< 13 July	15 July >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Real[edit]

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

Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it is a blp with no references, it has to go. But what I can't understand is how so many edits (see article history) could result in such a lame article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added one source (a Boston Globe item) to this long-standing unreferenced biography. I can also see sporadic mentions/quotes from the subject in items in Cosmopolitan, etc., but I don't think there is sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gib Clarke[edit]

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

Lacking any evidence of notability or external references Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume. No independent reliable sourcing, fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything online to suggest this is anywhere close to notable. Edwardx (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Berry (footballer)[edit]

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

There is only one source (the Player's Transfer Database) that indicates that Mr. Berry ever played a single game for Torquay United FC, and that source gives no indication of where this information came from. There are no hits for John Berry in any other football database I've checked, including footballdatabase.com, footballdatabase.eu, soccerbase.com. World Football Net's list of former Torquay players doesn't show him, and neither does a general search of the same site. So basically, we have a person whose claim to notability cannot be sufficiently verified.

Even if we operate under the assumption that he did play once and therefore passes WP:NFOOTY, the recent RfC on the matter affirmed that "no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline," so Mr. Berry still needs to pass the WP:GNG.

I did an absolutely thorough BEFORE check using the links suggested in ((find sources)), adding "Torquay", "gulls", and "football" in various combinations, and located absolutely no sources so much as even mentioning Mr. Berry, let alone going in-depth enough to pass GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - meets WP:NFOOTBALL per the source above and this, but there is plenty of consensus that passing NFOOTBALL when you fail GNG is not enough (see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish,Andrei Nițu and Mohammed Al-Jizani, amongst others). For younger players we usually allow a grace period to get some coverage, but that doesn't apply here as he is long retired. I suggest we redirect to Torquay United F.C., as his sole claim to fame is playing for them - and then redirect to 1983–84 Torquay United F.C. season once that has been created. Giant Snowman 08:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This pretty clearly falls under the section the lede of WP:NSPORT which says: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original.) As GiantSnowman has already demonstrated above there is a fairly strong consensus against keeping articles on footballers who only just meet WP:NSPORT, when that is unlikely to change and they clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one appearance a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG. Disagree with the idea of redirecting as there is no mention of him in the club article. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 17 July 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. Sandstein 20:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley Report[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fake news site. Over half the references are just Facebook posts. The closest this gets to having a reliable source mentioning it is a Daily Mail item regurgitating a report from Buzzfeed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was well sourced, we wouldn't be having this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I added several more sources, including several radio stations, news outlets, online publications, newspapers, and televesion stations. It should also be noted the person nominating the page to be deleted also had the editor of the websites wiki page deleted a couple weeks ago. Very suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that all of those radio stations are part of the iheartradio chain. It is not commentary on the item, it is simply a link to the original Valley Report story published on the blogs managed centrally by iheartradio. You need third-party reliable sources that write about the website. Those radio stations count for nothing. I think the one good source you have is Buzzfeed. We'll see what other editors think. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are all independent radio stations, each with their own separate wiki entry. They were listed to illustrate the reach of the website.

Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The discussion on sources from the first AfD is compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY; some things just don't belong in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as pointed out by editor Cunard: Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Silverman, Craig (2016-05-06). "A Comedian Is Getting Tons Of Facebook Shares For His Fake News Articles". BuzzFeed. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16. The article notes:

The story is from the The Valley Report, a website that mostly publishes satirical articles. It occasionally puts out a fake news stories like this one in order to drive traffic and revenue, according to its owner, a comedian who goes by the name Dave Weasel.

Weasel, a Canadian living in Los Angeles, said the story is one of the site’s biggest hits since it launched in August. His initial plan for Valley News was to publish satirical articles that offer an element of social commentary. But then he tried his first hoax and it instantly went viral on Facebook.

His first hit was a fake news story about a woman who stabbed her boyfriend in the face because he took longer than 10 minutes to like her selfie. “That one just took off, getting hits and shares from all over the place,” Weasel said.

As noted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's., "One of the challenges with sources like Buzzfeed is the wild inconsistency in article quality, so it really depends on the specific circumstances. If written by one of their real journalists as a legitimate news item, then it should be fine to treat it as a reliable source." And as another editor wrote, "BuzzFeed articles are, as [the previous editor] says, situationally reliable depending on who they were authored by." This article was by Craig Silverman, BuzzFeed Founding Editor, Canada. Silverman is an established journalist. At https://ca.linkedin.com/in/craigjsilverman, he noted that he was an adjunct faculty at the Poynter Institute, was a managing editor at PBS MediaShift, and was a columnist at the Columbia Journalism Review, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. http://www.poynter.org/author/craigsilverman/ lists his Poynter Institute articles and this article from Poynter and this article from The Globe and Mail verify his background.

Since this article was written by a reputable, established journalist, it is reliable and can be used to establish notability for The Valley Report.

Gamp, Joseph (2016-05-07). "Viral lottery winner 'defecating on boss's desk' news story revealed as fake". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16. The article notes:

A recent news story that became a viral smash, detailing how a woman defecated on her boss' desk after winning the lottery and amassed tens of thousands of views in the process, has since been revealed as a fake by the story's author. Dave Weasel – who runs The Valley Report, a spoof news site like The Onion and The Daily Mash –admitted to BuzzFeed that the story had been fabricated, but was also one of the best stories to have been published on the site.

...

The piece, headlined Woman arrested for defecating on boss' des after winning the lottery' was the site's most popular article in the site's nine-month history. Reportedly, Valley News earns Weasel "thousands of dollars per month from ads".

...

Weasel, who is based in Los Angeles, stated that he thought the majority of people that read the article believed it to be true on first read. But he claimed that, "Most of the people that share it do not read it."

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

If you wanted the article merged with the original Wikipedia entry for Dave Weasel, you should've done that instead of having them both deleted a couple weeks apart.

Delete. Lots of references in the article, but they're all just the same (presumably fake) story about the defecating woman. The sources cited above (which look like they're just the same as were presented in the first AfD) don't impress me either. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 22 July 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. While there are reliable sources in the article, consensus is, that they fail to establish the subject's notability, mainly because they are insufficiently removed from the subject to be considered independent enough.

Merges were proposed by both the nom and another editor but no discussion on this happened. If someone wants to merge parts of the article, leave me a message and I'll provide a copy of the article to you. So Why 15:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Chariot[edit]

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

This seems like a WP:NOTNEWS situation to me. It's a crowd-funding campaign for a travel tube ala Futurama. While there have been a lot of news reports about this (with flashy headlines suggesting it already exists), it's not clear that it's going to go anywhere (excuse the pun). Perhaps it could be merged into the Matthew Modine article since he is the president of the company. ... discospinster _talk 19:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@captainraju, @discospinster -- I agree that the company is all flash. If you look at its competitor Hyperloop Transportation Technologies you will discover that it too is an "all hype, all the time" company. The only thing they manufacture is videos. I believe Hyper Chariot is noteworthy BECAUSE of its publicity. There's a possibility that something DOES happen. I make no predictions. Rhadow (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the technology is feasible, the fact is that the article meets the criteria for inclusion, namely a couple of relevant sources Katharine908 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has yet to become a noteworthy subject, and the article has a puff piece, promotional feel to it.TH1980 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a number of RS for this technology/company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- way WP:TOOSOON; with $4,700 in funding, it's hard to assume notability. The rest is trivia and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per K.e.coffman's point, this company is a startup with very limited reach. Very likely nothing would be known about it if not for the hyperloop hype. Some day it may meet WP:NOTE, but not today.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references suggest this isn't a company yet, merely promotional hype for a crowd-funding campaign. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all – My pride of authorship aside, I suggest that the decision on the Hyper Chariot article needs to be based on WP’s established guidelines for notability. We would be well served not to make our decision based on the merits of the subject company. That’s a value judgement. Hyper Chariot may well be a flash in the pan exercise in self-promotion. The article is not a puff piece. I included evidence commercial and technical imperfection, to which I expect others to add. It includes a journal article. A successful but low-dollar performance in a crowdfunding effort is a relevant indicator. It tells about the company; it’s not sufficient reason to dump the article.

Notability: The subject attracted the attention of all the London tabloids, Fox, and various tech publications (29 by my count) worldwide. This was all in its first month of public operation. Is that notable? Yes. Is it ongoing? First, that’s not a requirement. Second, if it isn’t, it is still significant insofar as it it’s a reflection of an industry full of dreamers, as well as builders.

Specific to trains-in-tubes, Elon Musk built a test track in California: physical accomplishment. Hyperloop One built a demo system in Nevada: another physical accomplishment. ET3: plans, papers, and press releases only. HTT: seminars and videos only. TransPod: three offices, no product. Arrivo: another startup, plans only. By the time we are done, the floor will be littered with the remains of companies that tried and failed. The story of those efforts, I believe, belong in an encyclopedia that should outlive all of us. In the two days since this discussion started, two new companies were added to the Hyperloop page. There is something going on here. It needs to be documented.

Just my two cents.Rhadow (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to ET3 Global Alliance which seems related but has a significantly longer history, or delete if that's not judged appropriate. This article is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a newspaper: a brief flurry of stories, with no indication anyone will remember it in 6 months time. Hyperloop is probably nonsense too but Musk has been talking about it for much longer and it's received much more press - those are the relevant criteria, not the plausibility of the science. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable company, it is vaporware. The only decent source, an article in Journal of Modern Transportation, does not mention the company and was published before the company was founded. An article about the founder's failed political efforts does not mention this company. A YouTube video claims that one of the founders is a psychic. Breathless reprints of press releases by credulous, sensationalistic London tabloids do not confer notability on a company that has raised much less funding than I have personally earned in the last ten days. This venture is not notable. It is a publicity stunt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Turmeric[edit]

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

Does not credibly state WP:N, appears to be a bit too promotional. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly promotional, with the hallmark of such promo articles -- discussion where the subject has been covered:

"The company and its products have been featured in publications that include Time, Crain's New York Business, Entrepreneur, and Yahoo!.[3]"

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 20 July 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.

First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument, WP:GNG does not have to be met if a WP:SNG is met. WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.

However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.

In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.

Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis and per my argument in the previous AFD. No qualifying awards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as thousands of sources online[1] thus the subject meets GNG, ~~It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources today however on the first 2 pages there's mentions and by the looks of it indepth coverage here & there,~~ Dunno about PORNBIO however certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

Sources aren't amazing however GNG is most certainly met. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against fan-based awards under our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP In addition to the significant Awards she has won, she is an icon of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - meets GNG and PORNBIO. A couple of the external links should probably be converted to references. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read PORNBIO its pretty clear that its a rough guide and that articles are still required to pass GNG. There is no evidence this does which means the trend at AFD is to give more weight to GNG then PORNBIO in close closes. So not ridiculous but thank you for your input. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD debate was reopened after a non-administrative closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So lets recap. There are assertions that this passes GNG but no sources have been adduced that actually pass the GNG. This leaves us an argument about a possible PORNBIO pass that I don't believe for an instant is nailed on and a BLP that clearly does not pass the GNG. The trend is to give GNG more weight than PBIO in close calls and there is a wider project consensus that BLPs require proper sourcing. On that basis my reading is that this is a delete. The closing admin might take a different view but evidence (not assertion) of passing GNG and evidence of the significance of the award will help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:-Total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.Echo Spartaz.Irrespective of WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG must be met.If sources are provided, I'm willing to change my opinion.And please don't rely on number of GoogleHits.Take time to check the sites too!Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I question the assertion that "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for Favorite Female Rookie" qualifies as significant and well known for the purposes of PORNBIO. Neither do I believe that there's consensus that this award is comparable to People's Choice Award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editor coffman is entirely correct. The source that likened the FAME awards to the People's Choice Awards was the FAME awards' own organizers/promoters. It's a defunct award, one in a series of short-lived awards organized by AVN in hopes of generating another profitable event to supplement its primary ceremony. The FAME Awards failed, one successor, the "Sex Awards", were cancelled when a planned streaming video deal tanked, and the AVN Fan Awards haven't gained any traction and been rebooted at least once. At least two other porn performers who won the same award in the same category have had their articles deleted this year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to support the claims of notability. Particularly intrigued by an entry above claiming "thousands of sources online" and, amusingly, "It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources". For the latter, I certainly hope that Mr. Davey2010, was able to find himself a nice iced tea, a cool washcloth on the back of the neck, or at least a shady resting area. For the former, the google hits are to a 1) Daily Dot top 20 Sexy Snapchat list of dubious notability, 2) a seattlepi.com false positive, as the porn actress' name only appears in the image caption of slide 5/27, in a story about another woman entirely, 3) a charming tale from the Daily Fail (largely deemed a non-reliable source by this project) about a senior citizen and his sex doll (that he totally does not have sex with, he says) who is modeled after Alektra Blue. The sourcing is rather downhill from there, regrettably. TheValeyard (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it may be bizarre to post the hot day thing however editors are expected to post actual sources which at the time I couldn't be bothered to do, It's better than saying "Oh yeah meets GNG" and not posting anything. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs an analysis of Davey2010's sources; if such are not forthcoming, GNG would not be met and since PORNBIO apparently isn't either (unless someone can refute Hullaballoo [sp?] Wolfowitz's arguments) deletion would ensue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-hah, let's analyze those "sources":

"Snapchat Porn" - includes a picture of the subject's mouth and hand and her supposed snapchat ID. Nothing else. Worthlessd.
"Seattle PI" - An article about a different porn performer does not even mention the subject, although she does appear in a group photo in an accompanying 27-image slideshow. Worthless.
"Daily Mail" Includes a picture of an Alektra Blue sex doll in an article about men who own sex dolls. No info regarding article subject. Worthless.
"lfpress" - An article which does not mention the article subject, illustrated with a group photo of porn performers, including Blue, not mentioned in the article. Worthless.
"TMZ" - posed for a photo at a rapper's party. No other info. TMZ didn't even care enough to identify her in the photo. Worthless.
"The Onion" - The fucking Onion. Namedropped in fake article on a fake/satirical news site. Utterly worthless.

