< 13 February	15 February >

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inari Amertron Berhad[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or that it meets WP:CORP also only substantial contributors are two accounts, both who have never edited outside of this article and one of which has the company name in their username. Mifter (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the company could be notable as it's WP:PUBLIC, but the content is strictly promotional, so WP:NOT outweighs any marginal notability that the subject might have. If the company is indeed notable (of which I'm not not convinced just yet), then non-SPA contributors would eventually create it. There's no rush to achieve this state however. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the promotional tone and inline external linking problems means the article would require a fundamental re-write. This negates the dubious claim to notability it makes. DrStrauss talk 09:35, 21 February 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 Ardmore, Pennsylvania. Feel free to merge from article history as appropriate. czar 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article, and it was de-PROD'd by Jahaza. I believe that this church fails WP:GNG. Having an association with a notable person (in this case, J. Howard Pew and very marginally Billy Graham) does not in and of itself confer notability. Of the references in the article, the first is routine local news reporting the opening of a new church, the second is a minor mention in a biography of Pew, the third is a paragraph mention in a history of the Presbyterian church, and the fourth is a minor mention in a history of the Pew Trust. None of these are in-depth coverage of the church either as an organization or as a building, so I believe the article falls short of notability requirements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails WP:INHERITORG as the church is mainly associated with J. Howard Pew per the nominator. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to a small section in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. Lovely old gothic church in a small village. Decades of news hits form articles on the weddings of funerals of prominant people who belonged ot the congregation, so it may be a useful link for a bio or an article on gothic revival architecture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect to Ardmore, Pennsylvania.--Jahaza (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I would also endorse a merge & redirect if consensus swings that way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ardmore, Pennsylvania. No sense in losing the sourced bits. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as mentioned above to preserve the article history; not independently notable. --Slashme (talk) 14:01, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Hour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as the last reason; Although a show on Discovery Channel, the Critical Hour lacks any citations that indicates notability. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced since it was created in 2005. Nuke this already. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's longevity without substantial improvement shows that a sourced claim to notability is unlikely to be found. DrStrauss talk 09:37, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charora[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previously mass-nominated for deletion in 2006 - see this - but I've looked for sources several times in recent years and never found anything.

While there were suggestions in the prior AfD that such articles could be redirected to List of Brahmin gotras etc, the fact is that such lists are also now redirects because they're just not notable and/or verifiable. Sitush (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, I also can not find reliable source coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gotra: no independent notability and not much verifiable information. --Slashme (talk) 14:03, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sajanke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've looked for sources on and off for years now and never got anywhere. The article has been tagged since at least 2012 and was previously mass-nominated for deletion here. Sitush (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Consider the three volume set: Ibbetson, Denzil, and H. A. Rose. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Patiala: Languages Department Punjab (1883). available on archive.org. Volume 2 has entries on the Chaddrar on page 145 which references Chhadhar on [page 158] and is probably a reference to the Chadhar tribe, of which this article says the Sajanke are a clan. That page (158) lists 8 chief tribes of the Chhadhar (Rajokes, Kamokes, Jappas, Luns, Pajikes, Deokes, Ballankes, and Sajokes); one of which is the Sajokes, possibly referring to this clan. Sajanke would show up on [page 346 (or 401 if spelled Shajanke, for what it is worth) of volume 3], and doesn't appear there.

A second possible source is Gazetteers of different Punjab districts, particularly: Gazetteer of the Jhanq District. Punjab Government Press, 1884, where we can read about the Chaddhars on [page 64]. Here, four subfamilies (Jappas, Rajokes, Sajankes, and Kangars) are mentioned, and in which the Jappas and Kangars are mentioned as having representation of a zaildar or feudal tax collector in the Raj (note: the book is from 1884).

So, while this group certainly exists, and while it may be a common surname in some area, I don't see any good grounds for a claim to notability, nor any use in keeping it as a disambiguation for people that have this surname (as there are currently none with articles that I can find). That said, If the Chadhar or Chhadhar article existed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadhar), I would !vote redirect to there.

I also note that Sitush's contribution to the Chadhar AfD seems very level headed, and my feelings are that while a British Raj source may not be unreliable, it would need to be put in context if used as a source. And in this case, passing mention by a moderately reliable source at best is not sufficient. In my opinion, this article does not meet GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Smmurphy's comments. I can't really add significantly to that excellent summary, but I'm adding my !vote to demonstrate that it's not just a consensus of one. --Slashme (talk) 14:05, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Speiden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. A twice failed candidate for Congress. Otherwise, the article just seems to be somebody's first hand reflection of this guy's life. The fact that he had a few notable people at his ranch and that he was briefly mentioned in death by the governor does not come close to establishing notability. Safiel (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this published letter [1] where Thornton Wilder mentions Speiden. I was able to find a mention to him as traveling around the world with Stanley Woodward in a book published by the University of Pennsylvania press. I will do more searches to see if I can find anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times ran an obituary on him, which is generally enough to keep an article. He was indicted into the National Cowboy Hall of Fame. How strong of a case this gives for him is hard to say, but it means he was seen in some circles as an important stockman/cowboy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found:

[2] which says he employed :JFK (future president) and older brother Joe as ranch hands in the summer of 1936. Article also says he encouraged Barry Goldwater to enter politics.
Kennedy story also written up in Arizona Highways 1999 [3].
Also found a profile in Western World [4]
photo of him shaking hands with Eisenhowser in Life (magazine) [5]
at least a half dozen more from Google Books search (not checked, so some may be passing mentions)
a Newspapers.com search finds 13 hits in NY newspapers, from 1921 about playing football at Yale to 1960s stories about employing the Kennedy boys on his ranch.
Newspapers.com show 1200 hits in Arizona newspapers. One, the Apr 4, 1969 Tuscon Daily Citizen has article about a tribute dinner attended by AZ Governor William, AZ Senator Goldwater, with congratulatory telegram from President Nixon.

The article needs much improvement but the subject is clearly notable. MB 02:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is already tagged for improvement, and really needs a good cleanup, but the topic is plainly notable. --Slashme (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspace[edit]

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

Company fails WP:ORG as there is no in-depth coverage. A few press releases, quotes, and brief mentions is all I can find. There is a "Mindspace" that shows up in search results from Israel but appears to be a completely different company in a completely different industry. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO: strictly advertorial content, with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by near-SPA (only ever edited three articles). Article is promotional, every reference is not independent except the Chicago Trib article which is just a passing mention. MB 23:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a stub with thinly veiled advertising content. Further, no links exist to this page from other pages within wikipedia -- the links that did exist were intended for a company of a similar name in India. UnkleFester (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lanpham-2[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing to suggest this meets WP:NFILM or even WP:GNG. I can find no coverage outside of what is provided in the article, which only goes to prove its existence. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't even a Lanpham-1. Plus, none of the cast members have their own Wikipedia article, so it fails WP:GNG per the nominator. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is a promo piece created by a non-declared COI editor (same name as the director). --Domdeparis (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and basic WP:GNG.Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources in article are PR announcements. CBS527^Talk 17:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:48, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acanac[edit]

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

While it does get passing mentions -- such as this terrible rating from internet privacy experts in a CBC piece -- this small ISP does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY, in terms of significant coverage. Tellingly, the CBC didn't even list Acanac in its graph of notable Canadian providers, merely mentioning it in passing as among "many smaller ISPs..." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acanac is one of the largest independent internet service providers in the main 2 provinces in Canada - Ontario and Quebec. They have a larger subscriber base and brand recognition among the other independent ISPs that have a wikipedia page but are not marked for deletion such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBOX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vmedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazeen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_Communications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNSi_Telecom

Also they have considerable citations from multiple secondary sources in the media as an alternative for Canadians from the big 3 telecom networks in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-carriers-may-be-breaching-canadian-privacy-laws-1.2992125
http://www.blogto.com/tech/2014/07/internet_providers_in_toronto_beyond_rogers_and_bell/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/distributel-acquires-yak-communications-592589371.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/27/majority-of-canadians-back-crtc-on-pick-and-pay-poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gaming/playstation-nows-canada-problem-stingy-data-caps-may-hurt-streaming-games/article16471154/

I believe it is important to keep these pages up because the Canadian telecom industry is so dominated by the big 3 companies Rogers, Bell and Telus that it is key that Canadian citizens are able to be aware of the many options they have available to them.Nathanpalmer1986 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The media links you've cited do not establish notability for this company. As for the other examples of companies that have articles and I have not nominated for deletion, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The sources i have noted above to establish notability for the company because in those sources, they all state that Acanac is one of the leading independent ISPs in Canada and often cite them as the top alternatives to the incumbent ISPs alongside Teksavvy. Also, these other sources have remarked this same proposition:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/openmedia-says-bell-plans-to-pull-usage-based-billing-proposal?__lsa=84f3-bfa0
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/12/best-worst-telecoms-privacy-canada_n_6850120.html -same chart as you provide above from CBC, and like the CBC article, Acanac is mentioned in the chart despite low ratings they are considered by CBC to be a significant independent ISP
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/crtc-0528-attach1.pdf/$FILE/crtc-0528-attach1.pdf
http://o.canada.com/technology/crtc-netflix-problems
http://o.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/how-to-get-cheaper-wireless-rates-in-canada
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/j-david-ellis/crtc-internet_b_2076284.html -this specific article even notes that Acanac is the only ISP in Canada to rank on their list of global ISPs quoting "This time Toronto makes #13 out of the list of 22, for a 28/1 DSL connection costing less than $33. Except it's not from an incumbent; it's from competitive ISP Acanac."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/steve-e-anderson/cell-phone-bill-moore_b_4577942.html And again all the additional sources all list Acanac as the best independent ISP choice for Canadians along side TeksavvyNathanpalmer1986 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, please don't repeated bolded !votes like "keep" -- per WP:AFDFORMAT. Also, once again, there is no substantial, independent coverage of Acanac. For example, the Huffington blog post you've highlighted is once again a passing single mention. You seem to know this company quite well. May I ask, are you associated with it in some way? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with Acanac. I did my research before signing up with them and therefore adding what sources i came across help me make my decision. The sources listed above all believe that Acanac is a notable company enough so to mention them as the best alternative for Canadians.
There are 12 credible sources some of them from the Canadian government that list Acanac as a notable companyNathanpalmer1986 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed above are not about Acanac, but simply namecheck its existence briefly within coverage of other things. We do not keep articles about companies just because media coverage of other things happens to namecheck the fact that this thing exists — we keep articles about companies only if and when they're substantively the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. And it's also not Wikipedia's role to keep a poorly sourced article just because the subject is a small upstart competitor to more entrenched media conglomerates — we're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising venue. Being a small company is not a barrier to inclusion on Wikipedia, if the article can be sourced properly — but existing as a small company is not a Wikipedia freebie, if blurbs and listicles are the best we can do for sourcing. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if there are other articles on Wikipedia whose claims of notability and evidence of sourceability are as weak as has been shown here, then that constitutes evidence that they should also be deleted rather than evidence that this should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet standards of notability for WP:COMPANY. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:58, 22 February 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. There has been disruption and attempts to remove others' comments by SPAs. These have been discounted. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please DO NOT edit other users comments or post personal attacks aimed them. If you believe an editors statement is incorrect or wish to reply for another reason write a response instead.

The Liberty Conservative[edit]

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

The two-year-old news website has a passing mention in Bloomberg as a result of a fake news conspiracy that duped the site, but that's really all. I can't find any source that covers the site substantially. Most of those listed in the "Notable contributors" section are actually only one-time or guest contributors. See: WP:WEB Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on the influx of "keep" votes I'm going to assume some of you were sent here to vote to save this article. For those of you new to Wikipedia, this is not a voting process: Simple votes that are not based on Wikipedia policy (specifically Wikipedia's notability policy) will not be considered by the closing admin.

