Wikiproject. (Although I commend them for trying; it's a good start, but trying to get a consensus on these types of issues is like herding cats; and I say that as one of the cats.) TJRC (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TJRC, I must reject your assessment of the USCJ notability guidelines. Although the number of editors participating in writing these guidelines has been small, they have been discussed at various points over the history of the project. Some of the edits I have made to those guidelines have reflected points raised by other project members. I am confident that the more active members of the project are aware of the guidelines, and would not hesitate to raise any particular objection that they have. In short, I think that it does represent a consensus on the project. That said, I would welcome any proposals for improvement. With respect to the issue at hand, it may be true that a nominee in this day and age is likely to get immediate coverage, but is this the case for all past failed nominees? I don't know. I would suggest, however, that there has to be more to this subject's biography than what is currently in the article, to explain exactly how he came to be a federal judicial nominee. bd2412 T 00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: You're saying that the vetting process done by Senators PRIOR to becoming a candidate and/or being nominated is now needed? Am I understanding that right? Honestly, I've never known that to be public record until the questionnaires are released by committee or the Senator(s) office does a press release after the nomination. If I'm misinterpreting, I apologize. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not talking about the vetting process, but about the process by which this name got on the President's desk. Federal judges aren't picked out of the phone book, or really even purely on merit, and rarely even because they personally know the President who nominates them. They are nominated because they have some connection to their Senator, or someone of equivalent pull within their state. It is sometimes possible to find reporting indicating, e.g., who recommended the nominee to the President. bd2412 T 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per points made by TJRC, district court judges pass Wikipedia notability and coverage guidelines. Zbase4 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per very long standing precedent here. Judges at the USDC level almost always have had significant legal careers already. Senators, through the advise and consent process, do in fact vet Federal judicial nominees. This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from unorthodox sources - random persons on the Internet, the phone book, Twitter - who knows? Even if this person were not confirmed, he would meet my standards for jurists. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from unorthodox sources".^{[citation needed]} There is no indication whatsoever that this president's judicial nominees represent anything other than politics as usual. bd2412 T 13:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep We typically have articles for all federal judicial nominees, and I don't see why this case should be any different. It may be jumping the gun a bit to create the pages prior to confirmation, but since the vast majority of federal judicial nominees go on to be confirmed, I don't see the harm in creating articles prior to confirmation. For an idea of scope, there are currently just 31 pending federal judicial nominees, so we're not talking about very many articles. These nominees will either go on to be confirmed, in which case they are certainly notable under WP:POLITICIAN, or their nominations will fail, in which case the reason for failure/coverage surrounding the failure will almost certainly render them notable. In this particular case, I think there is enough coverage here to pass the general notability threshold, see this and this, for example. Per those sources, he is a past president of the South Carolina Bar. Marquardtika (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private Retirement Trust (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)

About a non-notable proprietary retirement funding vehicle, the Private Retirement TrustSM, or PRTSM. No coverage to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. The article is merely regurgitation of state-level statutes. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or stubify. It's possible (even likely) that a good encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it, per Power~enwiki. Maybe just WP:TNT and turn it into a stub, but deleting it isn't a bad alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party standings in the House of Commons of Canada (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)

• Inaccurate title - this article is a seating chart, not information about party standings
• Unnecessary - duplicates chart on House of Commons of Canada, only with the addition of the names of individual members
• Unencyclopedic - is there really a need for an article consisting solely of a chart where the only source is a publicly available version of the exact same chart? Madg2011 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a LOT of seat charts for legislatures at the Commons - no pun intended - including at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Composition_of_the_House_of_Commons_of_Canada . Perhaps this is a better place for it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've advocated getting rid of these for years. All they do is replicate primary sourced information of little actual utility — the only people who actually need to know that Kim Rudd sits directly in front of Julie Dabrusin, or that Bob Saroya sits next to Jamie Schmale, or exactly which curtain-skirting seat in the peanut gallery Hunter Tootoo's been banished to, are employees of the House of Commons who already have access to the House's own internal charts. And the nature of Wikipedia means that the information can't be provided without violating our article design principles — actually reading a Wikipedia article should never require scrolling left to right because the page can't be constrained to a normal monitor resolution. Any other article that did that would be flagged as having a technical fuckuppery problem that needed fixed. These simply don't actually serve any substantive need; like a lot of other types of Wikipedia content that we've deprecated, they're a thing some people thought were useful at one time, but have come to look a lot less useful as our principles and best practices and content standards have evolved. Yes, others exist — they should be deleted too, because they're just not useful. (And can we please try to finally kill the comprehensive candidate lists that either violate WP:BLP or just unnecessarily reduplicate election results tables next, too?) Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a seating chart repository, not even for the Last Supper. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The political equivalent of a television listings schedule. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article that fails WP:N both on grounds of lack of sourcing and being excluded as promotionalism by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the coverage that exist that I could find contains a disclaimer that it is from a press release, which means it doesn't meet our standards to count towards notability per WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional article with all the news about it being press releases, which are not exactly reliable. Thus, this article should be deleted as we cannot verify the information with enough certainty. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeping It's blockchain, you can see all transactions for that ICO. valaleilo