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's obvious that these sources were posted without making one shred of an effort to assess their value. No editor should have to waste any more time going through the rest of the list demonstrating the obvious. Six straight strikes and you're out! Please delete the article now; the appropriate outcome should be evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse you're going to think they're "worthless" because you're anti-porn and you've demonstrated that with the constant AFD nominations and Delete !votes, The appropriate action would be to close this as No Consensus - Sources were provided and although you disagree with them that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd condescend to explain to us exactly how the "snapchat porn" piece, which literally includes nothing more than a picture of the supposed subject's mouth and hand, plus her supposed snapchat ID, constitutes evidence of notability. There's more substantive information provided in the average youtube cat video, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion sourcing seems sufficient to satisfy subjects notoriety, believe it meets WP:Pornbio Cllgbksr (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empty vote that does not address the WP:GNG concern. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, some of the links (mentioned far above) that are reliable sources have recently been added to this article here. There are also no restrictions against "fan-based awards" in our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. You can include as many "fan awards" as you like, inclusion isn't the point of contention. The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability"...which is, of course, a false claim as I've already stated. Also, basically saying that something is "unencyclopedic" isn't a valid AfD argument. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from writing to sources. article has no encyclopedic worth to be here. some of the keep votes are questionable doubles. Light2021 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've read your !vote 3 times and still cannot understand it could you either amend it so we can all understand it or simply strike it?, I did get the last bit which is actually wrong - There are no double !votes here - Each and every !vote in this AFD is unique and !votes on both sides are going per the relevant policies, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rushden Lakes shopping centre[edit]

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

Non-notable center reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major development which is anticipated to have five million visitors a year.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rushden+lakes&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCv4ajiovVAhVsKsAKHZqFBlwQ_AUICygC&biw=1366&bih=638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackquack (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even major developments that are anticipated to be really big need non-trivial, non-routine coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. A raw Google search dump is not proof of coverage. In this case, the overwhelming majority of the hits come from one newspaper (one source for Wikipedia's purposes). Independent non-routine citations in the article are currently limited to that one independent sources. The WP:CORPDEPTH guidance is even stricter than GNG about what constitutes significant, non-routine coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 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 procedural close. Page has been moved to draft space, and will probably be G5'd anyways. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fursan(leather Goods)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP Kleuske (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The creator, Jakred8, appears to be a sock puppet of Amirshahat, so WP:G5 applies. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:15, 14 July 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 deleted under G11. ... discospinster _talk 15:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrobe Shop[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The references given are either sponsored posts, requested reviews on blogs, or mention the shop trivially or not at all. ... discospinster _talk 17:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unremarkable retail web site and promotionalism, with the section on "Products and Clientele". I requested as "Speedy delete" under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 15 July 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 and redirect to Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law#Law journals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona State Sports and Entertainment Law Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Ranked at the very bottom of the Washington and Lee rankings with a combined score of 0. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law#Law journals, as it is mentioned there. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. user:postdlf is exactly right. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biodesix[edit]

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

Promotional article that reads like it was copied from a press release, but I cannot find the source. There is some coverage in genome web about the purchase of Bioyong, but I don't feel that rises to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH, because of that, this article does not merit inclusion under WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION violation by a WP:SPA, all coverage is WP:ROUTINE, so fails WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- routine corporate blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 15 July 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 speedied as WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Comu[edit]

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

a claim of notability, but imo just a bloke doing his job. TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 14 July 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. by User:Brookie as WP:A7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevan Card[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 14 July 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. by User:Brookie as WP:A7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imbi the girl[edit]

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

PROD removed by SPA author without explanation, the sources are interviews and social media which are not independent and therefore fails GNG and MUSICBIO overall to satisfy the subject is notable. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. G-search of article subject turns up the standard do-not-cites of Twitter, Facebook, Spotify, Soundcloud, etc. Unlikely to be expanded upon at the moment, and does not further the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:53, 14 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 BRD Bucharest Open – Singles[edit]

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

Sprawling sports stats article fails WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence of independent notability. Content could be summarized in the main article. - Mr X 14:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for now. This article has updated as it is an international (minor) tennis event held by WTA. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NTENNIS. All WTA tour events have separate draw articles, and this would be one of them. Might seem empty but that is because tournament starts Monday. Adamtt9 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTENNIS is a notabilty guideline for tennis players, not competitions.- Mr X 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This would be a first... (Gabinho^>:) 06:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per project notability guidelines [25] and the consensus on there being draw articles[26]. In addition passes WP:NOTSTATS, which states: "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." This is the separate article in question, and the main article will summarize the singles info. El Pharao (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it says on the top of the page that you linked: "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and may not represent Wikipedia community standards of practice.". - Mr X 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that bud, but you're seeing Wikipedia community standards of practice in action right here. El Pharao (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. Lepricavark (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with others, meets WP:NTENNIS. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As above. By the way, do we need to delete every tennis draw? It doesn't make any sense. 333 -blue 04:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Important and good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by M9154 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the guideline for tennis tournaments. Coderzombie (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many discussions have established strong consensus for ATP and WTA draw articles. Supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament. Hundreds of sources always exist after the event but if the article only lists the results then an official link to the draw is sufficient to reference the content. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really nothing has to said about this. Matt294069 is coming 11:13, 21 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System[edit]

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

Is this really notable? Most of the sources are first-party and not independent - and it's hard to justify this page existing when a more general page on air lubrication technologies hasn't yet been created. RSTBlue (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think the main article you're looking for might be Supercavitation (which doesn't currently mention the Mitsubishi system). Perhaps a merge, if found to be not independently notable.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the nominator's primary activity here has been a series of unsuccessful attempts to create an article on a similar product, Silverstream System. However, the Mitsubishi system gets decidedly better Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, there are plenty of hits in the kind of press I'd expect to cover such a technology ([27]), and the original creator of the Mitsubishi article seems to be independent and have no COI (just an interest in some random marine technologies). However, I am concerned that this AfD has a COI issue, per Shawn in Montreal. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's also a third system, the ACES air-lubricated hull design (an acronym of ‘Air Chamber Energy Saving’). now apparently patented by Damen Group and something called Marinvention? A wiki search for air hull lubrication here yields a number of articles on individual ships - often ice breakers - that use this interesting technology. I'd have no objection personally to repurposing this as a main article called Air-lubricated hull or somesuch that discusses the technology generically, mentioning all the proprietary systems, the history, uses in open water and ice, etc. Or it could start as a modest section in Hull (watercraft), which currently doesn't mention this new technology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some hits on this.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's a neutral assessment from an industry blog, covering the claimed benefits and possible drawbacks. And here, a story on the first such Mitsubishi equipped cruise ship. Air lubrication as an emerging technology for ships may well need a main article, but until such time, we should at least keep this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article doesn't say much right now, with most of the notability conferred from ELs per Shawn's analysis, I do think that notability has been established from those links. The logical step is to now use those to expand the article with the analysis and descriptions contained therein. I would think we can also get a decent article about the tech in general by using those same sources (Ironic if an AfD netted +1 articles at its conclusion?). Crow^Caw 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered a request for such a general article at AFC, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sources out there, as well as a valid concern about the legitimacy of this nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indore–Surat Express[edit]

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

Reason HUSSS 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The train was a holiday special andis not regular train.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 14 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Leone[edit]

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

An article about a school level soccer coach/manager from the USA. May fail at WP:NFOOTY. There are some news coverage from local news-sites and university newspapers but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add external links to various bios of Ray Leone on various university's websites. I did not realize the external links section was empty. Hopefully that will constitute enough coverage and external research to pass WP:NFOOTY. There are multiple other women's college soccer coaches that have wiki pages, so I believe being a women's soccer coach is notable enough. Especially for Ray Leone, because he started multiple college programs and has had an extended coaching career. swimmer33 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the issues raised are being addressed.TH1980 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! swimmer33 02:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the decision was to keep, can I remove the header about the article being up for deletion? swimmer33 15:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No. An administrator will remove that once the AfD process is complete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. swimmer33 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunain Zia[edit]

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

Non-notable indiviual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As per the sources available in the article or outside it appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E; there is no source that talk about his career as blogger or poet. Fails WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and poorly sourced bio created by a SPA and now blocked sockpuppet. this could fall under WP:GNG.. cited sources are not RS except one [28] but this is also press release so i won't cite it. I found few RS such as [29] and [30] but he cannot be notable for a single event. --Saqib (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems promotional, sub standard RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Created for promotional purposes. Greenbörg (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: creator clearly had COI, shown in article with severe WP:PROMO and failure of WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 12:16, 18 July 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. Sandstein 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate of Westarctic[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability - Are there reliable independent sources For this article? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Travis McHenry. There is some coverage[31][32][33] but not much in depth. All coverage is about McHenry and his creations together, rather than just about Westarctic, and since he has 2 micronations he's the sensible target. An alternative merge/redirect target if McHenry was deleted would be Territorial claims in Antarctica, but I think there's enough on him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and Travis McHenry (if it is added to this nomination). There's no independent coverage of this at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pages № 2008, 2009 and 2010 and pages 516-517 - ? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is unreliable (iUniverse = WP:SPS). The second appears to be just an amalgamation of Listverse.com "Top 10 XXX" clickbait articles. I suspect, but don't know, there will have been little-to-no fact checking of the original Top 10 articles, and likewise I doubt a small[34] publishing company like Ulysses Press (no WP page) will have gone through and fact-checked. Bromley86 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6 books --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) SPS, covered above.

(2) Children's book.

(3) Decent source for coinage (p.730), but no good for GNG.

(4) Listverse, covered above.

(5) Unreliable (source WP).

(6) Single mention. It appears to be a reproduction of this, which in turn appears to merely be a list of winners in a "best coin" contest by American Numismatic Association. Not useful for GNG. Bromley86 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Microtation while some are, Micronations aren't *automatically* notable - anyone can create one!. There is no RS to note this as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
page 730-731 - even Class 15: Private Mint Issues since 1960 -- American Numismatic Association (for all numismatic material issued by a private mint of any country, including philatelic-numismatic covers, except that no denominated coins may be exhibited in this class) First Place -- Oded Paz for "The Coins of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica" --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful for GNG - same source as one you've already provived ( (6) above). Please review these sources before adding them. Bromley86 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9 news - example Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica, and Travis McHenry, the grand duke of Westartica, will also be in attendance at MicroCon 2015. Westarctica is a much larger nation than Molossia, with more than 620,000 square miles in Antarctica to its name. None of the nation's 300 citizens live on the frozen land. No one does. McHenry, also a recruiting coordinator in a Los Angeles media company, said he was 'really inspired' when he found out there was a piece of Antarctica that had never been claimed. But Westarctica is not just an empty country. It's also a nonprofit, advocating for the protection of native penguins and researching how climate change is impacting Antarctica's ice sheet. ... Grand Duchy of Westarctica. One of the world's largest micronations, it encompasses 620,000 square miles of the Antarctic, but nobody actually lives there. It was founded in 2001 by His Royal Highness Grand Duke Travis McHenry after he learned no other nation had laid claim to the area. McHenry says he would like to eventually make Westarctica a real country. If he does, he jokes that he'll probably promote himself from grand duke to king. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Our WP article! Doubly not reliable.

(2) Not usable - see WP:DAILYMAIL.

(3) Article on MicroCon 2015. Picture of McHenry. Sentence fragment that mentions Westartica attended.

(4) Article on MicroCon 2015. Picture of McHenry. Sentence fragment that mentions Westartica attended.

(5) Same article as 4 - ignore.

(6) Top 10 list article. I'm not convinced these are useful for GNG, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that modern ones will likely just be sourced from WP, and hence unreliable.

(7) Article on MicroCon 2015. Single sentence mention, not suitable for GNG.

(8) Article on MicroCon 2015. Not even a whole sentence on it, not suitable for GNG.