Untrue: claims I have a grudge against The LC. I have never contributed any writing to The Liberty Conservative nor do I have any disputes or objections to The LC staff or their editorial views. I have twice been offered to contribute, but I have not yet, nor do I work for any direct LC competitors (possible exception: Heat Street). I am having a productive and level-headed discussion with The LC's Rocco Lucente about possibly expanding the article (as I am always happy to do). My suggestion to anyone asked to vote "keep" here: stand down and talk to Rocco. There's no need to get excited about this. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete No reason to delete this page. It meets the notability criteria and has plenty of sources and many notable contributors. Wykydron (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo89 (talk • contribs)
Delete Only trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage giving an indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Regarding the allegedly notable contributors WP:NWEB states "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it" AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThis article was only listed for deletion because Mark Schierbecker (or Kayla as he occasionally goes by) has a vendetta against the company for refusing to publish a piece he once submitted to them.187.188.117.247 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — 187.188.117.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
MUST KEEP This article on The Liberty Conservative encompasses the details and publishing history of an online publication that not only expands conversation on politically and culturally relevant topics, but which most effectively serves to illustrate the vibrant and significant voices of the Liberty movement - an integral part of the American ideological spectrum. Utilizing the same philosophy as Wikipedia - decentralized knowledge and insight coming together to form a coherent whole - The Liberty Conservative provides an invaluable resource for those whose values encompass the rightward side of the American political scale, and who view Liberty and Freedom as the linchpins of America. To delete the article is to silence those voices - to censor them - and dismiss them as unworthy of inclusion; values unbecoming of this group. vdavidiuk 04:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP policy WP:PROMOTION and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is clearly promotional, impossible to edit into a neutral point of view WP:NPOV due to edit warring. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It appears my signed comment was deleted among others. Again this is a well sourced article and could be improved but should not be deleted. The calls for deletion are either personally or politically motivated and it is plainly obvious. Hiding behind Wikipedia rules to cover that up doesn't change the fact, nor does deleting comments of people who wish to keep the article. --Gwax23 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for this newish website with a very young staff of journalists who appear to be non-notable at this point in their careers. I did run a couple of news searches, but found nothing much (If someone sources it, feel free to ping me to revisit). Newbies perplexed by this discussion may want to look at The Federalist (website), a page about another newish, conservative, online publication, for comparison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Just took a look at Alexa, its webranking was around 350,000. Maybe it's a WP:TOOSOON situation, as stated above. South Nashua (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: first off, the article itself makes no claim of notability: it doesn't explain why the website is notable. That's a big red flag, especially for such a young publication. More importantly, I can't find significant third-party coverage, and its impact seems to be minimal. --Slashme (talk) 14:23, 21 February 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. Without prejudice to merging, renaming, or other WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Channels Network[edit]

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

A promotional list of channels disguised as article. The list has no notability of its own. The list is not even good enough for merging with beIN Media Group The Banner talk 17:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: many of the individual channels have articles, such as beIN Sports 4. Why wouldn't a list complement Category:BeIN Sports -- indeed, it goes beyond that, to group all company-owned channels -- but why wouldn't this be a good example of the sort of thing discussed in WP:CLN, with a list, category and navbox Template:Al Jazeera performing complementary functions? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is more about the content in the list, which appears to lump legitimate BeIN channels with things like Turner Classic Movies or Fox, which I guess are carried by them in certain territories? That's where this list may run into issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's for a satellite provider, which is why those networks are listed; the nominator is purposefully obfuscating what the entity is to bend commenters towards a delete. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the list accurately reflects the actual channels offered on beIN. I improved it in order to make it even more accurate. Go check beIN's channel list and compare the list in this article to the list on their website - there are no channels not offered by beIN, and no channels that are officially absent from beIN. Zakawer (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known MENA satellite provider, though per the past deletion discussions for DirecTV, Dish Network and U-verse for their 'list of channels' articles, this hits WP:NOTTVGUIDE and those lists should be cut and the article refocused on the basics of their DSS service. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to beIN Media Group - no need to keep a list of channels here IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate. I agree that the list should be cut back to their own channels, so as to avoid WP:NOTTVGUIDE. But there are clear advantages to using a list to browse for readers, so I don't think it's for us to say that there's 'no need'. This appears to me to be a valid member of Category:Lists of television channels (which I've just added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and my preference, based on what I see as the role of this page, would therefore be to rename to something like List of BeIN channels. Would others agree? 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with the points made by Nate and Shawn. Glad Zakawer made improvements. I see no problem with keeping this article! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:43, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play Loud! Productions[edit]

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

Non notable company. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search results indicated the company fails GNG and NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listy, very little savable prose. Largely without RS. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borys Mańkowski[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. With no top tier fights he also fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once he racks up some top-tier fights, but not yet suitable for inclusion here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable sportsperson.Fails WP:NMMA.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 21 February 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 per XavierItzm's references and per general consensus. (non-admin closure) Pishcal (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Paris machete attack[edit]

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

As I stated on the talk-page this article falls under WP:NOTNEWS, under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Terrorist attacks do not automatically fall under the notable criteria, here we have one person who was lightly injured, with the usual reactions to these types of attacks. The reactions generated a splash in the news coverage with no WP:LASTING impact. As I said as well please keep in mind WP:OSE, not all of these attacks can be lumped together under one umbrella. I would recommend deletion or a direct to List of terrorist incidents in February 2017. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOTNEWS refers to "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" while WP:ROUTINE encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline here is WP:CRIME, stating that "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may want to look at the arguments about notability at: Talk:2017 Paris machete attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, WP:NOTNEWS uses those as examples, it says in the first sentence "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As for WP:CRIME, a mention over at List of terrorist incidents in February 2017 would be fine as the person isn't notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consider(ing)" enduring impact does NOT mean that we ignore notable events as they happen: 2017 İzmir Courthouse Attack, 2017 Melbourne car attack, 2017 French riots, etc. We don't make personal WP:CRYSTAL guesses about "enduring notability." We assess WP:RS. When, as here, major media give worldwide, in-depth coverage to an attack: it is WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi; you are permitted to withdraw your nomination for deletion at any point. If you do so before any other editors have iVoted delete, the discussion ends at that point.

Greg it has been almost two weeks now, we are also not talking about those articles, we are discussing THIS article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and oppose merging to a list because while listing is sufficient for stuff like List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, (seen one alligator, seen 'em all.) Terrorists and terrorist attacks are as unique as the individuals who commit them. This attacker, for example, carried spray paint and says he planned to vandalize paintings as a symbolic attack on France. Albeit, he also carried 2 machetes and attacked a French soldier with one of them. The Vandalism of art seems to be a new wrinkle, one likely to draw coverage. But Note that terrorist attacks dismissed as non-notable soon after they occur regularly come back into the spotlight. The Plan to attack a restaurant in Rochester, N.Y. in 2015, thought to have been planned by an ISIS -inspired lone wolf turns out to have been planned and directed by ISIS in Syria: "Not ‘Lone Wolves’ After All: How ISIS Guides World’s Terror Plots From Afar" NYTimes [6]. I don't know in what ways this attack will be revisited, only that these attacks are unique events that tend to be revisited and discussed years, and years later. And Note that the article passes WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proven that THIS EVENT passes WP:GNG but instead gone on about your personal opinion on how each terrorist attack is "unique". If this were the case then we would have an article made for each entry on List of terrorist incidents in February 2017. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with E. M. Gregory, this event and the perpetrator will be in the news for years. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:CRYSTAL we don't know if this will happen or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? I have given different arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't want to delete a article that isn't finished. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Event continues to be covered even as we debate deleting it. Here is a February 14th article from an Italian magazine about the impact of terrorism on museums in Europe, including this latest Paris Machete Attack. Here is a February 13th article published by Paris Match, one of the leading French magazines. The terrorist is being investigated now for sending thousands of € cash to another fellow in Poland immediately before the attack.^[1]^[2]. The New York Times reported that this Machete Louvre attack adds to the tally of "In just the past 13 months, at least four attacks in France using knives".^[3] XavierItzm (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Suspect in Louvre attack says he did not get orders from Islamic state". Reuters. The source said the suspect had made two money transfers of 3,000 and 2,000 euros to a fellow Egyptian in Poland in the days immediately before the attack.
^ "Man who attacked soldiers with a machete at the Louvre". The Daily Mail. The source said the suspect had made two money transfers of 3,000 and 2,000 euros to a fellow Egyptian in Poland in the days immediately before the attack
^ ALISSA J. RUBIN, AURELIEN BREEDEN. "Assailant Near Louvre Is Shot by French Soldier". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 February 2017. In just the past 13 months, there have been at least four attacks in France using knives, including one instance in which an off-duty police officer and wife were stabbed to death by a man who then filmed himself claiming allegiance to the Islamic State, broadcasting the video on Facebook. In St.-Étienne-du-Rouvray, a small town in Normandy, a 19-year-old man slit the throat of an elderly priest as he was saying Mass last July. The young man and an accomplice, who were fatally shot by the police, had proclaimed allegiance to the Islamic State just before the murder.

Keep Stick a knife in this one, it's done. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possibly not the most felicitous phrasing for a machete attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International coverage has proved notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This event has ample international coverage to make it notable and deserves an article of its own. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like sufficient coverage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like enough coverage from news sources worldwide. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Terrorist attacks do not automatically fall under the notable criteria" uh humm...(clearing of throat, rolling of eyes)Cllgbksr (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage exceeded what can be considered routine crime reporting, and the event spurred comments from various prominent figures including heads of state. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross River Movie Awards[edit]

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

the award ceremony fails WP:COVERAGE and WP:NNEWS as no in-depth analysis about the event can be found —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:COVERAGE nor WP:DIVERSE. I could find no coverage in reliable sources that would provide notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A political film award ceremony lacking in significant coverage. Darreg (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:COVERAGE and WP:NNEWS.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Imminent Crisis: Greek Debt and the Collapse of the European Monetary Union[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. All sources presented are trivial bibliographic links, and I was unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOOK. Additionally sources in article include user generated sites such as goodreads.com and thelibrarything.com. Two of the book references used in article are most probaby self published at lulu.com and createspace.com. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is self-published. Kossuth Kiadó doesn't appear to be a self-publishing company, but we'd need someone fluent to really tell the difference. The point is fairly moot, however, as the book is only mentioned very briefly in passing. This looks to be the case with the other two places where it's mentioned, as it's mentioned in sort of an "it exists and can be read along with all of these other works" and never in a way that would really give it notability on here since it's never singled out for any sort of praise or mention. There's no in-depth coverage there. Many of the sources are primary or in places that at best would be seen as a database listing, although places like Goodreads aren't considered to be usable for even that since just about anyone can create and alter a listing once they have enough edits to ask for editing privileges, which doesn't take long. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Service-Longépé[edit]

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

Prodded as not meeting WP:NAUTHOR the creator of the article immediately removed tag without modifying the article or adding to the talk page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article under construction concerned a published French author by a Canadian publisher, she appearing in various newspapers articles (CBC, Le Figaro...) that may be verified on internet, she performed lectures and she attended renowned book fairs (Paris, Nice, Monaco. She is great granddaughter of notably famous poet and writer Robert Service. May you please guide me, best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwservice (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Rwservice: to be considered as notable as an author the person has to fulfill one of the following criteria

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

If the person doesn't meet these criteria she may still meet the General Notability Guidelines but this has to proved with multiple verifiable secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. please remember to sign your edits in a talk page with ~~~~

This Service biographer and descendant might just notable enough for BASIC. The article bears this excellent piece on her and her work on CBC. There's this interview from France. ~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the English-language version of her biography is apparently coming out in a matter of months, we may also want to give the creator the option to userfy, if deleted, until such time as she gets more coverage? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through my weak keep vote above because of course the concern is we have a descendent who's managed to get a book published. Although this book has apparently won some sort of prize, notable or not, it remains to be seen whether Ms. Service-Longépé is ever going to be independently notable, as an author. Perhaps not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm more concerned about the conflict of interest than I am about notability. I would say "Keep" if it were a better article. Deb (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all, thank you for your comments. I tried to enrich the author page with all the external resources needed to show that the article will be relevant for wiki users who will certainly wanted to click to know further details about her writing. I do not see any conflict of interest in this.

Comment The English version was announced at the beginning of 2015 and has not come out yet. I checked WorldCat and only 3 libraries in their database hold this book and she has published nothing else that is held in the system. I really don't think she meets WP:GNG and clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR over and above the COI problem. Domdeparis (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Service-Longepe is continuing to write as an author and the page is bound to be created in the future. Please let me know what other information must be added to keep the article online. Her novel is available at Amazon, Fnac and various online bookstores, besides the book Pays de Dinan is sold at the Municipale Bibilothèque Dinan in France, articles from Ouest France are online. She is also performing lectures in Bibliothèques. She is not yet as famous as her great granddad but she is making her way that is why I believe wiki users will be interested in having information available on the page. RwserviceRwservice (talk)

Okay, you've swayed me: delete. Based on the above screed and brand-promise, I can't see this being more than a magnet for egregious spam and COI, for a biographical author who's a long way from being independently notable, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how come the article is not a spam! the information written have proof on press articles from main French newspapers, everything is relevant and enrich Wikipedia. Saying that the author is not "notable for now" is only a personal opinion, the author had been published, read and had an important press coverage which show that the author is notable for some readers. RwserviceRwservice (talk)

Comment i don't think that you have understood what is meant by notable in terms of Wikipedia. Everyone is notable for someone...please read WP:NAUTHOR and ask yourself which of the criteria this person fulfills. I am guessing that you have some kind of connection with the subject judging by your username. If this is the case you may be having some problems staying neutral. It might be a good idea to read WP:COI. Conflict of interest editing is not advisable as presenting a neutral point of view is almost impossible. Domdeparis (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This author fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Her only claim to fame comes from the fact she has written a biography of her great-grandfather. I can find no information on her in reliable independent sources, only passing mention in connection with her portrayal of her ancestor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody unaffiliated with the subject herself can do better than this. While there's a potentially valid notability claim here, there isn't a properly sourced one: of the five sources here, two are primary ones, one is a glancing namecheck of her existence, and the two that are genuinely reliable and substantive don't really support much information about her besides the fact of writing a book (a fact which is not an automatic WP:AUTHOR pass for all writers of all books in and of itself.) Either there needs to be a greater volume of sourcing about her than this or the book needs to achieve something that makes it notable for more than just existing, such as winning a notable literary award or making a national bestseller list — and even if and when she can be properly shown to pass our notability standards for writers, she still doesn't get to create the article herself (or pay someone to do it for her) under our conflict of interest rules. Sometimes we keep COI articles anyway and just give them a scrubdown for advertorial problems, but there's just not enough substance or enough sourcing here as of yet to overlook the COI in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Liner[edit]