– What needs to be corrected? Help me StanislavP (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StanislavP: You can't really correct anything to get it not deleted. The problem is that the subject just doesn't have enough coverage from reliable news outlets and such, excluding press releases. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notability not established; sources are WP:SPIP and / or blogs, and not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry, no salting. We don't salt articles just because of one AfD; repeated recreation would be a better case for salting Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stuckmann (YouTube personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a transparent forum shopping attempt to squeeze in a topic that has, as noted on the Talk page, "been speedily deleted four times previously", is tagged for a lack of verifiable notability per WP:GNG, and has been declined three times in the WP:Articles for Creation process. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since as far as I can tell, he does not meet WP:CREATIVE. This is the only qualifying source I could find. This seems way too brief to qualify. If other sources can be provided, I'd be happy to reconsider. It's completely possible that notability under Wikipedia's standards could be established on a later date, but right now, the article focuses entirely too much on primary sources or sources that do not actually discuss him as a figure but rather mention his work incidentally. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion criterion (YouTubers are not granted an automatic presumption of notability just because their self-published content on YouTube provides metaverification that they exist), and the article is not referenced to enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG — the references here are almost all primary sources, and the only two that actually count as reliable sources are both local media outlets in his own hometown and the nearest larger city to it, and thus don't constitute enough coverage of him. (And anyway, they aren't verifying any substantial information about him, but are simply quoting his opinions on a list of films.) And it isn't appropriate or acceptable Wikipedia process to evade WP:SALT and/or bypass WP:AFC rejections by recreating the deleted article at an unnecessarily disambiguated alternate title and then admin-shopping to get the page moved overtop the salted title, either. The key to getting a deleted article back into Wikipedia is to properly address the reasons why it got deleted in the first place: namely by providing a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Ohio.com link may count towards notability but I'm seeing little other indication of it, and on its own it is not enough. Artw (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ridiculously promotional. The YouTube view counts don't suggest that he's notable, and there's no secondary coverage of him as a movie critic (the ohio.com article is a biography). Power~enwiki (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:SNOW. Past AfDs have been littered with the articles of wanna-be celebrities. We are not a webhost for random people nor are we are directory of things on the Internet. We are in fact a charity. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Dear kind closing admin, would you please salt this while you're at it.? Bearian (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Greenbörg (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shammal Qureshi (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 in-depth coverage. Just trivial coverage about his venture. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reasonable coverage in sources, and the references provided in the first AfD were more than sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mar4d (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW - withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Only news coverage is in relation to her campaign announcement video from this week. This should be a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2018#District 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WITHDRAW Thanks to User:Megalibrarygirl for the proper sourcing that convinces me this should be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable under GNG due to significant coverage in reliable sources. Campaign announcement went viral, candidate was interviewed and covered on multiple major news outlets.

NPR interview, CNN interview, Mediaite coverage of Morning Joe (MSNBC) coverage, Vox, Mother Jones, Fast Company, half a dozen to a dozen stories in the Lexington Herald-Leader dating back months, etc. This constitutes widespread coverage nationally and regionally of her campaign and her viral announcement video.