(9) Another Top 10 list article. Very little information in it. Bromley86 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Funny how people keep saying there are no sources when there are lots. Dolberty (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Says the now-blocked sock. Bromley86 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails basic WP:GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The only reliable source mentions are news-of-the-weird entries, none of them "significant". Bromley86 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 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. by User:Brookie as WP:G11 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Markup Language File[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, found very little substantial online. This is no surprise, the language is said to have been developed just this year, and is hence completely unheard of as of now. It's very doubtful that that'll change any time soon. It, may, however justify a brief mention on XML. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 per Caliburn. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Mazzucelli[edit]

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

None of the sources appear to be about the subject of this bio, Some are dead. Apart from the usual raft of social media sites and faculty staff listings, she does not appeared to have generated any mentions that add up to notabilty. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small number of well-cited works but WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable. Give it a hundred years and we can write a better version. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kipré Tchétché[edit]

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

Article Prodded but turned to redirect by other admin. Not sure this should just be reverted and deleted, but changing to a redirect makes no sense as the player is not a permanent fixture at this club. The deletion rationale still stands, namely that he fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD rationale, which Fenix down reiterates above. The only time I could imagine a redirect working would be if it were to the player's national team, since he couldn't easily play for multiple nations. Were he to play at a national level, however, he'd be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Club affiliation is far too transient for this to be a useful redirect. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceh International School[edit]

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

The article is not in English, not amenable to speedy since we do not have a corresponding policy, PROD was removed without explanation, and unfortunately AfD seems to be the only option. Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable - a brief Google search returns nothing noteworthy; only social media pages. Looking at the English translation of the page, there's little to the article content-wise, either. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article, it was only founded in 2017, so I don't assume there will be much coverage in sources. In other words: fails WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per previous editors, subject is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notablity, does not qualify for inclusion as a standalone article. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:56, 20 July 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 and redirect to Transformers: Generation 2 (comics). Sandstein 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jhiaxus[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers: Generation 2 (comics). Not notable outside of this comic book. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. No need to preserve the article history, as it is largely uncited original research; what's cited is trivia sourced to blogs, fan pages, in-universe publications and other unsuitable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect as implausible in terms of traffic. DrStrauss talk 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers:_Generation_2_(comics)#Cybertronian_Empire. I see no policy-based reason not to redirect. Low traffic is irrelevant since this is a potential search term and it makes sense to allow people to find where it belongs. Regards So Why 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was originally going to support a redirect, but the character seems to have enough of a presence in the Transformers universe, and even has its own toy. The amount of time that goes into planning, die casting, packaging and distributing these toys suggests that the character is not insignificant. There's lots of fancruft on Wikipedia - but it is part of popular culture so we shouldn't poo-poo it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... nearly every Transformer character gets a toy. It's primarily a toyline, after all. The toy itself (there's only been one) actually took very little time to plan - it's a different paint scheme on mold that had previously released three other times. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're more up on this than I am. It's too bad there aren't sales figures to see which ones are more popular than others - that might help also as a gauge of notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, this toy was exclusive to KB Toys (That's the only place I could find it, anyway), so sales would be skewed downward if they were available. There are some polls showing favorite/most wanted/etc characters, but Jiaxus usually isn't on them and they're reliability is questionable. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, or merge/redirect if a suitable target can be identified (redirects are cheap, and it's not like this title is needed for anything else). I'm not sure I follow Timtempleton's reasoning. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Derry[edit]

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

This footballer has never played in a fully professional league and therefore fails the subject-specific guideline. He also fails the GNG as, despite there being a lot of refs, they are all to profiles on stats sites or the official sites of clubs he has played for, or consist only of match reports and routine transfer reporting - there is no in-depth third party coverage. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. LampGenie01 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of continuity announcers on Dutch and Flemish television[edit]

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

This is perhaps a notable topic (though separate Dutch and Flemish lists would seem more appropriate), but the article is so poorly and confusingly written (has it been machine translated, perhaps?) that I think it would need starting again from scratch. The one source is a wiki. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A glance at the creator's userpage also suggests the possibility of COI, but it is so confusingly written it is hard to tell. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is incomprehensible as it stands. The wiki in question cites no sources, so it's difficult to salvage anything from this. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet list standards; none of the names are hyperlinks and there are no sources, a more general list page is sufficient Power~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 15 July 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. So Why 17:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndraStra Global[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, WP:GNG. Most of the sources are articles written by people associated with the journal, and none of the sources speak about IndraStra. Rentier (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be trying hard to make a case for notability by association but provides among its many non-sources none of the reliable in-depth independent sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. Multiple government/academic source based citations, university repository submissions and also, the subject has Authority control numbers. But, Can we count on Google Scholar indexing as a notability factor? I don't think so if we take WP:ACADEMIC as a reference. — Mirandajoseph01 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There simply isn't nearly enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. See also WP:NOTINHERITED, which should clear up any doubt with regards to the journal's prominent contributors. Rentier (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic publication with participation from many cited scholars over a sustained period of time. Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and David Eppstein. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. In addition, I fail to say why having authority control numbers would confer any notability. Those confirm that the publication exists, nothing else. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous editors, the subject often cites content created by it's own contributors. IndraStra Global could probably be cited, but at the moment the inclusion of an article concerning the company does not further the goals of the encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with reference to Randykitty's statement - Agreed! Publications supported Authority control like ISSN and OCLC Control Numbers doesnt confer notability. But, How are VIAF and ISNI numbers being assigned to an organization/institution/person/? Based on Notability? or is it just as easy to get? — Mirandajoseph01 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know, it's basically automatic. You publish something and it gets you an ISNI/VIAF automatically. If their bots don't find you on the web, you can obtain one on request. Not selective at all, no relation with notability. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 21 July 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. There seem to be a divided opinion as to whether a) the article is excessively promotional, and b) if so, could the problems be cleared up by normal editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airside (company)[edit]

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

This is non- notable, promotional and covered by typical press. awards do not define encyclopedic notability.Falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed . Light2021 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominated for a BAFTA. Too much Twinkling here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't get that quite right:

Awards:

2 BAFTA nominations

1 Cannes Lion Grand Prix, 1 Gold

11 D&AD nominations/in book

7 CADS winner/nominations

7 Design Week winner/nominations including 1 Best In Show

2 Creative Review Best In Book

3 HOW Awards

Plus many others – full list is below:

2011 - One Dot Zero animation festival - short animation selected

2010 European Design Award - Music Packaging

2010 - HOW Logo Design Awards Winner Airplot

2010 - I.D. Magazine Annual Design Review Honorable Mention – Graphics Airplot

2009 - Media Guardian Innovation Awards – Digital Technology – Winner Fiat ecoDrive

2009 - Cannes Lions Grand Prix Cyber Lion – Fiat eco:Drive / AKQA

2009 - Interactive Media Awards Best in Class – Consumer Goods Vitsoe

2009 - Cannes Lions Gold Cyber Lion – Design Awards Nokia viNe

2009 - Creative Review The Annual – Best-in-Book Fiat eco:Drive / AKQA

2009 - Creative Review The Annual – Best in Book Nokia viNe / RGA

One Show Interactive : Best of Show, Fiat eco:Drive / AKQA 2009

Creativity - Best in Show AKQA / Fiat eco:Drive 2009

BAFTA nomination 2009 – Best film titles

Webby Awards – Best Website Nominee for Fan Site and for Music Site Pet Shop Boys 2007

Pixel Awards Winner – Best Website – Pet Shop Boys 2007

IMA Award – Outstanding Achievement Award Pet Shop Boys Website 2007

HOW Awards 2006 – Winner Best International Billboard campaign – Mastercard

HOW Awards 2006 – Winner Best packaging awards – Think Tank

Epica awards 2005 – Bronze finalist Coca Cola Love Posters

ALEX Awards USA 2005 – Winner Best CD Single – Lemon Jelly

ALEX Awards USA 2005 – Winner Best Vinyl Packaging Lemon Jelly

Design Week Awards 2007 - Shortlisted – Sony Bravia Idents for UEFA

Design Week Awards 2007 - Commended – Pet Shop Boys website

Design Week Awards 2006 - Best of Show – Orange Playlist Idents

Design Week Awards 2006 Winner – Best Moving Image

Design Week 2005 Winner - Best Poster ‘Surf Baby Sick’

Design Week 2002 Winner ‘Interactive Media – Promotional

Design Week 2002 Winner ‘Interactive Media – Information’

D&AD In Book – LemonJelly Record Cover 2006

D&AD In Book – Coca Cola ‘Love’ Posters 2006

D&AD In Book – D&AD Student Awards Annual 2005

D&AD 4 illustrations In Book – Surf / BBH 2005

D&AD In Book – Digital Crafts / Animation & Motion Graphics 2003

D&AD Silver Nomination - Integrated / Integrated Advertising & Design (Digital) 2006

D&AD Silver Nomination - Music Packaging 2003

D&AD Silver Nomination - Interactive Media 2002

British Animation Awards 2004 Finalist in 2 categories

BAFTA nomination 2002: Interactive

Soho Shorts Animation Shortlist

Resfest 2003 Animation Shortlist

‘Anifest’ 2003 Czech Animation festival – Best Music Promo

Best Newcomer, Muzik Awards, 2001 (Nomination – Lemon Jelly

CADS 2004 Winner –award for best music packaging Lemon Jelly

CADS 2003 Best Dance Video (Nomination - Lemon Jelly - Nice Weather For Ducks)

CADS 2003 Best single design (Nomination - Lemon Jelly - Nice Weather For Ducks)

CADS 2003 Best single design (Winner - Lemon Jelly – Spacewalk)

CADS 2003 Best Album design (Nomination – Lemon Jelly – Lost Horizons)

CADS 2003 Best Design Team (Nomination – Airside)

CADS 2002 Best Special Packaging (Nomination - Lemon Jelly _ Soft Rock

BT Innovation Award for Best Use of New Media 2001

you do not feel right so you will copy paste like this? Advocacy violation. non-encyclopedic in nature. this is not award list. Wikipedia is corrupted like anything, compromised and will be lost in sense with such articles forever. Light2021 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don't follow you at all, perhaps we need to discuss your use of Twinkle going forward. This demonstrates the notability of the company. Nothing more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems clear, article is well referenced. I too have concerns about nominator's use of speedy deletion, Twinkle and four word deletion/merger rationales. --Canley (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily enough sources to pass GNG. I suggest the nominator withdraws this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional unless rewritten to include only awards, not nominations. (The first keep statement above is also for a "nominated" and indicates insufficient attention to standards. ) Nominations are not awards, except in a very few special cases. (and the D&AD In Book award are also only a preliminary round). Listing what they actually won, there is

2010 European Design Award - Music Packaging

2010 - HOW Logo Design Awards Winner Airplot

2009 - Media Guardian Innovation Awards – Digital Technology – Winner Fiat ecoDrive

2009 - Cannes Lions Grand Prix Cyber Lion – Fiat eco:Drive / AKQA

2009 - Interactive Media Awards Best in Class – Consumer Goods Vitsoe

2009 - Cannes Lions Gold Cyber Lion – Design Awards Nokia viNe

One Show Interactive : Best of Show, Fiat eco:Drive / AKQA 2009

Creativity - Best in Show AKQA / Fiat eco:Drive 2009

Pixel Awards Winner – Best Website – Pet Shop Boys 2007

IMA Award – Outstanding Achievement Award Pet Shop Boys Website 2007

HOW Awards 2006 – Winner Best International Billboard campaign – Mastercard

HOW Awards 2006 – Winner Best packaging awards – Think Tank

ALEX Awards USA 2005 – Winner Best CD Single – Lemon Jelly

ALEX Awards USA 2005 – Winner Best Vinyl Packaging Lemon Jelly

Design Week Awards 2006 - Best of Show – Orange Playlist Idents

Design Week Awards 2006 Winner – Best Moving Image

Design Week 2005 Winner - Best Poster ‘Surf Baby Sick’

Design Week 2002 Winner ‘Interactive Media – Promotional

Design Week 2002 Winner ‘Interactive Media – Information’

‘Anifest’ 2003 Czech Animation festival – Best Music Promo

CADS 2004 Winner –award for best music packaging Lemon Jelly

CADS 2003 Best single design (Winner - Lemon Jelly – Spacewalk)

This is still a substantial list, and I do not think all of them are notable awards Most awards in this industry are awarded to multiple people each year. Each individual listing here needs checking, to see which are truly the highest level award in the industry. In any case, the attempt to include them all in the article is characteristic of a promotional approach. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ignoring the long list of trade awards (which are WP:MILL here), there's no claim of notability. This is a 3-person design studio, with no particularly notable work referenced, that is now defunct. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability established; coverage is routine, amounting to a directory listing of an entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Many of the awards listed are ones that have been haphazardly listed on the article, and this does not confer notability. Other mentions of the subject are similarly minimal. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yates, Derek; Price, Jessie (2015). Communication Design: Insights from the Creative Industries. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 171. ISBN 1474239250. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The book notes:
  
  Following early forays into psychology, graphic design, and programming, Nat Hunter became one of the first interaction designers in the mid-1990s, creating interfaces for spaceships in Hollywood movies and then founding Airside, one of London's most influential and idiosyncratic digital design agencies in 1998.
  During the 14 years she ran Airside, Hunter began to realize the power that design has to change the world and started to use this power for positive social and enviornmental change.
2. Hyland, Angus; Bell, Roanne, eds. (2003). Hand to Eye: Contemporary Illustration. London: Laurence King Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 1856693392. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The book notes:
  
  Airside
  
  Fred Deakin, Nat Hunter, and Alex Maclean launched Airside in 1999. Based in London and having grown to nine people, the agency produces illustration, websites, print, identities and, increasingly, motion graphics for a range of arts and media clients, including the White Cube and Serpentine Galleries in London. Photographer Nadav Kander. DJ Paul Oakenfold. Chanel. Carhartt and Fred Deakin's Electronica Group Lemon Jelly. Airside also produces merchandise which is sold online and is fast becoming collectable: Their most popular T-shirt to date features an image created to promote the Japanese film Battle Royale, released in 2001. The group hopes that the shop, which sells T-shirts, screenprints, knitted toys and models will one day become as important a part of their business as client work.
3. Shaughnessy, Adrian (2005). How to be a Graphic Designer, Without Losing Your Soul. London: Laurence King Publishing. p. 44. ISBN 1856694100. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The book notes:
  