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

This may be a bit irregular, but I'm posting this on behalf of User:Bumbl loid who was having problems getting AfD to work. His rationale for deletion is: "The logo of "Advanced Liner" was a made up from SriLankan Airlines with few edits made to the logo's color. Second, there are no news clippings, evidences, nor proof that Husky Tours was bought and sold over to Yanson Group of Bus Companies. Third, given the data by http://data.gov.ph/catalogue/dataset/provincial-bus-franchises-2015, Husky Tours still exist and their franchise wasn't sold to Yanson Group." Peridon (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a Google search for /"advanced liner" yanson/ and can't see anything reliable to link the two. There is at least one Wikipedia mirror in the ghits. I'm inclined towards delete, but it's not a 'blatant hoax' for speedy in my book. I did decline a speedy, but that was due to a misunderstanding of the criterion by the tagger. Bumbl loid appears to edit on the subject of buses in the Phillipines. We do get a fair number of hoaxes from there - mostly about non-existent films or TV programmes. Perhaps this is a new area for those hoaxers. Peridon (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree about the logo - changed colour and the angle. Same bird, though... Peridon (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've done some more Googling and checking on WP, and I'm coming off the fence. I reckon this is a hoax. Husky still appears to be under Biocrest. The addition of Advanced Liner to the Yanson article here (by the creator of the article in question and an IP) has been reverted by two editors, or bothered to amend the Husky article either. I notice too that the nominator for deletion (by proxy...) of this article is the creator and the main author of the article on Yanson. The reference to a gov.ph site is to a list dated March 2015 (and which is very hard to get into...), but the takeover is given as 2017 in the article. Other references are to pictures of the Husky fleet, the currently inaccessible Vallacar (Yanson) site, and a news item from 2012 about road closures due to rebel activity. Nothing to support the existence of Advanced Liner. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm getting similar findings like that of the nom. Also the gov't data cited in the article doesn't prove the bus line's existence --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a later list than the 2015 one cited, which can't mention an entity allegedly founded this year? I can't find one for 2016 or 2017. Peridon (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find them within the data.gov.ph site itself. Perhaps the Phil. gov't is still consolidating those lists. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Alnawab[edit]

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

Not much comes up about him on a quick Google search. He doesn't appear to be notable at all outside of Iraq. DrDevilFX (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he was even notable enough just inside Iraq that might be enough. But of course there's no Arabic language wikipedia article in the rush to get his pouting portrait on the bigger English wiki. I can't anything on him in reliable sources. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbe Hassan[edit]

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

Director of 4 non notable films, doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Can't find any indepth coverage of him. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even his Swedish bio article -- which I've just added a link to -- is an unreferenced stub. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage on him in any language. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references, he might be unknown and "non-notable" outside Sweden right now, but he is considered to be a big upcoming filmmaker in Sweden. He works with Hollywood director Daniél Espionosa and Babak Najafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenetman (talk • contribs) 10:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "non-notable" outside of Sweden and "notable" in Sweden. Being "notable" simply means meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Subjects either do or don't. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:34, 15 February 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sun & Sand Sports[edit]

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

Recreation of an article that has been speedy deleted (G11) twice in the last 6 weeks. This article has same problems. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources are business announcements, the company's web site and an article written by the deputy chairman of the parent company that doesn't mention the subject of the article. Google searches provided nothing new, mostly advertisements, social media and company's web site. Wikipedia is not a business listing site. Article fails WP:ORGCRITE, basic WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again per G11 and WP:SALTed. – Athaenara ✉ 14:26, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H.A. Der-Hovagimian[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidd Bikkannavar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Only claim of notability is his Twitter post detailing his experience as a temporary detainee by United States Customs & Border Protection (CBP) officials due to Executive Order 13769, and even that cannot be independently verified. Hundreds if not thousands of people were detained, some of them wrongly, and while his case is interesting it does not meet notability standards for a standalone Wikipedia article. General Ization ^Talk 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 13:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 13:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the subject has been named as a co-author of several scientific papers in the course of his work at NASA, there is no evidence he meets the special requirements for academics at WP:NACADEMIC. Also, the subject is essentially a self-identified "victim", albeit in a well-publicized and notable incident that received ~~national~~ international coverage. We do not as a rule create articles for individual victims of crime and/or terrorism, much less an administrative detention at an airport. His role in the larger incident is minor and unlikely to receive additional coverage, other than his experience being used as an example of the potential overreach of the Executive Order. At the very most (and I would not support it), this could be a redirect to the article on the Executive Order. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I propose that User:‎Graeme Bartlett put it perfectly in his edit sum, declined A7 delete, this person is mentioned on many news sites. Here's a pretty big one. This is a bigger deal than the typical wrongful detention because here we have a US citizen who is a government agency scientist, who has never been to any country on the list, not only detained but illegally required as well to unlock a government-owned phone. It is additionally possible to find notability materials for this guy predating this occurrence due to his research activities and his solar racing (by the way it boggles my mind that we've no page on solar racing). I don't have the time right now, but they're there to be found. Pandeist (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the standards for speedy delete under criterion A7 are different than the standards for retention of an article at AfD. As I said above, his case is "interesting", but having an interesting experience does not equate to notability. Also, I have taken the liberty of adding "Keep" to your comments as I assume that's what you're advocating. General Ization ^Talk 15:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: see Solar car racing. General Ization ^Talk 15:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unclear I came to Wikipedia to read about this person because there are several news stories about him. Very helpful to have. Unsure if notable by Wikipedia standards but I know some unknown British Member of Parliament from 400 years ago that has no known cited achievements has a Wikipedia article. Lakeshook (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken because the editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet (so cannot participate in AfD discussions). General Ization ^Talk 22:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree with the nom. Being detained by border officials, wrongly or otherwise, does not make one notable. Thousands of people were detained while this executive order was being enforced. Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Countless US Citizens have "interesting" (interest is very subjective and biased) experiences with CPB every day upon re-entry into the USA. I myself have enjoyed an "interesting" border-crossing experience post-9/11; but before Trump & Obama. Nothing is new and nothing has changed; when you leave the USA and/or upon re-entry you are given a document (or must request one) that specifically states that CPB has the right to detain, unlock, and view the contents of your electronic devices and that you do not enjoy the same Constitutional protections at the border (there have been past Court cases on this matter.) You can bypass some of that by getting your devices checked and certified before you leave the USA (and avoid potentially paying duties upon re-entry.) Sidd is just an individual who thought he would be immune or exempt to the experience because of his Pre-Screening, employment, family connections, or whatever his thinking was; he just got unlucky and was randomly selected by a computer. It is a self-reported experience (I just self-reported my experience) with no independent corroboration or documentation, from the Government or outside source, to prove this in-fact did and happen, this is what happened, it was because of his ethnicity (this is what all of the "news" is implying), etc. Just because a lot of "reputable" media organizations pick-up a story, doesn't make it truth, newsworthy, or notable (Rolling Stones Rape Case; et al.) It is just an individual who has gone "viral" pushing a political agenda. Would it be news worthy if Sid Smith underwent the same experience as Sidd Bikkannavar? The only argument I can see for retention is that he is a minor person of note regarding Solar racing. The political matters - even if "news" by media standards - needs to be excluded; unless we're going to start including every Facebook post, tweet, blog entry, etc. by every "notable" person and their self-reported experiences. Bandlero (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bandlero. Sounds like a standard secondary screening upon re-entry, unrelated to the executive order. IHTFP (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect BLP1E. Note: Content may be relevant to some other artcile. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- classic WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 21 February 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) — Yash^talk stalk 00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Watch Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Subject is lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by notability criteria. Coverage seems to revolve around one news event in 2015 that was apparently inconsequential. Article created by single-purpose account with possible conflict of interest. Citobun (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination statement that "coverage seems to revolve around one news event in 2015" doesn't seem to be correct. Gnews reveals enough coverage in reliable sources, on more than one incident -- and in various provinces, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the claim of COI: whatever motives User:HardRightTurn might have had in creating this stub article, I'm pleased to see that it is in no way a puff piece for this group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last nomination, there was another incident, disavowed by IWC in Edmonton. [7] Also not covered is another 2014 incident in York. [8]. The actions of IWC have gotten mention in the context of racism in Canada as far abroad as the Asia Times: [9]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This organisation is mentioned in various reliable sources as representing anti-immigrant groups. The Huffington Post Canada has articles on three incidents in which it has been involved and its views and actions are quoted in several other sources such as this. I think it meets WP:ORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ORG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 21 February 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 no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacks Project[edit]

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

This textbook appears to fail WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not every textbook is notable enough, but I would say this one is notable enough. Éléments de géométrie algébrique is clearly notable and, as I understand, the book is supposed to be a modern substitute of that (and SGA); in fact, it's already being cited where the citations to EGA, SGA would be more typical traditionally. -- Taku (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...is supposed to be a modern substitute of that... would be a WP:INHERITED argument. (No opinion on the rest of the merits.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 14 February 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renan Oliveira (model)[edit]

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

Completely non notable. Fails WP:BIO. Model and Big Brother Brazil contestant. Both of these are considered no notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral according to WP:BIO#Entertainers a "large fan base" would qualify him as notable. He does not have "millions" as the article misleadingly indicates, but he does have 1.3 million followers on instagram according to the source quoted. A million followers seems like a lot to me. I also looked at the rather confusing non-policy of Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). It seems to me, as you might tell from my vote, that this case is on the threshold. It might be nearly notable, barely notable, a debatable notability but not a completely non-existing one. Here's to hoping this receives adequate discussion :).--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yip I think so. The reason I put it up to WP:AFD vote, was that there was similar discussion of model and Big Brother contestant about 3-5 weeks ago, on the same series, who was not considered notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:41, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaun Banega Champu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't verify its notability. Previous AfDs closed as no consensus due to lack of responses. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Found a source and added it to the page [10]. FITINDIA (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I do not think that MumbaiMirror is a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:25, 15 February 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Lights (Hawaii)[edit]

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

Strictly local recurring event that does not meet the WP:EVENT criteria. Suggest merging with the Kauai article. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have quite a list of these at: Festival of Lights disambig page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lousy article, almost an ESSAY, in desperate need of cleanup. However, a quick gNews search [11] brings up lots of articles about this festival, especially in Kauai, but also in Waikiki and elsewhere in the islands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanavber Hatun[edit]

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

Probably fancy history : no mention in classic books dealing with Ottoman dynasty (Uluçay, Alderson, Peirce). Creator ignored user:Chris Liak kind advice about the need of sources to rely on. Phso2 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 20 February 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 no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get Some Friends[edit]

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

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there's nothing in the References section the ratings info box has links to three reviews of which two lead to something: [12] [13]. At All Music there is track list source. Gab4gab (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album has dedicated reviews from both Exclaim and Rap Reviews, both of which are considered reliable sources per consensus at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 14 February 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. czar 04:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is one of a number of articles which were brought to AfD by a single editor back in January 2010 and closed as keep. The editor was subsequently blocked from deletion proposals and nominations on the grounds that he was flooding the community with more of them than they could process. In light of that, and the fact that nearly all of the "keep" votes in these AfDs were clearly copy-and-pasted across all of this editor's nominations (often with generic rationales like "notability easily established here"), I suspect that many if not most of these articles were voted as "keep" simply to end the flood of AfDs. Seven years have now gone by and this article is still a stub consisting solely of original research and a handful of basic factoids like platform and year of release, with no sources and no substantiated claim to notability (editors already tried, and failed, to establish the "considered one of the worst Jaguar games" thing with reliable sources at List of video games notable for negative reception), so I think it's due to be reconsidered for deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notwithstanding the 2010 nomination issues, nothing here is an issue besides the usual WP:SOFIXIT issues of article expansion. Known game on known console. WP:N is met and previous nom was all keep. Nate • (chatter) 14:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If by "known", you mean "Known to exist", I refer you to WP: ITEXISTS. On the other hand, if you mean "well-known", I can only conclude you have Club Drive mixed up with some other game; the Jaguar is established to have sold only 125,000 units during its lifetime, and Club Drive was one of its weakest sellers (see sales spreadsheet here for example). And even ignoring the issues I brought up, "It was decided to keep this article before" is an invalid argument. If decisions made at AfD were meant to be held in perpetuity, Wikipedia would not have a procedure for nominating articles for deletion a second time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. The article hasn't been improved or sourced since the previous AfD, but that's not really a reason to delete when sourcing exists. We can trim the unsourced claims to a stub. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:22, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Alepian[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a public relations strategist, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not based on enough solid sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Of the 32 sources being cited here, ten are just glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article that isn't about him; seven are primary sources such as press releases from his own companies; five are unsubstantive blurbs; five verify tangential facts about his companies while failing to even contain a mention of his name at all; three are dead links; and one is a simple directory listing. Literally the only reference in the entire article that's substantively about Alepian is #1, and it's a profile in the alumni magazine of his alma mater -- so it would be acceptable for some supplementary verification of facts if the rest of the sourcing around it were much more solid, but it cannot bring GNG by itself as the article's only non-primary, non-blurby, non-soundbitey source. A person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he gets a Wikipedia article when he can be properly referenced over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is not at a level to show that Alepian is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 20 February 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. evading previous salt, salted here too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DjLiskid[edit]