Failure to meet NPOLITICIAN does not mean she is non-notable. Jbbdude (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't. But those sources don't establish GNG for "significant" coverage as it's all routine coverage in relation to her campaign. Those Lexington Herald-Leader stories you mention are all routine mentions as far as I can see. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are missing is that she is receiving extensive national and international coverage because she was the first woman to fly an F18 into combat. Many people run for congress, but only those notable for something else get this much coverage. So, this extensive coverage only lends further support for her notability for being the first woman to fly an F18 into combat. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jbbdude's reasoning and this source. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is WP:ROUTINE coverage for a political candidate for federal office. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's come from a notable journal called The Courier-Journal just to make it notable enough. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The basis for her notability has nothing to do with her running as a politician. Her notability is being the first woman to fly an F18 into combat. We have hundreds of articles such as this such as oldest people articles. She may someday be notable as a politician, but that is irrelevant as of now. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First woman to fly an F18 in combat" is not a notability criteria. We need sources that establish notability independent of her campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many articles now and in the past that establish "First woman to fly an F18 in combat" as notable. Indeed, all the current articles base her otherwise non-notable political run as notable based on her being the "First woman to fly an F18 in combat".--I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per I am One of Many. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough coverage to demonstrate notability, which is all about seeing if we can trust the information. We have multiple interviews and such, so I think that we can trust the coverage. Also, voters might come here, seeing all the information in one place, thus making this article verifiable and useful. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to give "all the information" about an unelected candidate to the voters "in one place" — that's what Ballotpedia is for. Wikipedia is for information about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason she has and is receiving so much coverage in the media is because she was the first woman to fly an F18 in combat. If she had not done that, which makes her notable, there would be national or international coverage. This simply about what she has done not her political ambitions. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found articles about her going back to 2004 and 2007 which I added to her article and expanded the stub. She has been written about because of her work in the military and her induction into the aviation museum in KY. She is even more notable now that she is running and has a viral video that everyone is talking about. Notable both before and after. Definitely not ROUTINE, since she's made a military first and has had her career written about in the news and in a book (which I can't access... yet). Even her run for congress isn't what I'd call ROUTINE: not every candidate's videos go viral. Passes GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that not every candidate's videos go "viral" per se, but "viral" is an unquantifiable criterion that any candidate can (and does) always assert that their campaign videos did whether the claim actually has any meat to it or not. (Not to mention that Wikipedia's single biggest problem these days is the constant creation and post-deletion re-re-re-recreation of articles about every single YouTuber who ever YouTubed, solely on the basis that virality has been claimed.) We've seen a lot of "this went viral" claims on Wikipedia for internet videos of no substantive or sustained notability, so you're just going to have to accept that I and a lot of other people quite rightly see the phrase "it went viral" as marshmallowy PR bumf that conveys "subject is a wannabe overinflating themselves for public relations purposes" rather than a genuinely substantive claim of notability in its own right. Canada has had candidates whose campaign videos went "viral" too — I'M WYATT SCOTT AND I'M RUNNING FOR PARLIAMENT! — but they didn't, and won't, get articles on that basis in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I recently started a post at the Village Pump regarding notability for political candidates that some of you may have opinions on. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the first woman to fly an F-18, plus "inducted into the Aviation Museum of Kentucky's Hall of Fame in 2016", with coverage, seem notable enough. PamD 15:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Suptic (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep - There are more secondary sources on Suptic than those currently included in the article. We should determine whether or not Suptic meets the notability requirements before deleting the article. Clbsfn (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Suptic Joins Discovery Digital Networks & SourceFed Team

YouTube Millionaries: Steven Suptic And Sugar Pine 7 Pilot The "Alternative Lifestyle" Vlog Format - Tubefilter

Comment - Neither articles are in-depth, non-trivial, or WP:SECONDARY. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tubefilter, which has a wikipedia article, is a reliable source of information. Clbsfn (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a WP:PRIMARY article. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are lots of creative people on the Internet, but not all are notable as shown by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable internet personality. Sourcing does not meet the general guideline found as part of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Chandak (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 musician TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC.--Failosopher (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Part very non notable, part hoax (eg the Vice article is not about him as claimed). Note that since this Aff was created the article was blanked by the SPA creator, speedy deleted G7 and then recreated by another SPA account). duffbeerforme (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hurrell (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:BIO. Wikipedia is not a business exec directory. No evidence of editorial references establishing individual notability. Mention is mostly in relation to the post at coop in trade magazines (quotes about industry topics, quotes about business performance, mention at retirment). All fairly routine for a company exec. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can find a few in-role quotations from the subject (such as this) but beyond such passing mention, nothing to indicate a distinct biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Greenbörg (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahoor Elahi (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)

Never elected to the provincial or federal assembly. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly the article has problems. It does state that Zahoor Elahi was elected to the National Assembly in 1962. A book reference [22] describes him as a "seasoned parliamentarian". [23] mentions that he was declared a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International. He was the victim of an assassination. I can't square this with what the nominator says about the guidelines. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i would prefer to comment here rather than make a keep vote because of some COI. I would say he was a influential person in and around Gujrat. he was elected to the national parliament first in 1962 election and again in 1972 election from Gujrat constituency. if Googled, there're plenty of RS on the subject. for now, this, and this can be used to establish that he's notable. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Proposal Management Professionals (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)