  Natalie Hunter
  
  ... In 1999, with Alex Maclean and Fred Deakin, she started the highly regarded design company Airside, perhaps best known for its work for Lemon Jelly (of which Fred Deakin is a member). They have a diverse range of clients, including the BBC, Carhartt, Channel 4, Greenpeace, the Hayward Gallery, London Underground, Médecins du Monde, MTV Europe, The Royal College of Art, the Serpentine Gallery, VW Radio and White Cube Gallery.
4. Lucas, Gavin (2009-06-07). "Airside is ten". Creative Review. Archived from the original on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The book notes:
  
  London-based design studio Airside celebrates its tenth year of business this year by self-publishing Airside by Airside, a 296-page hardback tome choc full of images of the projects that have not only paid the bills at Airside HQ but have shaped the company. However, this is not your typical studio monograph. Dip into the text on any given page and it becomes clear that the intention is not just to show off the work created since the company’s inception in 1999, but also to use the book as a means to contextualise the work within the story of the company’s development.
  ...
  What Airside’s candid account of its first ten years really exposes is the learning curve it has encountered on the business side of things. Many regular cr readers will be familiar with Airside’s T-Shirt Club, the Airside Shop, and with work the company has created for brands such as Coca-Cola, Greenpeace, Panasonic, Orange and for Deakin’s own musical outfit, Lemon Jelly. But some may not know that a lack of business know-how nearly sunk Airside only a few years ago. In 2004, Deakin, Hunter and Maclean had to give their staff a month’s notice as the company’s figures just weren’t adding up.
5. "Airside to close in March". Creative Review. 2011-11-24. Archived from the original on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Airside is to close its doors in March 2012 after 14 years in business. The studio, which made its name originally for website design and animation, says the decision is a ‘voluntary’ one reached jointly by the founders Alex Maclean, Nat Hunter and Fred Deakin.
  ...
  Airside opened in 1998.
  ...
  During Airside’s 14 years it has won many awards, including a Cannes Grand Prix and two Best in Books in the CR Annual. It was one of the first significant digital studios to emerge following the dot com crash of the late 90s and quickly gained a reputation for creative excellence. The company currently has nine staff. Its Tokyo branch, Airside Nippon, “will continue to trade as normal,” the company says.
6. Montgomery, Angus (2011-11-24). "Airside to close after 14 years". Design Week. Archived from the original on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Airside is set to close after 14 years in business, with founders Fred Deakin, Alex Maclean and Nat Hunter set to go their separate ways.
  The consultancy will close its doors for good next March.
  ...
  Airside Nippon, which operates as a separate business, is set to continue, under creative director Henki Leung.
7. Bridge, Rachel (1999-11-23). "Cyber studio that was built just one piece at a time - The future of business". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Human contact combined with technical skills is proving the perfect formula for a group of freelance workers in Islington.
  In North London, eight freelance workers are using the increasing affordability and accessibility of computer and communications technology to create a new form of working environment. Fed up with working on their own from home, the group - whose skills include designing websites, graphic design, digital media, Internet technical expertise and journalism - joined forces 18 months ago.
  They now rent a studio in Islington with the intention of combining the social benefits of a communal environment with the advantages of working for themselves. Alex Maclean, one of the founders of the Airside Studio, says he came up with the idea after tiring of the solitary nature of homeworking: "I was socially isolated. I suffered from boredom and lack of social interaction, and not being able to separate work from home.
8. Sweet, Lucy (2003-02-23). "How a wobbly idea broke the music mould - Culture". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2017-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  [Fred Deakin] and his wife, Nat, began Airside as a sideline in 1998. It quickly developed into a fully fledged business with a client list that reads like Who's Hip. The company has won two Design Week magazine awards.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Airside to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Cunard you seem to have searched Google Books for any mention of the company without checking whether the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and listed them above, including interviews with company officers, advertisements, interviews on a self-published book (yes really!) and routine company announcements such as the company closing down. This is not helpful and makes the AfD overly long. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The books provide detailed coverage of the subject. There is enough non-interview coverage of the subject to establish notability. The sources provide deep coverage of the company's history, products, and services.
    Cunard (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except the facts and information are PRIMARY sources since they originate directly from the company. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the clear promotionalism and I'll show several examples: Hunter [founder] began to realize the power that design has to change the world and started to use this power for positive social and environmental change yet this is supposed to be the same "one of London's most influential and idiosyncratic digital design agencies" so I question its independence; not only that, but the source is a business guidebook. Next one is the same, the agency produces illustration, websites, print, identities and, increasingly, motion graphics for a range of arts and media clients, including the White Cube and Serpentine Galleries in London. Photographer Nadav Kander. DJ Paul Oakenfold. Chanel. Carhartt and Fred Deakin's Electronica Group Lemon Jelly. Airside also produces merchandise which is sold online and is fast becoming collectable: Their most popular T-shirt to date features an image created to promote the Japanese film Battle Royale, released in 2001. The group hopes that the shop, which sells T-shirts, screenprints, knitted toys and models will one day become as important a part of their business as client work and the source is actually a business guidebook too. Also found was [founder] she started the highly regarded design company Airside. They have a diverse range of clients. in a near mirror-image of the last 2 sources. Following this promotionalism is London-based design studio Airside celebrates its tenth year of business this year by self-publishing Airside by Airside, a 296-page hardback tome choc full of images of the projects that have not only paid the bills at Airside HQ but have shaped the company. However, this is not your typical studio monograph. What Airside’s candid account of its first ten years really exposes is the learning curve it has encountered on the business side of things....Many regular cr readers will be familiar with Airside’s T-Shirt Club, the Airside Shop, and with work the company has created for brands such as....". Sources #5, 6 and 8 are clear business announcements with it has won many awards, including a Cannes Grand Prix and two Best in Books in the CR Annual. It was one of the first significant digital studios to emerge following the dot com crash of the late 90s and quickly gained a reputation for creative excellence yet again with clear company ties. The last I noticed is eight freelance workers are using the increasing affordability and accessibility of computer and communications technology to create a new form of working environment. Fed up with working on their own from home, the group - whose skills include designing websites, graphic design, digital media, Internet technical expertise and journalism - joined forces 18 months ago. They now rent a studio in Islington with the intention of combining the social benefits of a communal environment with the advantages of working for themselves. Alex Maclean, one of the founders of the Airside Studio, says he..... There's promotionalism one after another and that's enough cause for questioning all of it and worse when Airside company account came in or someone, Colmlarkin, an obvious employee. This encyclopedia is obligated to utilize our policy WP:NPOV, but it can't be used to simultaneously defend advertising. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the tone, fix it, or tag it, it's no grounds for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion policy says: "pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia" so, since the current article is promotional and the sources offered are promotional, the only obvious solution is to "remove from Wikipedia" to comply with our policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zppix (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One source says, "But some may not know that a lack of business know-how nearly sunk Airside only a few years ago. In 2004, Deakin, Hunter and Maclean had to give their staff a month’s notice as the company’s figures just weren’t adding up." This unflattering information about Airside's having to "give their staff a month’s notice" reflects poorly on the company and its management and would be excluded if the source were not independent.

The source about "Airside by Airside" is a review of the company's book. This is a positive review Both positive reviews and negative reviews can be used to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP and references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FaberNovel[edit]

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

Blatant Promotion. corporate Spam. Highly misleading sources. Press in some else are company. Light2021 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- ref-bombed corporate spam, with statements such as:

"It is also known for establishing and working with entrepreneurial communities such as coworking spaces[5] and startup incubators.[6] It has collaborated closely with and maintains strong connections to such organizations as Cap Digital, Silicon Sentier, La Cantine, and Le Camping!"

Pretty much the entire article reads like this. WP:NOTSPAM applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform or a replacement for a corporate webpage. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other editors. Not enough in depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:37, 20 July 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)

Rosa Bouglione[edit]

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

Reaching the age of 106 and being the matriarch of a circus family is not sufficient notability for a WP article. DePRODded by original creator. PamD 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: enough sources have been added to confirm notability; no-one else has supported deletion. PamD 19:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoever created article failed to use the internet resources of sourcing available on subject. I found three sources and added them to article that profiled her in depth, most especially the Chicago Daily Herald article, a source that passes muster for WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Thanks to Cllgbksr (talk · contribs) for digging out better sources. Original editor seemed to think longevity implied notability. Apologies that I didn't do enough "WP:BEFORE" research myself. PamD 19:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punchcut[edit]

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

One Paragraph article. Nothing significant to add on Encyclopedia. Wiki is not for profile not a LinkedIn or directory. No indication of encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting the GNG. (My delete is not contingent on the size of the article. Size does not matter.) There are, however, some dead links. If those could be revived and if they show significant coverage, I could reconsider. Working links show brief mentions and quotes of someone working for the company, and of course, press releases.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a consulting company with 36 employees; hardly a claim to notability. I was not able to locate coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform or a replacement for a corporate webpage. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ali (politician)[edit]

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

A biographical article on a practicing solicitor and former local Councillor. The elected position is insufficient to meet the WP:POLITICIAN criterion 3 and I am not seeing the substantial coverage which would be needed to meet criterion 2. The subject was listed in a "British Bangladeshi Who's Who" in 2009 but does not appear in its current edition, nor does anything indicate that appearing in that publication would be inherently notable by WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 or 3. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local politician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Fernando (artist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While I'm limited in my ability to understand any sources in the subject's native language, I'm not finding anything beyond the routine/confirmation-of-existence sorts of things found in the references to the article at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillol Ray[edit]

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

Many "awards", but no evidence of any notability. His works as a poet have not received significant attention as far as I can see, and his work as an engineer not much more. His fellowships are either graduate student benefits, or payed memberships. The only award that is slightly more notable is the "National Award Winner: NFIA (National Federation of Indian Americans) Award in Liberal and Fine Arts, California, USA (2006)"

The only Google news hit for Hillol Ray is an article about a letter he received from Mother Teresa[35], and he doesn't seem to have received attention in any books (indexed by Google) either. Even in general Google search, he only gets 93 hits[36]. Many of the claims are unverifiable (like the "personal recognition" by Bill Clinton and Al Gore), the remainder seems trivial.

Basically, having received one award of unclear importance, and not having received significant attention in reliable independent sources, means that he fails our WP:BIO guideline. Fram (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for next week's closing administrator: I think this debate may have been incorrectly relisted last time and was never re-added to the AfD log. So you may wish to consider the 7 July relist the first relist. Or not, your call. A Train^talk 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relist as one week was off logs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 07:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While hangin' with Mother Teresa is nice, he fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Singapore Changi Airport. Numerically, the arguments are 3-2 in favor of deletion, however, all three delete !votes (including the nom) are based on a lack of notability without discussing the possibility of a merge. Of those advocating merge (per WP:ATD-M), the airport's article is probably the better target than the List of bus stations (regardless of whether that is kept or not). So Why 17:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Airport Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to airport article. Nothing notable for astand alone article.Charles (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesdrakew - There's already a mention at Singapore_Changi_Airport#Bus inregards to the terminal, Problem with merging is that none of the paragraphs are sourced/sourcable but anyway there's a one lined mention Singapore_Changi_Airport#Bus which IMHO is sufficient, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bus terminals are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. - Rrachet (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 12:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This had been closed as a Merge, but appears target page is itself been nominated for deletion. Further consensus should continue. No prejudice against deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 07:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the target article for a merge no longer exists.Charles (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know which is the target article you are looking at which "no longer exists"?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The list of bus stations is not yet deleted. Should just be deleted if insufficient sources are found to establish notability. Otherwise still merge to the airport page.Charles (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Gioia Di Vivere[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIC. Comatmebro (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here at AfD, Comatmebro ? It should either be PRODed or redirected to Wiktionary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a dictionary definition with a couple of "in popular culture" usages. The currently cited references are mostly to Wikipedia, and most are not about the phrase as a phrase. A cursory search turns up various uses of the phrase, but no discussion of it, except in Italian-English phrase books or dictionaries. Cnilep (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a DICDEF. I don't see a clear match at en wiktionary, but I may not be familiar with the finer points of searching there. Seems unlikely especially given the capitalization of the title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechJuice[edit]

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

cited sources are self-published. seems like WP:Advertising Saqib (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING non-notable blog fails WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of primary sources/press releases, but not much secondary source coverage. May just be too soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Fails WP:GNG. Written like advertisement. Greenbörg (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green House (electronics company)[edit]