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

Blogs, forums, or affiliated sources, cant find any better online. Seems WP:TOOSOON, Author appears to have a COI. Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mentioned do not seem independent and/or reliable. No RS found on which to base an article. Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This is in my opinion eligible for ((Db-band)) tagging. The article was already deleted thrice as Dj Liskid under A7/G11, and that title has been salted, hence the use of CamelCase here. The name of the editor who started it suggests its an autobio. Self-promo and so far non-notable musician. — Sam Sailor 13:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt multiple creation of a non-notable artist. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:39, 14 February 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Honey Trees[edit]

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

Local Californian band that has self released one EP and an album. Fails the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I added more sources to the article (from reliable sources) and moved some of the text around. This article passes WP:Music via "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." I will also add any more information that I find to the article when I find it. Andise1 (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know this doesn't mean much, but their video for "To Be With You" has over 11,000,000 views on YouTube, so I don't know if the term "local" applies here. Andise1 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the number of views has a third party source, then it would be notable. On the sources, the live-review on the Highwire blog unfortunately only serves to confirm that the band were local. StGA is a similar blog type review site. The substream link gives me a 404 error. The slug review is good, but very short. The items from Paste and Esquire are about a single and both read as if they were taken from a press release. That leaves us with a good, but short AV Club review, a decent review on Performer and a good one in Exclaim!. The Ghettoblaster interview is useful too but I do wonder if this is the only interview that is available? Also, might it be be an idea to include something on the subsequent careers of both musicians since 2014? That would add a degree of notability. Karst (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the blogspot link and added another reliable source about their full-length album. I also fixed the Substream link (it's an archive version, and a fairly in-depth article). I will also continue adding information with reliable sources as I find them. I think this is a case of working on expansion rather than deletion. Andise1 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources establish the facts in the article plus some limited notablity. The band is defunct so there's no burden placed on editors to keep this up to date so I think it's adding value to the encyclopedia without cost. Mortee (talk) 23:30, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Imhoff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A look for additional sources on the subject revealed a low number of independent, in-depth coverage. Most results were from press releases or venues connected to subject. Her books do not appear to have garnered much attention either. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I want to be clear that I reviewed the previous AfD, but disagree that "Google Book" listings can be used to establish notability. What we need are RSes about her to convey notability. -Delta13C (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Morgan (choral singer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGER. Domdeparis (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Ali (scientist)[edit]

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

Unremarkable person - would nominate for CSD but would prefer that the community can decide. Nördic Nightfury 10:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but one of the sources are from two publishers, no indication of significant media coverage therefore failing WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 10:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single thing about him in reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- this also seems to represent the fourth effort by SPA User:RoyWings to create a promotional article about this utterly unremarkable person. I'm going to issue him a warning: previous articles had been deleted enough times for him to understand that Ali was not notable. He simply tried to invade it by creating the article under different names. There's no reason for us to put up with this in perpetuity. He should be blocked if this continues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI all - I suspect some socking is going on - I have opened a case - here. Nördic Nightfury 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If developing the first computer programing language that codes in Arabic was truly notable, this fact would be sourced to something other than his profile on the weibsite of his company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 21 February 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) — Yash^talk stalk 00:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. S. Seaverns[edit]

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

Unremarkable sunk ship Nördic Nightfury 10:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no claim of significance. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Forgive me if I'm not responding correctly, this is my first deletion discussion) I have added more material to the article in an attempt to fill out the article's significance. The wreck is remarkably conserved. It has many features that other wrecks do not: anchors still on deck, the wheel still present, china still on the shelf. It's quite unique in that it is sitting upright, and is accessible to divers. Djshaw87 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djshaw87, Notability is not inherited. Nördic Nightfury 21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I'm not certain how that applies. I'm not claiming that the Seavers is notable because it is a ship or because it is a wreck. I'm claiming that it's notable because it's the only wreck in the great lakes that is intact with dishes on the shelf--it's notable because it's a time capsule of shipping in the late 1800s. Djshaw87 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't apply. Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Remarkable sunk ship. Adequate sources can be found with WP:BEFORE D1 to satisfy WP:GNG. Given the newness of the discovery, WP:SUSTAINED could be argued, but I suspect that since the existence of this wreck was known by those looking for it, that WP:SUSTAINED can be refuted just with published sources that existed before the wreck was found. Looking some more, this shipwreck was probably notable before the recent discovery, see [14] which appears to report from the Cleveland Herald of Nov. 28th. 1884. Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All you have to do is click News on toolbar above to be persuades; coverage in major magazines/media in U.S. and Canada. And an aspirational diving location now creating a bit of a tourism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Peppers[edit]

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

Promotion from a shill. Not notable. Awards are not major. Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. Meeting Paris is primary. Exposed vocals is a pay for play promotion platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they must be reliably sourceable as actually passing one or more WP:NMUSIC criteria. But nothing claimed herein passes NMUSIC at all, and virtually all of the sourcing is to primary sources or blogs, which are not sources that can assist in showing notability. Note also the redirect from Theofanis Tsanas, which will have to be deleted as well. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 20 February 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. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish right[edit]

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

Proposing WP:TNT. Certainly there are right wing and conservative Jews. However, this article has existed for over 10 years and is not only virtually unsourced but woefully unimproved (except for the names and images of a lot of Republican politicians.) Note that we have articles on right wing and politically conservative Jewish groups, including Republican Jewish Coalition, Likud, Category:Conservative parties in Israel and so forth. However, this article, judging by its 11-year track record, is simply too sprawling and inchoate to enable creation of a coherent article. I suggest that we blow it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP 74.70.146.1 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree; at this points partly duplicates better presented material, and the rest is both unsourced and too broad to be useful. The latter half of the article is basically "list of Jews that seem to be Conservatives" - really? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect; the Jewish right is a significant political force in the Knesset (just try a Google search for "religious parties", and the results are primarily Israeli, with India and other countries falling behind), because as The Economist notes, they've often been critical to the coalition governments that are basically always necessary in Israel's multiparty system. Lacking any better target, this could be redirected to Politics of Israel#Political right if consensus holds the current content to be TNT-worthy. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli right is already covered in Politics of Israel#Political right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that religious is not always right. The religious parties in Israel are all over the political spectrum. This article is about "conservative" (from the US side of things) Jews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you're addressing issues about the article's current scope. I'm saying that if we decide to get rid of the current content, the current title would make a good redirect to this place (although perhaps Politics of Israel#Political right would be a better place). As long as the title remains a useful bluelink, I don't care what's done with the article. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An aritcle about right-wing parties in Israel should surely be called something like Israeli right wing politics rather than Jewish whatever. Not all Israeli voters are Jewish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing in here is new or valuable. That Jews can be conservative or right leaning is not a big deal. For specific country information we have articles for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a Jewish left article, so without an article like this it would be pretty imbalanced. I would say they should either both be kept or both deleted, or both merged into an article that discusses both. - Galatz ^Talk 14:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

, except that article is much better sourced and it has historical Jewish leftists causes and it doesn't read as a mirror article for this one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at Jewish left before bringing this to AFD, but, while I wouldn't give it "good article" status, it is a real article; probably because Marxist/leftist Jewish political organizing has been a large scale movement with powerful Jewish political parties winning seats in parliaments, theorists, and copious published sources since, well, since Marx.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure I agree with that rationale. Being a stub article is not a reason to delete it, its a reason to improve it. To me the options are to improve this one or do the same thing to both, we can't justify one and not the other. - Galatz ^Talk 14:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Galatz, Because I know and respect your work here, I am taking time to give your comment a serious reponse. I see this article as filled with problematic assumptions that appear to be a combination of ignorance of the topic and simple-minded backward projection of contemporary assumptions about what is "right" and what is "left" - wing. For example , the subhead assumes that all "religious" parties are right wing. Ant yet one of parties/movements that helped create Israel was the the Religous Zionist Labor Party. Today this reads like an oxymoron, but these were seriously committed socialists who believed in God and prayed 3 times a day. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept "political left" has a sort of coherence built around the fact that modern mass democracy and Marxism began in roughly the same era (dating that to the French Revolution and to the enormously impactful Reform Act 1832; an Act that did not give enfranchise Jews, that was still a long while off.) Because "left" has this rough coherence, we have articles like French Left, but not French right, although we do have the more narrowly defined History of far-right movements in France.

The "Political right", or "Jewish right," is an even less coherent, not least because you had old-time political parties like Poalei Agudat Yisrael (which was an ultra-orthodox Workers Party, and Torah va'Avoda , the Religious Zionist Socialists founded in Poland (trusting my memory on this) to train young Zionists to work the land so that they could make aliyah and create a new class of religious Jewish Zionist Socialist worker/peasants. This article, however, assumes not only that "religious Zionism" is definitionally right-wing, but that nationalism itself is definitionally right wing, and yet Labor Zionism, a movement of card-carrying Socialist nationalists that is probably the most significant Jewish political movement in history. This is the sort of thing that makes me urge that weblow it up with WP:TNT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily envision an article about contemporary right wing Israeli politics, but an article about a longue durée "Jewish right" is highly problematic, not least becasue 1920s Poland, Hungary, or Czechoslovakia are among the very few places where Jewish populations of significant size ever lived under democratic governments, and among these, Polish politics would be the really interesting topic. In 1920s Poland Jewish parties came in all flavors and had seats in Parliament (by the early 30s, Polish antisemitism was so vicious that Jewish political options were few - and the term "Jewish right" is sort of black humor when applied to that place and time. And that was before the Panzers rolled in.) I'm rambling, but I truly fail to see a way to create a coherent article about the Jewish right of anything like the scope and calibre of our sadly sub-standard article Jewish left.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nominator. In addition, this is simply an article gathering some information about people who were politically right and Jewish, which is a non-notable cross-section. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If unimproved, Merge into Jewish political movements. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish political movements has reasonably good sections on "Modern Jewish" political movements both "In Israel" and, "Outside Israel".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The reason the article is so weak is because editors are deleting relevant material [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (yes, some may not have sources, but that doesn't mean those sources could not be easily found.). There were Jews who supported Hitler--e.g. Association_of_German_National_Jews, Haavara Agreement. We have an entire category Category:Jewish Nazi collaboration. Those are not conservatives--they are right wing. Why is that not in the article? And why is Kissinger not in the article as was the case here? Here is an older version with more material retained [20]. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 22 February 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. General consensus. From experience, railway stations are kept regardless of notability. Agreed, could do with expanding. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohe Railway Station[edit]

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

The only possible claim to notability is the unsourced claim (mentioned in the main article Mohe County) that this is the northernmost railway station in China. Even if that can be sourced, the fact that this is already mentioned in the main article, makes this a usless content fork. T*U (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Mohe County per WP:NOPAGE. This article was essentially created to mirror zh:漠河站; zh.wp has a stronger tradition than here of creating standalone article for every operational railway station with basic information. Deryck C. 10:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We invariably keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an actual rail station and as per Necrothesp are kept. It looks like quite a substantial one at that. [21]--Oakshade (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are countless small railroad stations with an article on Wikipedia. This one is even for a major town. Besides, in general notability applies to Wikipedia as a whole, so in principle, if a subject is considered notable in any language, people are free to translate/write about it on the English Wikipedia (although having English sources is preferred). Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 20:44, 20 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Glauso[edit]

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

Non-notable, self-promotion with multiple links to promotional sites Melcous (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, rather than sending this to AfD, would you consider nominating for speedy instead? Nördic Nightfury 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nightfury yes it did seem borderline to me, but I thought there was at least a claim of significance in the publication editing that might have seen a speedy deletion nomination dismissed, hence going this way. Melcous (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since it's already here, NN, let the process continue and be completed. Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete pernom. Selfpromotional, failing every category of WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article lacking the level of coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 February 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. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme temperatures in Russia[edit]

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

The only content in this article is a table copied from the "Climate" section of the Russia article. There is a separate article Climate of Russia that contains more (and newer) information about extreme temperatures, but even if that info is incorporated here, this will be nothing more than a useless content fork. Unless or until there is additional information that can be added to this article, it should be deleted. T*U (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Climate of Russia for reasons specified above by nom. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think a redirect would be good. There is a template that automatically links to pages named "List of extreme temperatures in Xxx". This would then be redirected to "Climate of Russia", which is not where people would expect to go. See example at the bottom of List of extreme temperatures in Germany. The page should be deleted without a redirect until it can be recreated with enough unique content to merit a separate article. --T*U (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and give Weneedwikipedia a WP:TROUT. I can't see any logic behind this content fork. No need to merge or redirect since there is no substantial original history to keep. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning of T*U, thank you for pointing to the Germany example. Having a redlink is appropriate. If Weneedwikipedia is interested in creating a more substantial article, I suggest they do so at Draft:List of extreme temperatures in Russia and follow the example of the Germany one. --do ncr am 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 16 February 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 and redirect to Requiem (Jenkins). (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem (Karl Jenkins album)[edit]

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

From what I can tell, a non-notable WP:NALBUM.