Borderline G11 article that fails WP:N on two fronts: it does not have the sourcing under WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the general notability guideline and it is excluded from inclusion in the encyclopedia by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the available sourcing is press releases, blogs, trade magazines with low publication standards, or other sourcing not independent of the company. The article is written in a promotional tone with the clear intent of raising the profile of the organization. I almost tagged it with G11, but decided that AfD might be a better route. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

The organisation is a non profit organization so there is no real promotion here, although i would be happy to accept changes to the language. I understand there is not a lot of independent media coverage but that is because it operates in a niche industry. I believe the organisation is notable for its membership size and it has also already been approved on the german version of wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Proposal_Management_Professionals Alex King-Zhang (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And The Winner Isn't (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. Needs more in-depth coverage from the media, beyond the single story in Variety. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. A Google search turned up no results on the subject besides the article's single reference and a small IMDB entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetraNomic (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: found nothing other than the Variety page and IMDB (which doesn't count). ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DM Mahendra Kumar (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 contested by author. Local politician with no indication of notability. Provided references do not mention subject at all, and external link only confirms his status as district magistrate with no supporting text. If kept, should be moved to "Mahendra Kumar (magistrate)" or some such. --Finngall ^talk 01:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 28 July 2017 (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/2017 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Inclusion of the subject's name in a cohort list of officer trainees is a long way from sufficient for an article, and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Judges are included in WP:NPOL. There are three million people in the district that this person is magistrate for, and the post seems to come with a whole range of additional responsibilities, but the first criteria is not met because Siwan is a district, not a state. The second and third criteria require significant press coverage, and I could not find any. The same editor has drafted Draft:Saurabh Kumar Shah which is a similar article about their chief of police. I am declining that on a similar basis. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 09:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fox (dentist) (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 deleted as G11 and cleaned up a bit: article appears to be a commissioned work designed to promote a non-notable businessman. None of the awards are enough to get him past WP:ANYBIO, and there isn't enough sourcing to get him past the general guideline in WP:N. Should be deleted as a non-notable promotional article created in likely violation of the terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the poster. I cleaned up this article and looked through many of the references provided, then looked for references that back-up what was said, and there is not much out their. This seems like a self aggrandizing instead of actual notability. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep delete - I cleaned it up a bit and removed some promotional info and unsourced. The references show some notability, and the award puts it over the line, I'd say. Thus, it just barely scrapes by WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RileyBugz, which sources? Edgar Pro is just a stock ticker listing. The WSJ link is not actually an article, but a listing of a board membership that was probably taken from SEC filings (which have been removed as primary sources). The Pharmaceutical online source is a reprinted press release with a quote from him as the CEO, it wouldn't establish notability for the company, much less the BLP. The final source is just a link to the corporate website that he is no longer on. The local business journal is simply coverage of Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award, which is not a prestigious award under ANYBIO: its given to 400 people a year and has over 10,000 recipients according to our article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's unknown even in NYC. I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article as it sits is pretty useless. I suspect that Dr. Fox's company, Enamelon, would be a better topic than his own biography, but I suppose id doesn't matter if the biography talks about the company as a redirect or vice versa. This seems to be a GNG pass, here is the Washington Post, via the Los Angeles Times: "New Technology Gives Teeth a Chance" (2000). Carrite (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an interview with Steven Fox on MSNBC. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a large number of papers reprinting wire reports of Enamelon's 1996 IPO. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article is just attributing facts to him: we don't typically consider that coverage of the subject. It certainly isn't substantial coverage as intended under WP:N. An interview with a subject on a TV program, even a large national one, is considered a primary source document. In this interview in particular, MSNBC is discussing the company, not him, which means that it is problematic for establishing notability on two fronts. Wire reports of the company's IPO would be coverage of the company, not its CEO. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia-based class projects are a good thing, and something that we encourage. We are, however, first and foremost an encyclopedia. Any articles those projects produce must meet our requirements. There is strong consensus here that this one does not, for the reasons stated. You might want to read Wikipedia:School and university projects for some ideas on running future projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence (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)

Essay / POV fork of other articles (notably Prostitution and Sex trafficking). Written from a wholly US standpoint. Not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, POV fork. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been largely cloned as Sex Trafficking and State Sanctioned Violence. I'm attempting to speedy that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would not mind working on this "class project", given a couple of weeks. I reached out to the creator, who did this for a class at a university in Maryland. It's not so bad as to be destroyed. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a recreation of a deleted article, Prostitution and state sanctioned violence speedy deleted on 1 August under A1 and A11. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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