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

Non notable company. Refs 3 and 5 are brief notices, Ref 4 is a mention among other companies in the project. Ref 1 & 2 are from the company itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the article of Green House (electronics company). I displayed the company information as possible on an impartial ground. Generally, I think Green House notability in the world is not high, it is just limited in computer industry of Japan. However I think its notability is equal to Elecom, I-O Data, and Buffalo of Japanese company, these are not like Sony. On the other hand, I think the need of article of Green House, because the company has contributed to the computer industry for many years, especially in Japan.
- Yokohama2010 (Talk) 00:50, 08 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People in other countries except Japan may not understand Green House notability in Japan. So I put photo on the article, then you may imagine its notability in Japan.
- Yokohama2010 (Talk) 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Lack of third party information. Two sources cited are from the subject company. --SamHolt6 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any WP:RS to be found in Japanese its Japanese name 株式会社グリーンハウス? @Yokohama2010: Do you have any Japanese-language WP:RS discussing this company that establish its notability? - GretLomborg (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A search of Japanese sources was not easy because there are several other companies called Green House in Japan. Searching for "Green House" with related terms like 機器 and IoT helps a bit, but what I mostly find are announcements about job openings. For news articles, most of what I find are articles announcing the release of individual products ([37], [38], [39], etc.) or of the creation of IoT or other networks where Green House is just mentioned in a long list of other companies ([40], [41], [42], etc.). I am just not finding any independent RS which talk about the company itself, enough to verify the details of the article. Michitaro (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. There aren't sufficient references that meet the guidelines for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Belle Miners[edit]

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

I don't this band meets WP:N. I would encourage the creator to move it to their draft space and flesh it out a bit more. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. No sign of any decent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be much available by way of secondary source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. May just be too soon? No objection to draftifying/userfying if creator desires. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draft/user space). Very new band who aren't yet notable. There's nothing online about their debut album other than a Bandcamp page. It's self-released and not been reviewed anywhere. The follow-up "Powerful Owl" (which some sources describe as their debut, indicating the status of the first) is apparently unreleased. Event listings but no other press coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they're not there yet. "Love, Nourish, Flourish" appears to just be a demo tape based on the few references to the band that I was able to locate. Can't see that they meet WP:NMUSIC yet. Note that this should not be taken as a negative comment on the quality of their work or of their music, it is merely an assertion that they're not ready for Wikipedia yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from author, thanks for your feedback. I'm happy to leave this unpublished for now. I wasn't sure whether it would pass the requirements. The band is quite successful already, individually as well. They have been recipients of a very large ($45k) grant from FACTOR, which is the Canadian Independent Radio Stations' grant process, to which only a small number of artists are signed each year. We're about to sign with one of the biggest independent distributors in Australia (MGM, Groovemaster) and have a solid following as well as promotion, radio play and media through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (sadly in Tasmania, they remove their interviews after 60 days) and Parks Tasmania (numerous references online). What we're missing of course, is the mainstream media coverage through music magazines etc. So on your recommendation, do we wait a while until we get this recognition? We'd love to get your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildiaries (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wildiaries: Thanks for being so understanding about our admittedly arcane practices! What I suggest is that we park this in the draft space (so it will have the word "Draft:" affixed to the title) for the time being. While it's there we can continue editing it and adding new material, but it won't be part of the encyclopaedia or indexed by most search engines. If/when the band gets to the stage that there are multiple significant articles of coverage in reliable sources, it can then be moved back into the article space without too much fuss. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Hartness[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial overtones and a serious shortage of actual reliable source coverage to support it: fully 60 per cent of the "references" here are the Amazon sales pages or simply the basic publication details of his own books, being used as metasourcing for their own existence -- and of the remaining six sources, five of them are primary sources or blogs. Literally the only acceptable reliable source here is a local article in his own hometown newspaper, verifying that he won a purely local literary award that is not prominent enough to confer an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but neither the sourcing nor the substance present here are enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Has won an award, but really no RS here for this author - its all publisher promo stuff, except for one article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manu K. Vora. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Foundation for India[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Found nothing on Google News. --Elton-Rodrigues 16:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
- speedy delete isn't just a delete done quickly - there are particular scenarios when it applies, and the nominator did not name any of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Manu K. Vora, founder of the organization (the article mentions it already). Doesn't look like enough to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, Rhododendrites and Elton-Rodrigues, would these sources change your minds: News India Times, India Post, WBEZ-FM, India West, one book. About WP:ORG... I think WP:GNG triumphs it. However, GNG isn't absolute, so other parts of WP:N would help, wouldn't they? --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Having now taken the time to look at these sources, it looks like three of them are based on the same press release ([43] [44] [45]). WBEZ does cover it, but it's an interview with Vora, which speaks more to his notability than the organization's and reinforces my opinion that it should be merged. Finally, the book is published by iUniverse (i.e. self-published). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 16 July 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. Merge/redirect proposal may be evaluated at talk. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Investigations Group[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Press coverage seems incidental, self-published or minor. May be worth mentioning within the Center for Inquiry article, but I don't think it merits something in its own right. Shritwod (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to see whether this could be merged to Center for Inquiry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Center for Inquiry#The Independent Investigations Group per nom. I think the existing coverage of this in Center for Inquiry is sufficient, so no need to merge. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I agree that the section IIG in the media is too long and full of trivia, the overall article succeeds in establishing the organization's notability. Merging into the CFI article, which is already large and sprawling, would not be an improvement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Kahn[edit]

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

Kahn is a local level judge, which does not grant default notability. The coverage is all routine. This article was created as part of a broad creation of articles related to a case he was judge over. Being the judge for this one case is just not enough to justify a stand alone article on Kahn. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a google search yields many interesting cases that he has been involved in, I am unable to find sources for biographical information regarding the judge. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling and Waste Management Exhibition[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. References are own web-sites or press releases. Strong COI editing and possible socking. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and I can't find anything additional. shoy (reactions) 18:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. The existing sources maybe reliable but they're nothing more than passing mentions. Just the "They said this, they said that" type of sources. - TheMagnificentist 16:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy article about his organization. Username was blocked for being the organization. Was changed to someone at the org, and back to advertising. Serious COI, sources are mostly their own website. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Recordings[edit]

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

Could not find any sources to meet WP:V. Therefore also fails WP:GNG. No evidence of length of history, roster of notable artists, or indication of cultural impact which would make it an important label per WP:NMUSIC #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Smith (artist)[edit]

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

There is a notable artist called Rebecca Smith [46][47][48], but this article appears to be on someone else. I can't find any indication that this Rebecca Smith meets WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MARRVEL[edit]

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

Non-notable website. The paper that is cited in the article has one total academic citation, and the non-academic work on this is either PR or a recycling of press releases. In short, this fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:GNG.Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 04:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marvel Comics. I agree that MARRVEL has not established notability. It is very highly likely that someone who types this term into the search box is simply misspelling MARVEL. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think an all caps misspelling is an ideal candidate for a redirect. To be honest, if I saw it as one, I'd nominate it for deletion at RfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEBCRIT, no indication of notability. Cjhard (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:15, 21 July 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 deletion (WP:CSD#G5) by User:Bbb23. Deli nk (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ali Akbar[edit]

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

seems like to have did minor roles in tv programmes. i am not sure but it appears the IMDB profile belongs to another guy of same name... most of the cited sources are not reliable, one is self published... nothing i could find on him in RS.. [49] this source is OK i think maybe this page fails under TOOSOON... Saqib (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not talk in this discussion, rather than being a creator of the page, because the page I created before it was also nominated by you, Saqib, and therefore if you want to speedily delete this page, you are most welcome. I think you want to nominate all articles created by me for any false reason. --Daniyal^[Online] 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Wikipedia policy on biographies WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Saqib (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not interested in watching TV programs, so that your can find the same person as in IMDb profile. What can I do. It is all in your wish. You look Pakistani bit don't watch such programs I think.--Daniyal^[Online] 07:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I don't watch TV programmes much but I just suspected it could be a different person but thanks for confirming that its same. I can recall i have seen this guy in the IMDb profile on TV but to have a Wikipedia bio, one have to meet our guidelines and he should have mentions in published reliable sources in my opinion. could you please take a moment to read which actors can have bio on Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers--Saqib (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pavlo[edit]

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

Extremely minor roles only DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; roles are all minor and include: "Upscale Businessman"; "Hip Restaurant Patron"; "NSA Employee" :-). Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingvar Henry Lotts[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Ahmed[edit]

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

appears to be part of the ten-a-penny reality TV/social media camp with no significant independent coverage/anything to satisfy GNG. Set up by SPA, poorly referenced Rayman60 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 01:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer WP:GNG. I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what makes him notable. Being on TV or in a magazine is great, but I don't see any secondary sources covering the appearances, making me think there is a lack of notability here. Comatmebro (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article calls him a "social media celebrity" but there are no references that indicate significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Peacock (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sancar Seçkiner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and probably WP:GNG. - Mr X 11:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Kolathur[edit]

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

An unremarkable locality/residential area within Kovilambakkam suburb of Chennai city. The other article has only one reference. A search for Kolathur yields nothing but property, and rent ads. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --Elton-Rodrigues 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dexigner[edit]

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

Article reads like advert, is site notable? ViperSnake151 Talk 03:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 01:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yosh (Rapper)[edit]

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

No evidence for notability, Fails WP:NMUSIC. The author username is similar to the subject of the article, probably a case of conflict of interest and a Self-promotion exercise. Razer^Talk 13:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough

The only source of conflict I see is the fact that the username matches the subject. I however find no problem with notability as there is enough evidence, articles, links, and pages, that prove that the artist is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadymp6 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC--MassiveYR ♠ 19:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons). After merge the article shall be redirected to Feud#Blood feuds. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blood War[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't establish notability. The reception is not actually reception. It's literally just an contextual description of the topic for the reader. TTN (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we do have one independent source to start with, or merge to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs improvement, not deletion. This isn't something like a minor event that is only covered in one trilogy of novels; this is a major, continuing component of D&D, that has been part of D&D for decades, featured across a hundred or so novels, sourcebooks, comics, boardgames, card games, video games, and other media. —Lowellian (reply) 23:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability established. The content is largely uncited original research and trivia. The few citations offered are to in-universe publications. The only 3rd party, independent sourced content is is this:

Trenton Webb of Arcane magazine described the Blood War: "A war has raged across the planes since the dawn of time. Fought with unparalleled savagery between two of the most powerful races of the multiverse, the baatezu and tanar'ri, it has cost billions of lives. And although this Blood War is fought on the Lower Planes between the forces of evil, the fate of all the planes hangs on its outcome."[6]

This is just a description of the war, but does not offer any encyclopedically relevant analysis of its significance in popular culture. There's nothing to merge here, hence delete, and optionally redirect name only. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Boz, though I do think that this page title should be a redirect to Feud#Blood feud. A brief description in one review is not really enough to justify keeping this, and I do not see Lowellian's view as grounded in our guidelines. I do not see being long-lasting as an alternative to being covered in third-party source for the purposes of establishing notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 17 July 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 in one form or another. No consensus to delete which does not necessarily mean keep as a separate article. But merging can be discussed at the talk page(s). So Why 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khayyam Street[edit]

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

Not at all notable. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be one of the main thoroughfares in Tehran. Not only is it deemed major enough to have a metro station, Khayam Metro Station, but three stations serve it - Meydan-e Mohammadiyeh Metro Station and Panzdah-e-Khordad Metro Station with the street being the main inner-city route for Tehran Metro Line 1. It's also the location of the Courthouse of Tehran. There is no way such a major street in such a major and historical city isn't notable. Most coverage is likely in Persian which makes it difficult for English speakers. See WP:BIAS. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the input Coolabahapple. I noticed this before I PRoD'ed it. But I couldnt be sure what a "junction of street" means. In some territories, it means a location ("T point" of other street) from where a route emerges. But the Khordad article says: "15th of Khordad Metro Station is a station in Tehran Metro Line 1. It is located in Panzdah-e Khordad Square, junction of Khayam Street and Panzdah-e-Khordad Street. It is between Khayam Metro Station and Imam Khomeini Metro Station." So I cant be sure what exactly it means. Maybe it means on the "T" point of Khayam Street and Panzdah-e-Khordad Street. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi Usernamekiran, Oakshade added the keep with words, i just added it to a couple of deletion discussion lists:) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: I didnt understand your last comment.

—usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~On hold~~ Thanks to user Coolabahapple, the matter is being investigated further based on his intellectual comments, and inputs; instead of comments like "the street is notable based on the photo". I apologise for inconvenience. In the light of recent findings, the notability of the subject becomes borderline. This shouldnt be considered as withdrawal of the nomination. Establishing the notability is still under process. Till then, I request the voting process to be put on hold. Thanks, and sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Bazaar, Tehran. But please do not delete it. I am very disappointed that Wikipedia deletes articles on major roads and it doesn't even merge or redirect, as it just happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thadagam road. I admit I am not able to find a lot of information about this street, but I did find that it is the entrance to the Grand Bazaar in Tehran.^[1] There may also be other references in Google Scholar which I cannot access. Rather than deleting it, a merge to the Grand Bazaar directs the user to meaningful content.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The street is a different topic than the Grand Bazaar. A merge is nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find enough sources to justify a keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thadagam road had more sources and was a much longer and more important road. Yet it got deleted (not even merged or redirected). If I use that standard, this should be deleted too. So I am suggesting a merge. The Grand Bazaar is relevant because this street is one of the borders which forms the bazaar. There are a couple of sources in Google Scholar which mention this road and the bazaar together, but I am not able to open the sources as it needs subscriptions.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:24, 14 July 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. So Why 06:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Grill[edit]

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

Proposed deletion because entry fails WP:CORP NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken the additions requested at Talk:Kona_Grill#Suggesting an update into account, NZ Footballs Conscience? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because a quick search returns plenty of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not due to the present content of the article, but the Requested Edits info alone appears to be enough converage. MB 03:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Big Birdie[edit]

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

Non-notable game by non-notable company; not a single topic. No references for either game or company. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious WP:PROMO with a massive WP:COI._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:36, 16 July 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. Sandstein 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quiqup[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill delivery company. Sources do not indicate anything unusual or notable about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TTTZZZCCC (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Hello, I'm the author of this article and will be contesting the nomination for deletion. I have a COI in the matter as I'm working for the company which is the subject of the article - I've made the appropriate declarations in my author and talk pages. I will be submitting a fuller argument to accept this article below, but until then, just to give you a heads up, I'll be arguing that the sources cited in the page satisfies the criteria for notability, and I'll present a more detailed explanation for why Quiqup isn't a 'run-of-the-mill delivery company'. In particular, I will be saying that the on-demand services offered by the company is unique in the market for e-commerce fulfilment, with special reference to its role in facilitating SMEs to compete in e-commerce against players like Amazon. If you should have any questions please do let me know! Cheers.[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've also deleted most of the article as Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing or advocacy and most of the article regurgitated routine partnership and funding announcements. Also, while TTTZZZCCC says above that the sources satisfies the criteria for notability, I do not know what this means. If he means that the sources themselves meet the criteria for "reliable" and "independent" sources, that may be true. But examining the sources provided in the article with the specific guidelines for sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability and especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND results in the straightforward conclusion that *all* of the sources provided in the article fail either one or the other and often both. This article is corporate spam and the topic fails notability criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism with routine coverage such as:

In May 2016, Quiqup entered into a partnership with Whole Foods Market.[13] In July 2016, the company entered into a partnership with Burger King.[14][15] In June 2017, the company entered into a partnership with Tesco to launch a 1 hour grocery delivery service. [16][17][18] Etc.

WP:PROMO on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TTTZZZCCC (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I've deleted the sections highlighted by K.e.coffman as promotionalism - such as the partnership with Whole Foods Market, Burger King and Tesco. However, it seems to me (and obviously I might be biased), that with Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods Market it represents a clear merger of delivery operations and physical brick and mortar retail (in this case, groceries). Cases like Quiqup's partnership with Tesco, then, could be notable because they present an example of how 3rd party logistics providers can offer a response to large ecommerce players who are competing with brick and mortars lacking delivery capabilities. i.e. notability as justified by operation in an emerging market trend to merge on-demand with retail verticals beyond made foods.[reply]

Nevertheless, I have removed the offending sections and will be conducting a more thorough review of the cited sources, such that they may be readjusted to better fit HighKing's concerns with promotional/marketing material. Having said that, I very much appreciate the work by the various commentators in pointing out the flaws in the article - hopefully we can find together a workable solution that is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards of publication. Cheers.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged -- routine launch publicity and funding news. No notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable and there's not only routine coverage (http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/quiqup-save-high-street-onslaught-amazon/entrepreneurs/article/1420087 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/23/start-up-will-deliver-almost-anything-can-buy-high-street/ in particular). Peter James (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have not seen the original, presumably much more promotional text, but as it stands, it definitely passes WP:CORPDEPTH, with the Telegraph and MT articles, as Peter James has pointed out. Edwardx (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@HighKing and K.e.coffman: Ping for their takes on the new arguments put forward.Winged Blades^Godric 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two steps involved in examining sources against the criteria for establishing notability. The first step is to check that the individual sources meet the criteria for reliable sources and there are a number of guides and essays that can assist with this. For many editors, they simply stop at this step - "Yup, reliable source, mentions topic - check, topic is notable". This is wrong. The second step is to ascertain whether the reference (published by the reliable source) meets the criteria for establishing notability. For organizations, (at least) two references that are "intellectually independent" from the topic need to meet criteria found at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in order for the topic to meet notability criteria.

Looking at the two sources mentioned by Peter James above against these criteria, both the managementttoday article and the telegraph article fail WP:CORPDEPTH since it relies on quotations from a company officer and fails WP:ORGIND since the material is provided/written by the company. Neither article is "intellectually independent" - neither shows any evidence of independent fact checking. While the sources are "reliable", they are simply (and reliably) regurgitating quotations and material provided to them.

My !vote remains unchanged. There does not appear to be any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite widespread practice these days, even in reliable sources, for business coverage to shade into advertorial. The MT article is more prone to this than the DT one, which only has two quotes from the company and one from a funder. These two articles are really not that bad. I started an article today on OBike, which has only been around since January, and I think all of the sources include quotes from the company. There is a danger here of setting an unreasonably high bar for newer companies! Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is not an "unreasonably" high bar to set. Notability is not so difficult to define, at least for companies. I believe the policies and guidelines have done a good job. If a company generates their own "buzz" that eventually transmutes into "intellectually independent" references being generated, they've met the bar. But until that transmutation happens and sources merely regurgitate quotes and announcements from the company, they do not meet our criteria for notability as there is no independent analysis or thoughts expressed. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some quotes but that is not all there is. It's clear that people consider it notable enough to write about and ask people from the company for more information. I would expect a publisher with reputation as a reliable source to apply at least the same standards to this type of coverage of companies as to the rest of its coverage (unlike press releases where it should be clear that a company is announcing something rather than the publisher reporting on it). Peter James (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some quotes but that is not all there is" - obviously other editors can read the articles and make up their own minds, but for me, if you take away the company-generated facts/data/quotes, there's nothing of substance left in the references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So an obscure company announces something and you think the newspaper writes about it indiscriminately without assessing whether it's important enough to be in the newspaper or checking the facts, only interested in sales of newspapers? Such a newspaper clearly wouldn't be a reliable source, and probably wouldn't even be successful - why would anyone advertise when they can have it published as news, for free? Peter James (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, its called churnalism. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the news that they just partnered with Tesco - this puts them over the top for notability, when the foreign funding for expansion is considered. I noticed that there are duplicate links violating WP:OVERLINK, but they show notability, and once this is closed I'll remove them, or extract more info to justify them being kept. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every source that includes quotes from the subject's people is "churnalism". Independence is only missing when the whole article is based on words by the subject. Neither the Telegraph article nor the source added by timtempleton are such sources. More sources: [50] [51] [52]. Sufficient coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Regards So Why 17:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regions in Faerûn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelanther Isles[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteand redirect name to List of regions in Faerûn only as non-notable subject with in-universe content only. Source listed is an in-universe publication: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition, p. 150. Wizards of the Coast. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure of the utility of this relisting; these things normally result in a merge/redirect. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regions in Faerûn. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regions in Faerûn. So Why 17:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonjaw Mountains[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. List of Forgotten Realms nations is another possible target, which is where "Thesk" redirects to. --Lockley (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect name only to List of Forgotten Realms nations. Non notable and the source listed is an in-universe publication: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition. Wizards of the Coast. Thus there's nothing to merge as the article does not list any 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Merge to where? Regards So Why 06:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Boz's suggestion is preferable; this does not seem to be a nation. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regions in Faerûn as that appears to be an appropriate target. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 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. No further discussion despite relist. So Why 06:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdspring[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Its a Corporate spam and promotions. Previously Deleted and created again. Light2021 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Deleted at first AfD but kept at 2nd AfD because there were sources. Now there are even more sources, some added to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does badly need a rewrite though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would likely support, but the WP:ICs are in bad need of wikification. Please read through WP:CITE to see how to cite your WP:RSs using templates like ((cite web)).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism and trivia, as in: "Crowdspring maintains a blog which was launched in mid-2008.[16]" etc. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed most of the spammy corporate marketing but there are two sources provided that meet the guidelines for establishing notability, namely this CNET article and this Slate article written by Rob Walker (journalist). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See source examples below. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Social Media Marketing: The Next Generation of Business Engagement. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt232–233.
Twitterville: How Businesses Can Thrive in the New Global Neighborhoods. Penguin. pp. pt.110–111
Slate.
Information Week
CNET.
Chicago Tribune
Information Week (I reached the limit for free page views, so could not view this entire article)
Forbes – Written by a Forbes contributor, but the author was previously a staff writer for Forbes for seven years, per their bio on the Forbes website. This serves to support the author's journalistic professionalism.

Delete as I examined the sources above and the first 5 were all clear promotionalism; the books I'll specify were all unsatisfactory of WP:ORGIND and what it classifies as acceptable. The Forbes is actually similar to this too since it contains clear company quotes or other primary-sourced material, such as "The company said", "The company claims", " "According to the company", "Company announces", all primary wherever published. Our specific policies here are Wap:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy both which support removal when material is unacceptable, regardless of Notability. GNG is a suggestive guideline of possible Notability so it's not a n immediate solution to keeping. When all these sources have the same "Based on company's words", it's not independent and that Independent coverage is actually needed by WP:GNG's stated criteria therefore unusable for keeping here. As for ORGIND again, the books are in fact professionally authored books about the business field side of it, not the objective side of it, therefore cannot be labeled as indiscriminate coverage at all> With or without our differences of how many there are, they won't eliminate the fact they're press releases-influenced for consumer attention. In fact, the current article has a minor few sentences about trivial "controversies" they had, by far outweighed by the centered promotionalism. Like a mannequin, such advertising cannot be sugarcoated with extra press releases, instead the naked truth is removing it as we always have by policies. As an unsurprising note, the current sources first given here in the article are in fact consisting of the same "Company announces", "Company spokesman says", "Company plans", "According to the company", "Company's website", etc. All speaks for itself. To extend this deeper, I'll boldly highlight the relevant concerns: Thanks to services like Crowdspring.com, clients large and small can post a design task and set a fee and sit back while far-flung competitors fight for the prize...."Minimum reward: Crowdspring allows: $200....$359 for a "standard" account. (That amount includes the $200 minimum fee for the winning designer; obviously you can pay more if you want to offer a higher fee. If you pay $1,349, you can register as a "Pro" and supposedly get access to "top creatives," plus more control over who can see your project's entries, all instantly violating WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a relevant policy since it can singlehandedly support deletion, regardless of possible notability. Second one is The service is focused at first on graphic design: Logos, and artwork for use in marketing literature and ad campaigns. A company looking for work posts the assignment to CrowdSpring, and then receives finished work from contractors participating in the service. and equally indiscriminate by our policies. This alone in fact airtight-seals its intentions as promotion, given they're simply consumer-targeted guides, not genuine uninvolved coverage and no one but the company would know a consumer guide for company products best than themselves. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. The sources I provided are not particularly promotional in nature, and none are comprised entirely of interviews. It is common for mass media and news sources to publish quotes from people about their companies; it would be unobjective and biased for them to omit such content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ryder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously userfied as failed gng and lbio. Recreated but not sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The assertion that the subject "was an extremely well-known performer" was never supported by citations to reliable sources. The previous version of the article was in user space for two years waiting for better sourcing which never came. Independent searches for RS coverage get trivial mentions, nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k, fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO - GretLomborg (talk) 05:03, 17 July 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. Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wanted (eSports)[edit]

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

This article is nothing more than a promotional puff-piece for a non-notable group authored by Willhire with substantial contributions by Jdaiey who are both self-outed as COI at Most Wanted (eSports)#Senior management in the roles of Chief Human Resources Officer and Chief Operating Officer respectively.

In Willhire's own words, "I have made zero valid contributions. Honestly don't know why this account still exists." Cabayi (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. De-speedied without explanation by @Prisencolin:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be some coverage in Dexerto and Dot Esports.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable from reliable sources and needs to be updated, but the article was created with COI violations. Unfortunately, I can see why it will fit the deletion guidelines as well as it needs to be authored in good faith other than with a conflict of interest. --User:Willhire (talk) 1:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of bread[edit]

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

Fails both the SNG for books and the GNG. A non-notable book with no academic review published by a Russian academic in Kemerovo, it has received coverage in the local press, but such articles [53] [54] are advert-like in content. Article was also created on the Russian wikipedia, but was speedy deleted there. Kges1901 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've left a note at WP:RUSSIA asking if anyone could look for sourcing, as it's most likely only going to be in Russian. I particularly wanted them to look for any academic sourcing, since I don't know if that would be something that would come up in a Google search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as noted by the nominator, deleted from ru.wiki. Seems to be part of a promo campaign, which is rather pointless as all ext links point to a Russian language site, such as this author's page. Delete per WP:PROMO / WP:TNT. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Danzer[edit]

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

Notability appears to rely on a single event, assuming that the New Mexico title is notable, insufficient to meet our criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced there are enough sources that are independent and talk about her in depth to qualify under WP:GNG—plus Jimfbleak's concerns above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Brown Jug of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A rivalry between two very small schools that has no coverage outside the immediate area is not a notable subject. existence should be noted in the respective school articles but a redirect is not plausible as which school do you redirect it to? The community's attitude on things that are primarily of local interest have shifted greatly in the 8 years since the original AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is met by sources already documented in article. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't meet WP:GNG. Aside from a high school sports site and the congressional record (neither of which meet WP:RS) it's entirely sourced to The Evening News (Sault Ste. Marie) which has a circulation of 2800 (probably more in the past, admittedly) and serves a city of 75,000 people, and is only one source per WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Colapeninsula, it's worse than that. I think your population figure is Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. SSM, Michigan is less than 10,000 people. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little Brown Jug (college football trophy) is notable. This is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the cites are from The Evening News (Sault Ste. Marie), circulation 2,800. Fails the WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:08, 14 July 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. So Why 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampyle (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. no improvement from last AfD. discussion was merely misleading presenting copy paste work from press coverage or non-notable media. Light2021 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Landing Page Optimization. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt187 – . (subscription required)
Performance Marketing with Google Analytics. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 216-217.
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
VentureBeat
TechCrunch