We have an article for the piece itself here: Requiem (Jenkins). This article should be redirected there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Per nom, doesn't meet WP:NALBUM on its own. Merge and redirect to Requiem (Jenkins). (So what little information there is on the album is dealt with in the article on the "single"). Guliolopez (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - This article could only be justified if there were a rule to allow every album released by a recognised label to have an article. In the absence of that rule it is clear from the WP:NALBUM guideline that more is required, and that the requirement is not met by this album. There is no good reason why details of the album could not be set out in article on the work itself, especially in light of the contemporaneity of composition and album. Syek88 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Guliolopez.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 21 February 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. If there are still any doubts, after going through the sources listed below, about the subject's notability, feel free to renominate it. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 01:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Reid[edit]

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

No indication this fella is notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, and if it's even the same guy, WP:NCOLLATH. John from Idegon (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he is notable as a writer either of novels or screen plays.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR because his books get reviewed. And, yes, he is "a former college football player." Here:[22] is a search in his name @ NYTimes.com. It shows both book reviews and feature articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Nom and user who iVoted delete. Both of you need remedial lessons in how to run a google search. Editors who think I'm overreacting should click the toolbar. Sheeessh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple book reviews having been written about works by the subject. Please consider trying WP:BEFORE searches when assessing notability. See also WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Brown[edit]

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

Extreme paucity of RS in searches to improve this article. Refimprove template has been in place since 2012 with no improvements. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Delta13C (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage. After the first couple of pages of google hits (mostly facebook and linked-in), the hits quickly turn into Taiwan Brown Sugar or Taiwan Brown Sugar Ginger Tea. MB 03:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fixing a stupid misclock
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable video jockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 20 February 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 Robert Glasper. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArtScience[edit]

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

Non notable neologism, a google search turns up plenty of results for the mixture of art and science, but very little for the term itself and no reliable sources. Pinguinn 🐧 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Glasper. I created this as a redirect to Robert Glasper, as one of his albums is titled ArtScience without a space. This apparent "movement" (without a space as well) appears to either be WP:OR or not as notable as the album I created it for. Ss112 05:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Restore the original redirect. The current content does not appear to meet notability requirements. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Restore original redirect. Current content appears to be non-notable and a reasonable number of results on google for 'ArtScience' are about Robert Glasper's album. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wifi marketing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism that fails WP:GNG and since PRODing has become much more promotional. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. Article creator is a blocked sock-puppet account. Ajf773 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was a soft block for a promotional username, so socking isn't really the concern. The promotional nature of the account as an SPA and the article content is, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some details can be merged into the captive portal article (which describes how this is done, such as checking in or giving screenname/email details to access the wi-fi network), but otherwise the rest is pure WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 11:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OR and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly written promo piece; fails GNG and WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROMO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 February 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 Star Hellas#Star Hellas. czar 04:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissoula Rodi[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no sources of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DEL7, that is not a policy-based argument. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One trivial mention. Thats all I could find. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Hellas § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned, as a valid WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at what was then the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. I have already located a source that has been added to the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star_Hellas#Titleholders; not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charmayne Smith[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources are internal documents of the Miss America organization, not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas § Winners, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clear lack of notability and redirect is unnecessary in this case, as the name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 14 February 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. No prejudice towards continuing discussion on actions other than delete, so long as there is consensus on the relevant talk page(s). Kurykh (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charisse Melany Moll[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mere list of Miss World contestants as the source is not enough to establish this one sentence article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World 2007 § Contestants, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue As established by Northamerica1000, WP:DEL8 is not a valid del-reason for this topic. Since a redirect out of AfD is not binding, content contributors should decide if the presumption of non-notability is a reason to redirect, merge, or leave as a non-notable standalone article. See WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NewYorkActuary. She has represented her country at the highest level in her field, which is the standard for most biographical articles. If we can call on our Dutch-speaking editors, I am sure there are more sources about her in the Suriname press. Moreover, with cases like this where sources are likely available but not easily or in English, we should be conscious of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-Anglo topics and err on the side of keeping and improving.--TM 12:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:47, 17 February 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 Reinas de Costa Rica#Representatives at Miss Earth. czar 04:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Muñoz[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss Earth competitors are not default notable, especially when the articles lack significant sources as this one does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reinas de Costa Rica § Representatives at Miss Earth, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reinas de Costa Rica § Representatives at Miss Earth; not independently notable. The presumption that the sources exist is not the demonstration that they do, and this article has had plenty of chances to be improved in the past 2.5 years, but wasn't. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:33, 14 February 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spredfast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deletion is conceivable here again as in May, because the sources now are simply only published and republished business announcements, quotes, financials and other triviality, the author has also confirmed they're an employee after they requested my re-review, but considering there's still nothing significant, it's unacceptable in our policies. Beyond this, there's simply nothing else different and thus still suggesting at a business listing, making WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing apply. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just corporate blurb written by COI. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It was written as a commercial, but it does get ample coverage in reliable sources such as Fortune magazine [23] and others. Dream Focus 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That itself is a clear business announcement, it's not the substance we classify as policy-convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't just some short mention there. That is significant coverage. It counts towards WP:NOTABILITY. Dream Focus 00:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exact contents from that link: Spredfast’s product suite includes applications for monitoring social media accounts and using the interactions happening there for marketing purposes. One is to add more options for customer service requests or inquiries originating from social channels such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter rather than via email, web forums, or traditional contact centers, said Spredfast CEO Rod Favaron....Spredfast is also investing more deeply in partnerships with companies that offer complementary tools, such as social analytics. Its suite already works with at least 50 other tools within this category such as the (named companies) finishing with company quotes, financials, named business partners, clients and investors. That exactly fits the meaning of business announcement. Given everything else available is similar, that can only mean the company itself authored it. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. Content is strictly advertorial so WP:PROMO applies. No indications of notability or significance. For example, Fortune coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as it discusses company funding and aspirations, strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry:

"Spredfast, which sells software for managing social media activities, disclosed a $50 million growth equity financing round on Wednesday, led by new investor Riverwood Capital. The infusion, which brings the company’s total funding to $116 million, will be used (among other things) to invest in engineering." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INTEXT, "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation)". The text in the block quotation is copied from [24]. Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the current article, and work for Spredfast. I don't think I'm supposed to cast a vote here, and I'm not looking for Wikipedia to do anything outside its policies / content standards; but here are a few points for consideration:

I didn't write the previous article. I've now found a copy of it; the nine references I used were all new ones, the 11 in the previous article were all different, and I believe the ones I used are generally much higher quality by Wikipedia's standards. Do note that the Mass Relevance articles cited in the previous version were self-references as Mass Relevance is a company that merged with Spredfast. The name and business entity no longer exists—it was absorbed into Spredfast.
I also tried to keep this version short and factual, to avoid the possibility of it reading like an advertisement. Our interest is in having a clear, factual record of the company on Wikipedia, not to push a certain version of our history or importance.
I don't fully understand the discussion above. I believe Fortune is a well respected, major publication, and the reporter did not simply republish a press releases of ours, but did original reporting. How does the article fall short of Wikipedia's standards for sourcing? Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to understand that point better.
What should be done about Mass Relevance? I deleted the old version of the article to redirect here; the old version had been tagged as an advertisement since 2013, and had only 6 references, some self-references.
I think "salt" means the article can't be recreated - yes? For whatever it's worth, we have no intention to disregard the decision here, we respect Wikipedia's process.

-Bthoma (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

; Further sources (academic and news) to support notability
Here are some further references, mostly academic journal articles, that may inform the case for notability. I have not been able to find all of these in open access online sources, but have linked some; others may be available online as well. -Bthoma (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spredfast was used as a key tool for this social media research; the paper describes use of Spredfast in context of using similar tools: Wilcox, Gary B.; Sussman, Kristen (April 2, 2014). "Lead-generating social media strategies using the social media performance model: The B2B connection". Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing. Vol. 2 (No. 1). `((cite journal))`: `\|number=` has extra text (help); `\|volume=` has extra text (help) Shoutlet sold to Spredfast; discusses sizes of both companies, logistics of merger, etc: Van Enkenvoort, Bob (August 19, 2015). "Madison-based Shoutlet sold to Spredfast". The Wisconsin State Journal. Abstract: "The article reports that New York Road Runners (NYRR), a nonprofit organization, has partnered with social media consultant Spredfast Spredfast to allow the participants at the 2015 New York City (NYC) Marathon to build their own social media videos that show their experience in the event." Fischer, Ben (July 20, 2015). "NYRR, Spredfast offer runners chance to chronicle experience". Street & Smith's Sportsbusiness Journal. Vol. 18 (No. 14). ISSN 1098-5972. `((cite journal))`: `\|number=` has extra text (help); `\|volume=` has extra text (help) Spredfast won an Emmy Award: Swiatecki, Chad (January 8, 2015). "Spredfast nabs tech Emmy after helping Obama in Twitterverse". Austin Business Journal. Flomenbaum, Adam (January 8, 2015). "Technology & Engineering Emmy Award Winners Include Second Screen Pioneers". Adweek. Spredfast mentioned (analysis, functions of software) in a number of New York Times articles, see this search result: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Spredfast%22/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/ "Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) has recently developed a comprehensive way to measure millions of pieces of social content per minute..." Also quotes "experts from ... Mass Relevance (now Spredfast)" as saying: "Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) was Twitter's first social TV partnerand one of the first companies to combine social media with traditional TV programming..." Hill, Shawndra (June 1, 2014). "TV audience measurement with big data". Big Data. doi:10.1089/big.2014.0012. "Cross Publishing, Tracking and Analysis of Content Streams in Social Media: These tools are very successful and widely used for public relations, social media, and (viral) marketing as well as policy campaigns (in the successful campaign of Barack Obama), in particular in the U.S. market. The following subsections will present the most common used tools in this application area." ... "Spredfast is an application developed for enterprises to follow their brand on the Web and manage promotion campaigns for new products ..." (From a 2012 conference paper) Kleinfeld, Robert; Bassbouss, Louay; Alvertis, Iosif; Gionis, George (May 1, 2012). "Empowering Civic Participation in the Policy Making Process through Social Media". When the City Meets the Citizen Workshop / Conference Report: The 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, June 4-7, 2012. AAAI. doi:10.4018/ijicst.2012070105. Spredfast was named a Leader in “The Forrester Wave: Social Relationship Platforms, Q2 2015” report by Forrester Research, Inc. Spredfast Spredfast was among 11 of the “most significant software providers,” according to Forrester Research Inc, to be included in the study. The SRPs were evaluated on 41 criteria, including their current offerings, strategy and market presence. Mentioned in industry press: Arora, Shabana (June 2, 2016). "Spredfast Raises $50 Million to Dominate Social Interactions for Large Brands and Media Broadcasters". MarTech Advisor. Beck, Martin (August 19, 2015). "Social Marketing Platform Spredfast Acquires Shoutlet". MarTech Today. Minsker, Maria (May 11, 2015). "Percolate, Spredfast, and Sprinklr Are the Top Social Relationship Platforms, Forrester Finds". DestinationCRM. Adweek article (one small example of Spredfast's data being used in expert analysis): Johnson, Lauren (September 8, 2016). "Starbucks' Pumpkin Spice Lattes Are Killing It on Instagram". Adweek. ISSN 1549-9553. One of 12 social network management systems reviewed in this peer reviewed journal article: Al-Qurishi, Muhammad; Al-Rakhami, Mabrook; AlRubaian, Majed; Alamri, Atif; Alamri, Mohammed (December 23, 2015). "Online Social Network Management Systems: State of The Art". Vol. 73. International Conference on Advanced Wireless, Information, and Communication Technologies. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.032. `((cite journal))`: `\|volume=` has extra text (help); Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help) The first source is a clear company press release in a local trade publication which violates both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, and the following sources are clear company announcements and funding columns, which also we explicitly violates said WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT; MarTechToday, as it is, is a clear trade publication as their own website page says, "a business tech blog for tech businesses" (hence immediately unacceptable). The AdWeek itself is a clear business announcement focusing with company plans. Something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied here as it's explicitly clear what we accept as substantial sources and significance; next, all listed sources show clear consistency in the same PR tone for all focused company specifics, showing immediately it's not independent. As it is, the 1 Emmy award is simply for technology company and is apparently a leniently given award for any tech company, hence unsuitable here. Also, the sources supposedly offered as "significant" are in fact clear-labeled PR. To make matters worse, the company itself has announced above it's involved and has motivated this PR article, hence it violates our policies alone as we are not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] According to a suggestion from User:Dream Focus, and in order to inform the decision around notability, I slightly expanded the article to include a few of the points and references mentioned above (the Emmy award, further info on the Forrester report) and I added citations, and adjusted the article text accordingly, around Spredfast's partnership program. As always, I hope that independent editors will review my work to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content standards - and also consider adding any of the other references / points I listed above. -Bthoma (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

; Further sources (academic and news) to support notability

Here are some further references, mostly academic journal articles, that may inform the case for notability. I have not been able to find all of these in open access online sources, but have linked some; others may be available online as well. -Bthoma (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spredfast was used as a key tool for this social media research; the paper describes use of Spredfast in context of using similar tools:

Wilcox, Gary B.; Sussman, Kristen (April 2, 2014). "Lead-generating social media strategies using the social media performance model: The B2B connection". Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing. Vol. 2 (No. 1). ((cite journal)): |number= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

Shoutlet sold to Spredfast; discusses sizes of both companies, logistics of merger, etc:

Van Enkenvoort, Bob (August 19, 2015). "Madison-based Shoutlet sold to Spredfast". The Wisconsin State Journal.