Non notable Pres, Tech crunch and venture beat write anything on their blog, nothing significant about them. Light2021 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing particularly notable about this software. As another editor pointed out, blogs cannot be judged to be verifiable sources, and hence the article subject fails to meet WP:NOTE imo. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with the detailed coverage in the John Wiley & Sons books and TechCrunch and VentureBeat.
I also found this article from he:Geektime and this article from The Wall Street Journal, which notes that Kampyle was acquired by Medallia ("Medallia Buys Customer Feedback Analytics Startup Kampyle").
Cunard (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources in the article or provided by NA above do not establish notability. TechCrunch and VentureBeat are routine news or include articles that are not independent of the subject. For example, one of the articles listed, with an intriguing title "Kampyle Transforms User Feedback Into Lead Generation", starts with "When I met Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein last week..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although none of the Venture Beat nor Tech Crunch articles meet the criteria for establishing notability, in my opinion the two books referenced above by Northamerica1000 are good and meet the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with HighKing. There's sufficient notability for this business. Nuke (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice lizard[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - one reference is to another (non-authoritative) Wikipedia page. The other is to a purported book that cannot be found via the listed ISBN number.--Rpclod (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; content and sources listed are all "in universe", such as Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge / Delete??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine; Rpclod appears to be confused about what is/is not being referenced. Jclemens has already responded to K.e.coffman. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on review. On the other hand, as the references appear to have created the subject, they are primary and not secondary. They do not support notability. However, I would support merge as above. (Also, the ISBN number could not previously be found, but now it can.)--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackalwere[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the only references are to other Wikipedia pages, which are not authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; content and sources listed are all "in universe", such as Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge / Delete??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters as that appears to be an appropriate target. I am in agreement with the above merge voters' arguments/discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine, as above. Rpclod appears to be misreading the references. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on review. On the other hand, as the references appear to have created the subject, they are primary and not secondary. They do not support notability. However, I would support merge as above.--Rpclod (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clubnek[edit]

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

Notability is not established currently. TTN (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - one reference is to another (non-authoritative) Wikipedia page. The other is to a purported book that cannot be found via the listed ISBN number.--Rpclod (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; source listed is in universe Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge / Delete??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. Rpclod appears to misunderstand the references. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on review. On the other hand, as the references appear to have created the subject, they are primary and not secondary. They do not support notability. However, I would support merge as above. (Also, the ISBN number could not previously be found, but now it can.)--Rpclod (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliphant (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the only references are to other Wikipedia pages, which are not authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only sources listed are in-universe publications, such as an "adventure module,written for use with the first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge / Delete??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters - GretLomborg (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Rpclod appears to have misunderstood the references. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on review. On the other hand, as the references appear to have created the subject, they are primary and not secondary. They do not support notability. However, I would support merge as above.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chauncey Matthews[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Very short career as a child singer. MB 05:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable former contestant on a reality TV show. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape unreported[edit]

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

Removed Prod. Non notable future film. No reliable independent sources in article (just two "official" YouTube promos) and no independent sources found that discuss this film. It appears that this film is not planned to be released until 2018, and the director is known for producing short films, so this is likely another such, rather than a feature film. Per WP:NFF since it has not been released it should only have an article if it had begun shooting (I can't find any evidence of this) and the production itself is notable. I can't find any coverage of the film at all, and if it is a short documentary it may not be notable even when it is released. Note that the article creator appears to have a COI based on the edit summary "Link of our previous movie". Meters (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as prodder. DrStrauss talk 12:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: YouTube references are pretty unreliable and don't establish notability. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:48, 17 July 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. One argument for notability was based on his relationship to Julie Payette which would have made him viceregal consort, but that's out because they're divorced (even assuming it was enough to begin with). The other is his status as a test pilot, but that failed to convince the other participants in the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Flynn[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person which was created in error. With the announcement yesterday that Julie Payette will be the next Governor General of Canada, this was created on the good faith basis that Flynn would accordingly become the viceregal consort — but what the creator missed is that Flynn and Payette are divorced, so Flynn will have no special dignitary status at all. But unfortunately, that was its only genuinely strong notability claim: nothing left here passes any subject-specific notability criteria at all, and the sourcing is too strongly dependent on primary sources to hand him a WP:GNG pass in lieu. Of the few genuinely reliable sources here, even one of them is covering him more for being married to Payette at the time than for anything that would have gotten him into an encyclopedia otherwise — leaving just two pieces of media coverage about him qua him, which is not enough to hand "notable per GNG just because media coverage exists" to a person who doesn't meet any SNG. (I've been the subject of two pieces of media coverage in my lifetime, so if that were all it took I'd be notable too. But I'm not, because the context of what journalists wrote about me for isn't something that would merit permanent consecration into an international encyclopedia.) Brownie points to the creator for good faith, but there's just not grounds for an article here anymore. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Consecrate? Wikipedia isn't a holy text!. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think taking issue with a bit of sarcastic wordplay about myself has anything to do with the substance of the discussion at hand? Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; concur with the assessment above. Geoff NoNick (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - in my defence as the article's creator, even Macleans magazine put up a profile of him on the belief they were still married and he'd be consort and the possible implications since he works for a company pitching military planes to the government - an which they've since removed when they learned they're divorced. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep- Flynn has received coverage independently due to his role as a test pilot - see this CBC article "F-35 test pilot wants kids to share his love of flying: Veteran of RCAF visiting Abbotsford International Airshow to show off plane's tech, talk to kids". His relation to Payette wasn't even mentioned in passing. And also this Toronto Star article which again makes no mention of Payette: "F-35 test pilot gives his travel tips: Retired Canadian forces jet pilot Billie Flynn has been a Lockheed Martin test pilot since 2003. We get him to talk about what he does on vacation" Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Haven't seen a citation for an official divorce. Possible that they're separated and might get back together and then he'll be a viceregal consort. sikander (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the article should be kept because the subject could theoretically become notable in the future were he to get back together with his ex? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not keep articles just because the subject might attain a stronger notability claim in the future than they have today. Sure, he might get back together with Julie Payette — but he also might not. So we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and then permit future recreation if the circumstances change. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changing to delete now that it's confirmed they are divorced: http://ipolitics.ca/2017/07/18/pmo-has-no-comment-on-julie-payettes-expunged-2011-assault-charge/ sikander (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing notability; a pilot doing his job, along with some PR work. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he passes WP:GNG as a test pilot. He was president of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, has played a prominent part in the F-35 project. He has been involved in the F-35 controversy in Canada. And there is no shortage of biographical material on him to improve the article with eg [55][56] which don't even mention his ex-astronaut ex. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too closely tied to Payette to stand on its own. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 04:28, 16 July 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. So Why 15:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical forest[edit]

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

It seems like tropical forest itself is not defined as a biome, a more accurate term would be tropical rainforest. The article, created in 2004, still is of low quality and seems to be a bad duplicate of tropical rainforest. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me confused. Point by point:

Tropical forest is as well defined as forest, rainforest, savanna or any other vegetation type. Read those articles, or any other on a vegetation type and you will see that the problem isn't lack of definition. It's that there are literally hundreds of definitions. The same is true of tropical forest, which is what the references in this article note. The various schemes should indeed be teased out more, but this is a srart class article, so thats a feature, not reason for deletion.

The article wasn't created in 2004. It was effectively created today. It has been a redirect for the past 12 years, not an article. That redirect, to tropical rainforedt, is obviously wrong, since nearly of tropical forests are not rainforests. It might just as well redirect to savanna or mangrove.

it is not in any possible sense a duplicate of tropical rainforest. The article notes that explicitely. Tropical rainforests are only 60% of tropical forests. You might just as well say that tropical rainforest is just a duplicate of forest.

it seems very odd to nominate New article for deletion within an hour of creation, bSed on content and history but apparently not have read it or looked at the history. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commentTropical rainforests are warm and moist; while temperate rainforests are cool. Only a small percentage of the tropical forests are rainforests.Tropical forests are both the fearsome Jungle of our fantasy and the fertile Eden of our myth. They are the central nervous system of our planet—a hotbed of evolution, life and diversity. Tropical rainforests are home to over half the world's species, all squeezed into a narrow strip of equatorial land. BetterSmile:D 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I strongly support this article and have thought for a long time that it is much needed: especially in order to help navigate the 'lexicological minefield' concerning these biomes. I agree with BetterSmile's sentiments and that the word "tropical rainforest" is overused; perhaps inevitably, there appear to be contrasting opinions on this and other terms. Mark Marathon and I have been debating what constitutes a "tropical rainforest" on my talk page. My only hesitation here is that "tropical forest" somewhat duplicates Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests (for which this used to be a forwarding page) and Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests. Personally, I am not a great fan of and the Global 200 scheme and, if I have understood correctly, neither is Mark. There might be an argument to combine all 3 pages, but I am sure fans of Global 200 would disagree! In my opinion, the term tropical forest is especially useful because (i) it is usefully generic, mitigating some of the issues that distinguish sub-types such as rainforest, seasonal tropical forest, tropical cloudforest, dry tropical forest, etc. and the ecotones between them; (ii) it is helpful shorthand for describing the habitat of species that occur in more than one of the latter and (iii) it is a super-set of - and certainly not synonymous with - "tropical rainforest", so they cannot be combined. Mark tells me that many Australians would disagree with "tropical rainforest" applying strictly only to the Af zone of the Koppen classification, but such aspects could be explored appropriately on this page. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:15, 14 and 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would recommend moving the content of tropical rainforest#Types of tropical forest to this page ASAP. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this debate has been going-on for several years - see: Talk:Tropical_and_subtropical_moist_broadleaf_forests Roy Bateman (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and move some material from Tropical rainforest into it. As noted, the current setup is somewhat like putting all the genus information into a species page - rainforest is only one type of tropical forest biome, and an overview placed at the higher category would be desirable. Discussion linked immediately above makes similar points. Let's take this as an opportunity to implement them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravelin Technology[edit]

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

trivial awards, so this is basically a continuation of their promotional campaign. The references reflect the campaign, and are just extensions of their PR. We shouldn't be part of it . DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rather promotional. Account that wrote it is likely a sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons to keep: While the company is less than 3 years old, there's public value in exposing what fraud detection companies do, as cybercrime is a growing field of interest in the public sphere. Further examples of the interest of wikipedia in the field can be found in the work invested into these articles: Credit card fraud, Carding (fraud), Forter, Feedzai, Identity theft, Data analysis techniques for fraud detection, Riskified, Trusteer, ThreatMetrix, Verifi, CyberSource. I think *User:Edwardx already made significant improvments in trimming non neutral language in the article. Buffer (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buffer. — fortunavelut luna 13:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc James and DGG. Promotional article that is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. The awards aren't enough to even be borderline under our notability guidelines, and even if they were, the status of this page as promotional is enough to delete under WP:DEL-REASON, because after removing the promotional content, you would simply have a directory entry, which is also excluded under NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only "improved" it to the extent of making it less bad. It is still promotional, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Fanboy[edit]

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

This comes off as advertising for the website with no real sourcing for the site. GamerPro64 03:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion in Metacritic does not a reliable source make and has no references that prove it's notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 15 July 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. The redirect suggested by User:Timtempleton seems plausible, but without any discussion of it, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. No problem with somebody else creating the redirect on their own, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This topic isn't notable enough for its own article; it already has a blurb at United Submitters International, which is plenty. Practically all the sources are from Rashad himself. Of the two or so that aren't, one is just a random webpage critiquing his ideas, and the other is a dead link. Moreover, this is WP:FRINGE numerology, and the article doesn't treat it as such. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United Submitters International, it may become notable (aGain) kn the future, but deleting it wouldn't be good either. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any content worth merging is already there. The rest is far-too-intricate detail that simply serves to push the idea's validity. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a topic such as this, which has had a huge impact on the lives of so many Muslims, to the point that many dissented from the traditional mainstream sects and joined Quranist or the Submitter denomination, is grossly unfair. The 19 code is a significant finding, and its topic is so vast with the number of finding linked to this code being discovered all the time. I’d like to question the true motive behind anyone who would wish to delete such a topic altogether. On the contrary I think this article needs to be expanded further so all are aware of the number of coincidences involving this numerical code which hasn’t been researched enough. A set of references to the each finding should be included too. (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2017 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyJawed (talk • contribs)

(Note, the above comment was made by the article's original creator). You say it had a huge impact on the lives of so many, but there's nothing in the article to back that up. Nor are there any references with which one could verify that either. You also say the 19 code is a significant finding, but it's not really a finding. It's just a bit of apparently non-notable numerology. On a side note, your questioning of my motive isn't appropriate. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing useful I found in that article. Most of the text is self-published or original research. Many sources are primary which puts this article's notability under serious trouble. Best, it could be redirected with little useful information merged. Greenbörg (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NFRINGE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Submitters International#The Quran.27s mathematical code .E2.80.93 the number 19. There's not enough to suggest that this is anything but fringe teachings. I can't even find any discussion of this in mainstream media. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:22, 22 July 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. A number of sources were presented, but these sources failed to convince other participants that they were of sufficient quality to meet WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squatty Potty[edit]