Abstract: "The article reports that New York Road Runners (NYRR), a nonprofit organization, has partnered with social media consultant Spredfast Spredfast to allow the participants at the 2015 New York City (NYC) Marathon to build their own social media videos that show their experience in the event."

Fischer, Ben (July 20, 2015). "NYRR, Spredfast offer runners chance to chronicle experience". Street & Smith's Sportsbusiness Journal. Vol. 18 (No. 14). ISSN 1098-5972. ((cite journal)): |number= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

Spredfast won an Emmy Award:

Swiatecki, Chad (January 8, 2015). "Spredfast nabs tech Emmy after helping Obama in Twitterverse". Austin Business Journal.
Flomenbaum, Adam (January 8, 2015). "Technology & Engineering Emmy Award Winners Include Second Screen Pioneers". Adweek.

Spredfast mentioned (analysis, functions of software) in a number of New York Times articles, see this search result: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Spredfast%22/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/

"Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) has recently developed a comprehensive way to measure millions of pieces of social content per minute..." Also quotes "experts from ... Mass Relevance (now Spredfast)" as saying: "Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) was Twitter's first social TV partnerand one of the first companies to combine social media with traditional TV programming..."

Hill, Shawndra (June 1, 2014). "TV audience measurement with big data". Big Data. doi:10.1089/big.2014.0012.

"Cross Publishing, Tracking and Analysis of Content Streams in Social Media: These tools are very successful and widely used for public relations, social media, and (viral) marketing as well as policy campaigns (in the successful campaign of Barack Obama), in particular in the U.S. market. The following subsections will present the most common used tools in this application area." ... "Spredfast is an application developed for enterprises to follow their brand on the Web and manage promotion campaigns for new products ..." (From a 2012 conference paper)

Kleinfeld, Robert; Bassbouss, Louay; Alvertis, Iosif; Gionis, George (May 1, 2012). "Empowering Civic Participation in the Policy Making Process through Social Media". When the City Meets the Citizen Workshop / Conference Report: The 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, June 4-7, 2012. AAAI. doi:10.4018/ijicst.2012070105.

Spredfast was named a Leader in “The Forrester Wave: Social Relationship Platforms, Q2 2015” report by Forrester Research, Inc. Spredfast Spredfast was among 11 of the “most significant software providers,” according to Forrester Research Inc, to be included in the study. The SRPs were evaluated on 41 criteria, including their current offerings, strategy and market presence. Mentioned in industry press:

Arora, Shabana (June 2, 2016). "Spredfast Raises $50 Million to Dominate Social Interactions for Large Brands and Media Broadcasters". MarTech Advisor.
Beck, Martin (August 19, 2015). "Social Marketing Platform Spredfast Acquires Shoutlet". MarTech Today.
Minsker, Maria (May 11, 2015). "Percolate, Spredfast, and Sprinklr Are the Top Social Relationship Platforms, Forrester Finds". DestinationCRM.

Adweek article (one small example of Spredfast's data being used in expert analysis):

Johnson, Lauren (September 8, 2016). "Starbucks' Pumpkin Spice Lattes Are Killing It on Instagram". Adweek. ISSN 1549-9553.

One of 12 social network management systems reviewed in this peer reviewed journal article:

Al-Qurishi, Muhammad; Al-Rakhami, Mabrook; AlRubaian, Majed; Alamri, Atif; Alamri, Mohammed (December 23, 2015). "Online Social Network Management Systems: State of The Art". Vol. 73. International Conference on Advanced Wireless, Information, and Communication Technologies. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.032. ((cite journal)): |volume= has extra text (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

The first source is a clear company press release in a local trade publication which violates both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, and the following sources are clear company announcements and funding columns, which also we explicitly violates said WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT; MarTechToday, as it is, is a clear trade publication as their own website page says, "a business tech blog for tech businesses" (hence immediately unacceptable). The AdWeek itself is a clear business announcement focusing with company plans. Something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied here as it's explicitly clear what we accept as substantial sources and significance; next, all listed sources show clear consistency in the same PR tone for all focused company specifics, showing immediately it's not independent. As it is, the 1 Emmy award is simply for technology company and is apparently a leniently given award for any tech company, hence unsuitable here. Also, the sources supposedly offered as "significant" are in fact clear-labeled PR. To make matters worse, the company itself has announced above it's involved and has motivated this PR article, hence it violates our policies alone as we are not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to a suggestion from User:Dream Focus, and in order to inform the decision around notability, I slightly expanded the article to include a few of the points and references mentioned above (the Emmy award, further info on the Forrester report) and I added citations, and adjusted the article text accordingly, around Spredfast's partnership program. As always, I hope that independent editors will review my work to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content standards - and also consider adding any of the other references / points I listed above. -Bthoma (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read two articles from the Austin Business Journal and see that they are good journalism. This is a reliable source, providing significant coverage. I also read the Fortune article and see that it is also a reliable source providing significant coverage. I found the article's use of language to be too cryptic for me to understand the nature of the company's product. Specifically, "provides community management" told me nothing. Nor did I understand the word "partnership". I checked out Google scholar, which shows many hits. I obtained the full pdf version of the research from Saudia Arabia in Elsevier's Procedia Computer, [25] and this explained that there is a class of software called SMMS, or Social Management Media Solution (or Social Media Management Systems), of which Spredfast is an example, and which further states, "Indeed, any enterprise needs a SMMS to manage their social media accounts well..." If I read the review correctly, Spredfast does not release the number of clients and has unclear pricing. Nonetheless, a scholarly work from Saudi Arabia satisfies WP:AUD.
Regarding WP:PROMO, I did not see any advertisements in the article, and since no advertisements have been identified, the objection is not actionable. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, which policy instantly guarantees any company an immediate article? Because we as an encyclopedia have never served company's own needs and merits as it's not encyclopedia-suitable, thus there's no policy-backed basis. AUD is not policy and there's enough showing the past deletions for advertising and policy concerns overwhelmingly outweighs any few signs of supposed notability. In fact, "number of customers and pricing" would also violate both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT. So what and why would it ever convince us to go against our essential policies? In itself, the past concerns still apply today because it shows existing policy violations. AustinBusinessJournal violates WP:CORPDEPTH because the latter explicitly states such sources are not reliable and it's obvious because the BusinessJournal themselves republish company press releases and will even state it repeatedly; WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly states we need significant coverage in independent sources, of which ABJ is not. In this alone, WP:NOT applies because the continuous history here shows there's been a blatant misuse. When we started WP, our first non-negotiable policy, which still exists now, was to establish what was unacceptable and this applies, because it shows there's no genuine chances. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have the right to edit as per fundamental principle WP:5P3. Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Austin Business Journal does not practice journalistic ethics including independence, do you have evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:CORPDEPTH has "explicit" language, why is the language not cited? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any past deletions for advertising are unrelated to notability. Advertising is a content issue, and notability is not a content guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there was or is a "non-negotiable policy", why is that policy not cited? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One article. Nothing else. Google turns up their Twitter, their LinkedIn, their facebook. Nothing's changed since the last deletion. Also, WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:WWIN. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some of the current sources in the article. All are WP:RS, without evidence of being other than journalistically independent, containing at least some significant coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins, Lori (August 19, 2015). "Austin social media firm Spredfast acquiring Wisconsin company". Austin American Statesman. (as per our article, "The Austin American-Statesman is the major daily newspaper for Austin, the capital city of Texas.)
Swiatecki, Chad (January 8, 2015). "Spredfast nabs tech Emmy after helping Obama in Twitterverse". Austin Business Journal. (blog is by staff writer)
Al-Qurishi, Muhammad; Al-Rakhami, Mabrook; AlRubaian, Majed; Alamri, Atif; Alamri, Mohammed (December 23, 2015). "Online Social Network Management Systems: State of The Art". Vol. 73. International Conference on Advanced Wireless, Information, and Communication Technologies. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.032. ((cite journal)): |volume= has extra text (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Calnan, Christopher (February 16, 2011). "Austin-based Spredfast recruits Lombardi Software CEO". Austin Business Journal.
Calnan, Christopher (January 3, 2014). "Spredfast closes big funding round". Austin Business Journal. (blog is by a staff writer)
Ha, Anthony (August 19, 2015). "Spredfast acquires Shoutlet". Tech Crunch.
Van Enkenvoort, Bob (August 19, 2015). "Madison-based Shoutlet sold to Spredfast". The Wisconsin State Journal.
Clancy, Heather (June 1, 2016). "Spredfast marketing specialist scores $50 million". Fortune.
Dua, Tanya (November 4, 2016). "How Royal Caribbean Cruises got its social customer response time down to 11 minutes". Digiday.
Minsker, Maria (May 11, 2015). "Percolate, Spredfast, and Sprinklr Are the Top Social Relationship Platforms, Forrester Finds". DestinationCRM.
Arora, Shabana (June 2, 2016). "Spredfast Raises $50 Million to Dominate Social Interactions for Large Brands and Media Broadcasters". MarTech Advisor.
Beck, Martin (August 19, 2015). "Social Marketing Platform Spredfast Acquires Shoutlet". MarTech Today. (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)

Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister:, (1) You have above stated about Marketing Technology Today (martechtoday.com/) that "their own website page says, 'a business tech blog for tech businesses' ". You have not cited a reference, and with an internet search I cannot confirm your statement. Please provide a reference. (2) I asked you above to provide your evidence that Austin Business Journal does not practice journalistic ethics including independence. Do you have a response? Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two items fro mAustin Business Journal used here are mere announcements, so they don't go to proving notability no matter what the nature of the publication. But as for the nature of the publication, the most substantial nonsubscription article I could find is [26], what seems certainly like a real new story, but if you go all the way to the end, it turns out to be an advertisement for a credit card. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To also weigh in here, every single source was still either a published business announcement, or republished or then also highly shown signs of it. Take:
1-2 exactly fit this
3 is still trivial
4-12 are all same, either from the company's local trade PR publication or one, in which it was for an out-of-state PR. That alone wouldn't satisfy our main standards and policies here, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, which state "Wikipedia is not a business webhost and simple listings, mentions, announcements, etc. will not establish notability and cannot be used for it". For example, the MarTech is a clearly labeled "Press release by company", instantly unacceptable. TechCrunch is the same case, and the Science journal is simply a mere study; that alone is not what satisfies our standards and policies which also note "One source is not notability". SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion about sources mentioned in yesterday's comment by Unscintillating
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Hemann, Chuck; Burbary, Ken (2013). Digital Marketing Analytics: Making Sense of Consumer Data in a Digital World. Indianapolis: Pearson Education. p. 124. ISBN 0789750309. Retrieved 2017-02-14.
  The book notes:
  Spredfast introduced its social media management system (SMMS)—a social CRM—in 2010. Designed primarily for enterprise companies, Spredfast relies on its comprehensive social CRM dashboard. Although Spredfast has not been around as long as some of its top competitors in the social CRM space, it is regarded as one of the first to aggregate social media engagement and campaign management across major social media channels and leading blog platforms. In addition to social media channel and campaign management, Spredfast integrates a robust social data analytics suite, as well as several solutions for social media project/team management.
2. Brito, Michael (2013). Your Brand, the Next Media Company: How a Social Business Strategy Enables Better Content, Smarter Marketing, and Deeper Customer Relationships. Indianapolis: Pearson Education. pp. 224–227. ISBN 0789751615. Retrieved 2017-02-14.
  The book notes:
  Vendor Spotlight—Spredfast
  Governing your brand's social activity requires a great deal of organization across people, accounts and content, as well as the need to uphold your company brand standards. Spredfast, a social media management system provider, helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions between brands and their communities.
  ...
  Spredfast can also help you collaborate so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively. As shown in Figure 10.9, teams can highlight activity proactively to share with contributors for reference or assign activity reactively to entire teams based on response needs. This collaboration replaces long email threads with system notifications and workflow automation within Spredfast to provide visibility across the team of what's been assigned, what needs prioritized attention, and what actions have been taken with visible audit trails.
  ...
  Spredfast protects the security and safety of brands by equipping administrators with the power to manage accounts, passwords, and user roles from within the platform. Content contributors are given access to engage directly within Spredfast rather than have direct access to many passwords needed to access company social media accounts. For companies in regulated industries or those with additional security needs, Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality, Single Sign-On, and IP restrictions.
  Following are two Spredfast customers who user their tool for varying levels of governance:
  [The book discusses Spredfast customers Whole Food Markets and AARP.]
3. The sources provided by Unscintillating (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spredfast to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - The first is clearly not a fully convincing source given it's a tech guide, and anything with one of the first to aggregate social media engagement and campaign management across major social media channels and leading blog platforms. In addition to social media channel and campaign management, Spredfast integrates a robust social data analytics suite, as well as several solutions for social media project/team management is simply PR placement. Next, the blatancy of the second is the clear company involvements, take Governing your brand's social activity requires a great deal of organization across people, accounts and content, as well as the need to uphold your company brand standards. Spredfast, a social media management system provider, helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions between brands and their communities....Spredfast can also help you collaborate so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively. As shown in Figure 10.9, teams can highlight activity proactively to share with contributors for reference or assign activity reactively to entire teams based on response needs. This collaboration replaces long email threads with system notifications and workflow automation within Spredfast to provide visibility across the team of what's been assigned, what needs prioritized attention, and what actions have been taken with visible audit trails. Spredfast protects the security and safety of brands by equipping administrators with the power to manage accounts, passwords, and user roles from within the platform. Content contributors are given access to engage directly within Spredfast rather than have direct access to many passwords needed to access company social media accounts. For companies in regulated industries or those with additional security needs, Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality, Single Sign-On, and IP restrictions. Following are Spread customers", that in fact violates WP:CORPPDEPTH which states "Mere announcements, mentions, notices....are not significant, independent or used in articles for notability". It's also no different when we apply WP:NOT which says "Wikipedia is not a business webhost for simple company information, campaigning or advertising", and that above fits it exactly. Anything with first person company-speak is not going to be by anyone else but the company because it's advertising-toned, take helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions and Spredfast can help you....so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively and Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality; no journalist would ever use that because a journalist is there to report news, not advertise the company and that's also what WP:CORPDEPTH itself covers. Our policies also state even republished press releases or announcements are unacceptable because they're still not independent. Another concern that is still covered by policy is past advertising which is non-negotiable because advertising has always been against policy here. To quote WP:GNG, If a topic, May be presumed. since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 15 February 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) f eminist 09:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minot State Beavers football[edit]

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

Article about a low level American football team without independent sourcing to confirm claims. ~~I am not aware of any other Division II teams with separate articles for their sports teams.~~ TM 15:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly other Division II football team articles. See as random examples Valdosta State Blazers football, Angelo State Rams football, the linked articles from Template:Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association football navbox, and many others linked from List of NCAA Division II football programs. A search for <"Minot State" football> yields 5,790 hits at GNews (and nearly 300 at HighBeam, although some of those appear to be press releases) so it seems likely that with some effort enough independent reliable sources can be identified to support this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CFBTEAMS suggests that teams that participate in NCAA football are considered notable as long as there are sources documenting their notability. Minot State would appear to clear this bar; they receive regular, non-routine coverage in regional newspapers (e.g. [27] [28] [29]), and occasional coverage in national news (e.g. [30] [31]). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 100+ sibling Division II team articles can be seen linked via the "Nickname" column at List of NCAA Division II football programs. Additional citations within this article are welcome, but current Division II football membership is observed via the lone existing citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage listed above by TheCatalyst31. Also, per the established precedent of having articles for DII football programs. Lepricavark (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep college football teams for four year institutions at pretty much all levels of play tend to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Although there are exceptions, I see no reason to think this would be one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31 and long standing historical precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minot State University is a small school with 2,200 undergraduate students and 170 academic staff persons. The Minot State football program jumped from the NAIA (very low level for small colleges) to NCAA Division II (a significant promotion, but still lower level) in 2011. While I doubt that season articles would be warranted, the program as a whole has arguably received significant coverage in multiple independent sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to items cited by the Catalyst, further examples of the coverage include the following: this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above !votes. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:59, 19 February 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 04:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Mazumdar[edit]

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

Non-notable actor.Absence of reliable source. Winged Blades^Godric 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unconvincing, information shows it's too soon and sources are mere mentions and notices. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may be a bit early in his career but he has had a leading film role in Postmaster and numerous tv show contest entrys Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It certainly isn't clear that the subject meets either WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:08, 14 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actuality (Hegel)[edit]

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

Dictionary article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Really the article on absolute idealism should be expanded with more detail on Hegel's philosophy, which could well include actuality, which is part of that philosophy (the SEP mentions actualities in the main article on dialectics). There isn't enough to justify a separate article and the current absolute idealism article doesn't have the detail to warrant a merge. Mortee (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mortee A term in dictionaries could be definited with one sentence as long as it makes the determination of concept , for this acticle there is an enough determinition . The Absolute Idealism defineted in, is the philosophy of Hegel as a whole , while (Actuality) is only one of Hegel's Idealist theories , therefore there is no reason to put all details of a whole philosophy to define a simple term .

to bind people by X policies is to bind thier intellectual freedom , you must give an objective argumentation rather than argue with X laws like those of wikipedia. --Bilal philosopher (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:41, 14 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SRT Tomahawk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article on this fictional video game car was kept in the last deletion discussion on the grounds that it has been the subject of five "articles" in reputable media:

"Fiat Chrysler announces SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo for video game". Detroit News. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
"SRT Tomahawk Vision: Gaming the system". Kbb.com. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
"Driving the SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo". Road & Track. 3 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
"SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo is a virtual hypercar worth drooling over". Mashable. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
"SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo has all the Active Aero". Motor Trend. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

Each of these articles is nothing but a warmed over press release. Somebody in marketing took the imaginary specs for this video game car, and emailed it out to some magazine bloggers. They proceed to take the press release and warm it over slightly, producing a 100-200 bit of fluff. We routinely delete articles whose only sources are glossed over press released. Significant coverage means an actual journalist or author did actual work to write something; not astro turf.

It's obvious that nobody would take a 2,000 horsepower video game car supposedly slated for production in 20 years seriously, and nobody would expend any effort researching or writing about such a thing. In general, for made up stuff to become notable, it needs to affect or impinge upon the real world in some way. Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per last discussion. I think the nominator just explained the reasons as to why it is to be kept above. I can see (once again) a theory of WP:IDONTLIKEIT has appeared. Nördic Nightfury 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be this theory: when all of the coverage of a product or company is based on capsule articles, where each article has a 1:1 correspondence with each fact contained in a press release that appeared the day before the article, the coverage is trivial. A recent example is the CarDehko archipelago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarBay. These happen to be fresh in my mind, but more examples can be provided if anyone is unsure this is a solid precedent.
None of the coverage includes any serious questions put to the company touting this product, such as whether any actual engineering was done, or if they picked a number like 2,000 horsepower (or 2,600? whatever) out of the air because it sounded cool. The premise that this represents any kind of future technology from Chrysler doesn't hold up, due to the lack of any evidence of rigor in the design. Neither is there any evidence of this imaginary object intersecting the real world in any way, such as affecting the sales or critical reception of the video game for better or worse, affecting the careers of the designers for better or worse, or forming a meaningful impression on the public's imagination. A good contrast would be Batmobile, which did all of these things, and has significant coverage in general interest publications, not only hyper-specialized online news blogs. If MOS:REALWORLD were adhered to, the contents of SRT Tomahawk would boil away to nothing, because there's nothing there but some made-up car stats that could have been written by a kid. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The essay Identifying and using independent sources puts it this way: "Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those AFD examples are really creating the strongest precedent here. Most of those were relisted multiple times and only had 1-2 participants. They're borderline WP:SOFTDELETEs with discussion like that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehashed press releases are insufficient for notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Merge and subsequent redirect to Vision Gran Turismo. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, sure, but we're playing it pretty fast and loose to call this a press release. Not sure I agree with that part of the assessment... Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree with the assessment that the sources so far are "just press releases" they're full-on articles. Beyond the ones listed above, other reliable third party sources have been written as well, like The Verge and AutoWeek. I found another one at Torque News as well - I'm unfamiliar with the website, but its another third party article dedicated around the subject. Some sort of combination of the 5 sources above, and the 3 sources I've presented, is enough to meet the WP:GNG at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw all of those too. I am calling all of them warmed over press releases, because they are based entirely on what the company has chosen to give to the press. The text, the photos, the animation, clips -- all of it advertising and marketing content, given to the media, who spend five minutes reworking it into a "story". It's a half step up from press releases directly from the subject, but that alone is not enough meet notability minimums.
Writing an article based entirely on a subject's statement to the press is valid journalism, and can be cited to establish a fact in an article, but only on subjects whose notability has been established on something besides the press pack.
We have history of Wikipedia being abused by video game companies for pure advertising. A prime selling point of many of these games is the quantity of cars or other toys players can buy or unlock. iRacing.com was bloated with lists of simulated cars, spawning sub-articles of more cars, and of simulated race tracks. Vision Gran Turismo is filled with quite a bit of this excess. It's purely Wikipedia parroting the company's "Now with 100% more!" pitches. SRT Tomahawk would shrink to 100 words if you deleted all of the "The Tomahawk X is the penultimate variant of the Tomahawk, built to do seriously high top speeds with no problems" peacockery. This pattern of using Wikiepdia to create advert-articles by CarDekho, iRacing and here Polyphony Digital is what motivates me to try to put a stop to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're setting the bar a bit too high here. We (Wikipedia) can't write an article around press releases themselves, no. But third party websites writing their own articles around press releases? And then us using their writing, not the press release itself? That's acceptable. I mean, I get it if they write like 2 sentences and then literally copy/paste the PR below - that's not acceptable either. But they actually wrote full-fledged articles centered entirely around the subject, in their own words. That part is key. They wrote actual articles, and that's where it crosses the line over into "acceptable" territory. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got slammed pretty hard in a recent AFD (and not too much later at ORCP) for making the exact-same argument. I'm not sure that view has consensus, and given that notability defaults to "delete" where some idea doesn't obviously jive, I'd suggest your argument would get slammed pretty hard too with those same participants, given those users weren't video game- or car-oriented. --Izno (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's hard to agree, disagree, or react at all without any sort of reference point as to what in the world you're talking about. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review the archives at WP:ORCP (or save yourself some time and simply search for a section entitled "Izno"). --Izno (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this, yet another 3 participant AFD narrowly closed delete on a 2-1 basis, where one participant didn't even discuss your sourcing proposal at all? Where you provided one example source at all, which was criticized for being off-topic, with the critique being " has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject". This is a really weak example for any sort of relevant precedent here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD seems to me to have been confirmed by the handful of people who also commented at the ORCP who were not involved in the original discussion. Mkdw, Kudpung, and Ritchie said I was basically offbase, while Rob defended the !vote explicitly. None of the other users commented on that AFD (save DGG who was a bit more meta). I don't think it's a weak precedent at all, and I bet if I WP:CANVASSed the lot above (audience known to have certain opinions), this AFD straight turns to delete. I think your !vote is reasonable, but I'm not entirely sure it's the presently consensus position (and if I weren't on mobile now I might even take it up at WT:N given your resistance now and my resistance then or at least go peck through the archives there to see whether anyone else has written on it).
That all said, I think the topic is better covered in the context of the few RS which might be plausibly associated with it in the context of one or the other of its parent topics. This is certainly not the Portal gun. Do you disagree with that suggestion? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I come to find Portal gun has been merged and redirected. (Brief sardonic amusement.) --Izno (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the other aspect of my argument - the discussion was centered around one article in which you discussed one source. And I'm only vaguely familiar with Portal, so I'm in no place to comment on the notability of it's items. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even without this fictional car having any effect on the real world, I would change my mind if any independent, original reviews of the game said that the presence of this car made a meaningful difference in the game, made it better, or it was a significant disappointment. Or anything. It can't be emphasized enough how much of a big nothing we're looking at here. No effect on the real world, no effect on the game it is part of, no influence on other games, or other works of fiction. No evidence that any of the claimed "engineering" "work" for this car ever took place. Nothing original: all kinds of fiction makes up cars with ridiculous stats, and swoopy curves.
The car, as presented, is a hoax: it does not represent future technology, because no real was work done to forecast how that technology might work. Companies like Chrysler that have sketched these fanciful cars have invested nothing and committed to nothing.
Marketers pay close attention to where we allow advertising and promotion to sneak into the encyclopedia. Keeping this kind of thing around is mistake. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is contradictory and flawed. It cannot both be a "hoax" and "something marketers are using to bring in money". I'm not sure how its either, honestly. It's a concept car. That doesn't make it a "hoax", it's just a conceptual idea. Pieces of fiction, presented as fiction, do not equate to a "hoax". It's also not even a product they're selling for money, nor is it particularly written in a promotional manner. It's not saying "go buy this" or "Isn't this awwwwesome??". If anything, its currently guilty of using too much car-mechanic jargon - your average reader probably has no idea of the significance of "501 pound-feet (679 N·m) of torque". But that, among other things, are a cleanup issue. In a general sense your assessment is way off base. Third party sources separate from the subject wrote dedicated articles about the subject. Its meets the WP:GNG. You can desire it to change the world or leave a lasting impact on society all you want, but the GNG doesn't require such a thing. Just coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marketers never lie? Huh? It can't be a hoax because marketers said it?

It's incorrect to say that anybody defines concept cars to include a picture of a car you made. That false claim is one of the marketing hoaxes this game company is using to advertise their game. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I'm not saying "marketers don't lie", its hard to believe you're making a good-faith effort to understand me if that's all you getting from this. I'm saying what you're describing is not a hoax. Are you operating on a different definition of the word hoax or something? A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as the truth.. There is nothing here that is presented as fact that is really fiction. They are very forthright in the fact that this is a fictional car. The fact that its being used used to sell another product doesn't inherently make it a promotional violation that needs to be erased from Wikipedia. Fictional characters and products are created to sell things all the time. Its no different from Sega creating the fictional Sonic the Hedgehog to sell Sega Genesis/Mega Drives. That doesn't mean you go and delete Sonic the Hedgehog (character). If the third party coverage exists (it does) you can still write a non-promotional article just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Top Gear is another third party source that dedicated a full article to the subject as well. No press release linked or mentioned as far as I could tell... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I've rewritten much of the beginning and end of the article. It'll take more of a car fan to know what should be cleared out of the tech stuff, but I've added much content and sources in relation to its creation and reception (the latter focusing much on the impracticality of such a vehicle, which could possibly help calm fears of the article being promotional-based.) It still needs plenty of work, but I believe its enough to at least put these debates about whether or not the article should exist at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 17 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bydgoszcz Wildcats[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit. I also can't even find evidence of an actual football league even existing in Poland. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AFL Europe will be their league. Poland is relatively small (comparable to a US or Australian state), so they can travel to Germany, Czech Republic or Croatia for competition. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 2016 EU Cup Australian rules football and AFL Europe Championship show no participation by Poland, and the Bydogoszcz Wildcats club is not listed on AFLEurope.org as members. At this stage, it seems this is essentially just a few guys having a kick in a park. As there is no evidence of a team representing Poland or the Bydogoszcz Wildcats playing any games, this is WP:TOOSOON. What little there is can go in Australian rules football in Europe#Poland for now, and branch it off when there is notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:40, 14 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonyome Labs Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anonyome Labs Inc.

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

Organization has no notability and the article fails WP:GNG. Article relies on primary sources which are regurgitation of press releases in trade publications, no good secondary sources. Article is a commercial advertisement and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as a commercial advertisement for a non-notable company. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited from one of the founders' role at another company; nor do at-launch feature pieces regarding the proposition for their new product provide evidence of the firm's notability. The product may in future go on to great things, the firm may go on to great things across an entire product range, but at the moment neither the references provided nor my own searches are providing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:28, 14 February 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 Clear consensus to redirect both the articles to Hmar people.(non-admin closure). Winged Blades^Godric 04:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ṭhiek[edit]

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

Not needed, we already have a section on this at Hmar people. That section should be expanded, rather than splitting the content here. I can't find any independent sources of this online either, so finding sources for a standalone article is going to be a no-go. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Hmar people. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is another article of this tribe – Thiek – which should be included in this AFD. In fact, Thiek seems to be the common name of this tribe – e.g. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc. – although the two names differ only by a diacritic. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've included an AfD notice on the second article, as this AfD pertains to that deletion as well. All further discussion should consider both articles. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a redirect from both to Hmar people is the most likely outcome of this AfD. care to offer your opinion? Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that I've found give just passing mention of it. So, as far as I can see, delete or redirect seem to be the only outcome here. I won't !vote here as I haven't spent much time on this topic. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, happy editing. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that an AfD template that links to this discussion was added to the Thiek article on 23 January 2017. As such, two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiek (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 Hmar people, in absence of sources proving general notability. utcursch | talk 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I think a redirect to Hmar people would be useful, with a merge of anything useful that is sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 14 February 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Naseer Khan[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced academic bio. I am unable to find any sources that discuss the subject in any detail. The article consists mostly of unverified claims. - Mr X 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete. Sources are not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Needs better sources for verification, but was the Rector of one nationally significant university and Vice-Chancellor of another, passing WP:PROF#C6. The source cited in the article gives his name as "Naseer Khan Jadoon", so that might be a better search term. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources for verification added. Important contributions to education and Physics listed and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadnaseer86 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't understand why explain keep isn't clearly, Also Copyvios ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from one sentence that paraphrases too closely (which I've removed), the only matches in that report are properly attributed quotes. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument for deletion. – Joe (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets academic notability requirements #6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C6 requires a major institution. I don't see that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 20 February 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. No prejudice against a redirect to a notable mention. czar 04:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amigacore[edit]

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

Can't find any non-trivial coverage about this, seems to be an extremely limited sub-genre of techno music. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (very weak, and that's a maybe). Redirect to chiptune.
This is probably better as a dictionary definition on Wiktionary. Amigacore is a valid genre. There are numerous sources that mention this term, some reliable like this Guardian article and this book and this book. However, because it originated in the 1980s before the web, it would be difficult to find anything online that provides in-depth coverage of this genre. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no justification for keeping unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: That is actually incorrect. Your assertion isn't aligned with any policy I know of except WP:BLP, but this isn't a biography. A subject can be unreferenced and still be notable. That's why we have AFD discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without objection to something along the lines of chiptune. That publications mention it is reason to include in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While the sources don't technically need to be in the article to show notability, they do have to exist (significant coverage in reliable sources, not just usage of the term). Given there are no sources, there's no content to merge anywhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to chiptune then? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:22, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I)[edit]

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

The article contains original research. The book that has been used as a source on this article is not reliable as the author isn't a professional historian. User:Retrieverlove points out on his talk page that the information included on this page is self-made, and according to the discussion that I had with User:Phso2 the name of this woman isn't mentioned in Mustafa Çağatay Uluçay's book. A. D. Alderson lists her as a consort to Abdul Hamid I who died in 1850, but doesn't state that she was the mother of Mustafa IV. So the article: 1. contains original research 2. the information is incorrect 3. she wasn't the mother of Mustafa IV as both Uluçay and Alderson mention Ayşe Seniyeperver Sultan as his mother 4. there's little biographical information available to be used as a basis for an article. The other source that is used on the article also lists Ayşe Seniyeperver as Sultan Mustafa's mother. The subject isn't notable at all, and the article, in my opinion, should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 04:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real source, no notability, possibly no existence.--Phso2 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:V. There's a tr.wiki article on the subject, but the cited content there contradicts what's in the en.wiki article (re: being the mother of a sultan): Nükhet-Sedâ Hanım. The Turkish article is not very convincing for notability either. No prejudice to recreation if done with reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one in a series of Ottoman consort articles that Keivan.f has submitted, and this one may be the most demonstrably misleading in its content. I agree, though, that there is no prejudice to recreation if done with reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 21 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Exchange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A 50 store shopping center. No claim to notability. A case of WP:MILL. Searching turns up lots of hits like movie listing, passing mentions like "restaurant x" is opening at Augusta Exchange. Don't see anything that would establish notability. Was kept at 2008 AFD, but that really didn't substantiate notability. The article is still primarily a list of stores. MB 04:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per previous AFD comments and decision. It is covered by multiple media, including this WJBF news report in January 2017. There are sources. Notability is not temporary. This one has been covered at AFD before. --do ncr am 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage has to be in-depth to establish notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage are not sufficient. The example you gave just says two new restaurants are coming to this shopping center. This is routine local coverage that would be expected in local media for any shopping center. MB 01:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:MILL. Malls less than 100,000m3 aren't automatically notable unless they are accompanied by strong secondary sources. Routine coverage at local level only - news about new restaurants opening isn't sufficient enough. An extensive search online finds nothing other than routine coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete run of the mill coverage. Not seeing indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 16 February 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) f eminist 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sheppard (DJ)[edit]

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

Seems completely non-notable, no in-depth coverage that I can find anywhere. No sources added in the 9 years of this article's existence. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll grant that this article isn't in a very good state at present, but he does have notability under both WP:NMUSIC as the core member of a Juno Award winning band and under WP:NMEDIA as the host of a nationally syndicated radio show — and he can be properly sourced as such, because he garners at least 138 hits in ProQuest's Canadian Major Dailies database (and that's 138 hits just with "DJ" in the search to filter out hits on Chris Sheppard the non-notable Halifax photographer and Chris Sheppard the non-notable mountain biker, and doesn't preclude there being more hits to be found by searching for "Chris Sheppard musician" or "Chris Sheppard Love Inc." or "Chris Sheppard radio".) He later faded in prominence, for reasons that pose a bit of a WP:BLP challenge, so I'll grant that recent coverage that would have shown up on Google News is lacking — but WP:GNG doesn't require the coverage to be recent or Googlable, it just requires adequate coverage to exist somewhere.
And furthermore, this article actually did previously have real references in it already, which got removed in 2015 when somebody blanked the entire lead paragraph to deal with a POV attack edit within it (an issue that could have been fixed in a much more rational and much less "kill a fly with a sledgehammer" sort of way), but that blanking somehow didn't get caught by vandal patrol at the time and the article then sat leadless and unreferenced until the nominator reconstructed a new lead just moments before nominating it. I can't undertake a major repair project right away, because I have a shift at work this afternoon that I have to leave for shortly, but I'll look after reffing it up after I get home this evening — and in the interim, I have already restored the old lead (adjusted for the POV problems, of course) and its referencing. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some more articles regarding his notability, including the fact that his nickname was "Dogwhistle" or "DJ Dogwhistle". The articles that I've found included The Communic8r and Vice's Thump. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in Billboard, the Toronto Star, and The Province, among others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:51, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dizzy[edit]

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

Non notable performer whose article is referenced only by twitter, facebook, instagram, and allmusic.com plus a brief standard bio on mtv.com The subject does not show notability and does not meet WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nom says,no WP:RS found. I tried, and every hit I got was a false positive on some phrase like " Neil Young, Dizzy Gillespie, Theloneous Monk..." or "the young Dizzy Gillespie...". Clever name for a young performer. Wish him well and hope it's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 21 February 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) f eminist 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hortonworks[edit]

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

= Nothing for confirmed independent notability and substance given this mirrors what they would advertise to clients and that alone sufficient is for deletion, but also the history showing dozens and dozens of numerous accounts, a majority presumably company accounts which would also violate our policies; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and there's no exceptions for businesses, especially given all sources here are simply published or republished business announcements, including the supposedly best major ones. Searches also mirrored this by showing pages and pages of published and republished business announcements and press releases, including all of them being labeled. Take the current spurces:

1 is their own website
2 is a business announcement
3 is same
4 is same
5 is a company profile
6 is same
7 is business announcement
8 is same
9 is same
10 is a tech blog
11 is business announcement
12 is same, from a known PR host
13 is clearly labeled press release
14 is same
15 and 16 are mirroring same
17 is same
18 is same as 5-6
19 to 25 are all tech blog announcements, sharing consistency
26 is company website
27 is announcement
That's exactly what searches found SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: actually when I click this link one of the first results I get is an article called "Hortonworks brakes on breaking even, continues to burn cash"... That doesn't sound like PR or advertisement to me. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am founding hundreds of reliable, independent sources in dozens of languages about how this company 1. is a spinoff of Yahoo 2. is one of the leaders in its domain 3. had an IPO 4. has a business model that not everybody is convinced about. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company has a huge amount of press, much of which is from their large IPO (and then burning through much of the cash due to lack of earnings) and their work with Microsoft Azure etc. The article needs some work to source from other than company web site, but this is not nearly as bad as most "two kids and an app" articles. W Nowicki (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such as which ones? And are they policy-backed? SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Concerns with tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - The first link is to GoogleBooks which consists of nothing but clear guides and the second page shows this, violating the applicable WP:CORPDEPTH as it states "guides, simple listings and other company information cannot be used for notability", take:
1st page shows it
2 is same
3 is same
4 is same

The second link is simply a mirror of what I showed above in the analysis. None of it weighs any differently to what our policies state which is WP:Wikipedia is not advertising. Our policy WP:NOT also repeatedly says "Articles must not be copyedited or rearranged when either the article is still promotional or when there is not the sufficient improvements needed in policy"; because there hasn't been hopeful signs of actual improvements, beyond a few rewording (for example, "The company enjoys servicing its customers" cannot be reworded as it's still PR, and PR is exactly what this article is), this any and all advertising is removed. Tp quote WP:CORPDEPTH exactly: except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[3] the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. Because the sources are still largely supported by PR either published or republished, it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 17 February 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 G4 Deleted by User: RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chhina (Rapper)[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Non-noteable rapper. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per all the previous discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:55, 14 February 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 Ansel Elgort. (non-admin closure) f eminist 09:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thief (Ansel Elgort song)[edit]

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

No evidence this song has been "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts," won a significant award or received significant coverage, thus failing WP:NSONGS. JTtheOG (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized ((R from song)) to artist article Ansel Elgort for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. — Sam Sailor 11:40, 14 February 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. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloidal vibration technology[edit]

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

Term is invented by a single company; promotional article is merely an advert for that company. No sources provided that would support any claims of effectiveness per WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG by having no coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. RexxS (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is definitely an advertisement. Very few independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to RexxS for sorting out that huge list of sources that turned out not to be MEDRS, so the lack of support for this article became clear. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RexxS's rationale, the page is like an advert written by the company. Mramoeba (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator; pretty much all of the sources are patents. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy and no decent references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, patents are not sources. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly promotional. Lack of sources as well. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 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) LibStar (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vela Velupillai[edit]

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

fails WP:PROF. none of the awards or achievements pass the mark. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll leave it to others to judge the Google scholar results but per WP:NACADEMIC he's been a " distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" I believe twice, both as "(Distinguished) Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City and Professore di Chiara Fama in the Department of Economics at the University of Trento, Italy." Professore di Chiara Fama appears to simply be the Italian term for distinguished professor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn. Although not really emphasized in the article, he also once held a named professorship at NUI Galway, as seen here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:47, 14 February 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.