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

pure advertisement for a not really notable product. The article's references seem to be about the promotional campaign for the product, and there is no need to do int further in an encyclopedia . (se in addition my comment at the Fringe Theory noticeboard DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be some coverage. Ad Week, The Daily Herald, Forbes India, & Business Insider. I would say that is enough to pass GNG. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after the nomination for deletion was performed (example diff, see the page's Revision history for more examples). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable commercial promotion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

How is the topic "non-notable"? It has received a great deal of significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are based on churnalism following press releases. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure about that? The coverage goes back for months. Could you provide any of the alleged press releases here to compare the articles to? The topic has received significant coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that the news articles do not appear to be press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves and on a few mirrors, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can't produce press releases, as these are sent to the media organs. The way churnalism works is that the PR department of an entity (private or corporate) sends publicity material to chosen media to promote its interests. The journalists of that media then adapt the material (to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes not at all) to house style and publish it as their own work. The journalists get a publication to earn their bread, the corporations get the publicity they desire. This is often blatant in the case of trade journals, but exists in more exalted ones too. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett for a recent extreme case. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be conned by corporate PR flack. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete because there is big part of promotional advertising here that we can't ignore or simply blindly defend, see my examples for instance: the first Adweek is actually a compilation of advertising in general so this can't satisfy WP:CORP which says except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people and this perfectly applies to the sources. The second source here in the AfD is actually a personal blog by someone's personal views, so it can't be used. The Forbes is a person's own blog so it cannot be used for significant coverage or notability, and the link actually says in its opening: Seven strategies a content marketing beginner should learn....these tips and assessing them so it WP:Not guide perfectly applies. The last one, Business Insider, is simply a general report about firing a paid sponsor, and this wouldn't be "significant coverage". A quick summary of the current article's sources showed the same: Adweek, Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. and then actually a local TV station (#source 11, WFTS) which since GNG is linked above, would not be "significant coverage" either and GNG itself clearly notes "this is not a guarantee of an article"). When the coverage is so thin, it resorts to using local TV news or service trade publications, it's only a reality of how extensive the PR is especially when it starts to become obvious this article is a means of webhosted promotion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's two - A Book: The Art of Change Leadership and this book: How to Be a Poop Detective: The Squatty Potty Edition. And there's a lot more out there too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as which ones, which ones that weren't still influenced or tied to the company and what policy basis? GNG says "independent reliable sources" and my analysis given noticed it was only a business guide. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I examined the sources above and they have the clear highlights An approachable yet thorough guide and the second is a "how-to" thus violating WP:Not a how-to, and GNG itself says that content must satisfy WP:Not. This also considering when I add to the analysis offered above, The Squatty Potty is essentially a step stool, costing between $24.99 (for white plastic) and $74.99 (for the bamboo version), that slides against the base of a toilet, The Squatty Potty is essentially a step stool, costing between $24.99 (for white plastic) and $74.99 (for the bamboo version), that slides against the base of a toilet and the company's sales only totaled $3 million....". The nomination here is based in our policies and none of the Keeps have successfully refuted why such policies should be bypassed. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi SwisterTwister, totally incorrect, WP:NOT doesn't apply to sources and reviews and how-to guides are perfectly acceptable so long as they meet the criteria for establishing notability and are reliable secondary sources. I checked the acknowledgements of both books and they do not acknowledge any input from the company. Also, the Mens Health reference (below) also meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just commenting, since I created the article (I disclosed that I was paid to do so on the talk page). There are some good references: Bloomberg, Washington Post, NPR, Men's Health, CNBC. The page averages over 400 views/day for the past 3 months so it seems there is general interest. Plus its creators were on Shark Tank.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bernie44, looking at your references with an eye on the criteria for establishing notability (mostly WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND), the Bloomberg article, the Washington Post article, the NPR article and the CNBC article all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as they rely on company sources/quotations for facts and info (therefore PRIMARY source) - classic churnalism. The Mens Health article is a good reference though. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to get off track, but how would those refs not satisfy requirements of depth and independence? The Post ref, for instance, is a profile on the company. It quotes the founder of the company, and also quotes two gastroenterologists. The CNBC article goes through the company history and how it became successful. It doesn't seem to be a regurgitation of a press release or anything like that.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Briefly then. GNG states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This is further explained in both WP:CORPDEPTH which excludes reliable sources relying on "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and WP:ORGIND is pretty self-explanatory. So the CNBC article is classic churnalism and normally (when talking about a company or a product) follows a formula of "problem -> inspired moment -> solution -> benefits -> funding". All of the information and data in the article has "originated" from the company complete with company-authorised quotes, company-authorised photos, company-authorised financial figures, company-authorised "benefits" .. you get the picture. There isn't a single opinion or thought expressed in the entire article that hasn't originated from the company. (Disclaimer: Once you see articles in this manner you can never stop seeing - they're everywhere) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed do not read like they're independent of the company; textbook churnalism. I am not surprised that this was paid to be written on Wikipedia. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References located don't satsify our criteria for depth and independence and therefore cannot be used to support the claim that the subject passes GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Salt[edit]

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

nn advert with no independent referencing Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a run of the mill brand of salt. Reads like an advertisement (so much so that it possibly meets CSD:G11), only referenced to the company's own website. I can't find any RS which mention it - searches generally find the company's website, sites selling the stuff and a soccer team called Real Salt Lake. Neiltonks (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a puff piece instead of a well-sourced, neutral Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability (WP:SIGCOV). I found one book reference and another, but they are both only passing mentions. What gets the most attention in published sources is the soccer team which the salt mining company sponsors. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:01, 17 July 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Oshwah per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Campus[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. No evidence of notability. (Redacted). Grutness...wha? 01:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from having very weak sources that do not establish notability per WP:ORG, this article has all the hallmarks (not obvious to everyone) of having been designed for SEO (thus promotional), and possibly being a commissioned work or WP:COI. Had I been the first patroller to see this article, I would have tagged it for both CSD-A7 and CSD-G11.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a promotional puff piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had seen this at NPP and almost sent to AfD, but DGG had tagged it for A7. Fails WP:N on both fronts: it is does not meet the general notability guideline and as Kudpung points out, it is spam and thus excluded by WP:NOTSPAM, which is a core content policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. " high quality accommodation for professionals or students " pure advertisement for a real estate service bureau. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional. Fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only has one “real” source, not Notable and is promotional NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much left after trimming all the unreffed stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Badia[edit]

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

This article fails both points of WP:N, the subject does not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sourcing: the CNN link is iReport, which is user generated, and the rest is either PR or run of the mill and directory listings. Additionally, the article is excluded under WP:NOTSPAM: it is written as a CV by a SPA, and reads promotional but not enough for G11. Since it fails both prongs of WP:N, deletion is necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Issues also include outing, in that it gives the person birthdate without a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keepor Keep : Some rescue work done. Added few reliable reference which adds to Notability BetterSmile:D 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

The sources added are an interview about the vacation habits of his employees and a profile from the Miami Heralds local business section that consists primarily of descriptions of the company and quotes, which would not be enough for a corporation under WP:ORGDEPTH. That doesn't address the other concern of being excluded by WP:N for failing WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources look weak, text looks promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Information and Bubble Studies[edit]

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

not notable--apparently an individual research group DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks independent, reliable sources to prove notability. DrStrauss talk 13:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stark County Historical Society[edit]

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

Two sentence stub article with little potential for growth without duplicating articles about its two connected properties, McKinley National Memorial and William McKinley Presidential Library and Museum. Bitmapped (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This historical society could be better off mentioned in the articles about the McKinley National Memorial and the McKinley Presidential Library.TH1980 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 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.

Even if a subject's daughter's request is within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (which can be argued it is not), the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. While withdrawing an AFD is not a reason for speedy keeping when there are delete !votes before withdrawing, it does negate those !votes that were based on BLPREQUESTDELETE.

As for the rest, once a number of sources were provided and offline sources made available, there were no further delete !votes based on lack of sources and the previous delete !votes did not discuss the new sources. The only later delete !vote mentions that somehow notability requires impact on the Western world but that's not a reason for deletion. No policy requires sources to be in English nor that they are available online; per WP:NEXIST their existence is sufficient. Consensus was that sufficient such sources exist to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC.

Regards So Why 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~no sources, not notable~~ Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i withdraw my nomination per provided sources by NitinMlk and request to forbid to spoil the articles by repton & greenbrog & question them for wrong practice. is anybody there who can do it? Moona Sehgal (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) Your nomination statement is considered your !vote so please do not reiterate it with another bolded one, per WP:AFDFORMAT. 2) I see from your edit history that you are the declared daughter of the article subject, who previously attempted to have his article deleted at the 2nd AFD, without success -- though I myself tend to honour such requests in the spirit of WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST, others may take a more narrow view. 3) I see that you also blanked relevant content from the article as part of your efforts to have it removed. Your rationale was that these were also at Afd. But removing relevant content from an article you are trying to have deleted is also against policy, so I've restored that, at least for the time being. Editors should note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way is the current Afd for two of his works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural snow keep - the nominator made a recent unexplained mass deletion of ref content, then claims the article is unsourced. The AfD rationale is blatantly bogus. Dl2000 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those restoring the content (in this case yourself) to demonstrate the notability of this individual and testify to the quality of the sources. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Given the deleting/this request appear to have been done by a family member on the subject's behalf, and the messy and sometimes misleading nature of the previous reference section, can you provide sources that demonstrate the subjects notability?Landscape repton (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i hope this can be safely deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because it is poorly sourced biography of relatively non-public figure. --Saqib (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources in the article are "big names" in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, America, and Pakistan like AD's Haagsche Courant, and Family Magazine, and he has been mentioned in various articles over a long period of time. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about LIVING authors of books 📚 with not only no picture 📷, but less sources, and yeah WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable here because this article fully falls within this standard and not all "non-public" people are automatically "non-notables", many authors only write and we have articles on them only based on commentary on their work 🏢. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, show his real-world notability other than saying WP:ILIKEIT. For your information, Family Magazine is a weekly women's magazine so how it could prove the subject's notability. Whereas your other gsource Haasche Courant which is certainly credible but It contains subject's column/opinion which can't be used as independent source. His work were never notable except they have articles on English Wikipedia and after their deletion I can't see he passes WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and as I said above I typically go with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in marginal cases. The article subject failed to get this deleted at the 2nd AFD and this can be considered an extension of a subject request via his daughter. ~~Delete~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, in doing my little restore I missed a much larger blanking of content from the article subject's daughter, on his behalf, which leaves a rather more bad taste in my mouth. Taken with the rationale advanced in the 2nd Afd, which was something of an angry snit, it seems -- he was caught COI editing, so no one can have 'his' article -- I'm much less inclined to offer any support, to father or daughter in this case. I'm also going to make sure Mona has had the appropriate warnings issued, because if this keeps up she should be blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I read 28 references, many are from different languages such as English, Hindustani (specifically Urdu), and in Dutch, as someone who lives in the Hague the Haagsche Courant is actually a pretty big newspaper 📰 to appear in, so I am quite baffled that this article even gets nominated on a supposed lack of notability, further whether or not the article was created with ill-intend by someone closely related to the subject doesn't mean that the person becomes less notable, aren't we all here to edit the things we're passionate about? --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick comment, this article has been nominated for deletion multiple times, and the content of it was blanked prior to it being restored, this is nothing short of WP:VANDALISM and ill intent, the nominator should be blocked indefinitely and this article speedy kept. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, given that that removal seems to have been made by a relative of the subject, that a stub was left behind, and the persistent poor state of the citations, this wasn't vandalism. See WP:BLPEDIT. Also note that the onus of responsibility and burden of proof here falls on those restoring the deleted content/sources, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.

There are problems on that article with citations being misused or exaggerated, perhaps you could verify the attributions from Dutch sources over at the talk page?Landscape repton (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a carte blanche. This was flat-out vandalism, and I've issued a first-level warning accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but also note that
Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns.
:::::Landscape repton (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. The references are an absolute mess. Upon checking them, some have definitely been misleadingly cited or exaggerated, there are many deadlinks, and we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify. There is no verifiable source that attests to notability. These problems have persisted without improvement since they were raised AfD six years ago, and there seems no prospect of that situation improving in the future. At best, this article should be reduced back down to a stub, and built up again with better referencing.Landscape repton (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The 'major' works attributed to him are self-publications. This includes 'The Wise Way' and 'Zarb-e-Sukhan', neither of which have ISBN numbers or appear in any library catalogue. This obviously fails WP:AUTHOR. Likewise, work through the general WP:ANYBIO criteria and he fails all three.

I can see that this discussion is not converging on a consensus to delete, at least in terms of the raw vote, and I suspect this is due to the circumstances of how it was listed and by whom. But I'd encourage some attention to the page itself, which seems to be a botched attempt at self-promotion. If we are going to keep it, we need to be able to establish notability in reliable sources independent of the subject. That doesn't exist in the current set of references, so we need to find it if it exists elsewhere and add it in. Landscape repton (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: One of the most extensively used sources that has been questioned (the Daily Dharti) turns out not to be at all independent of the subject. Details can be found in this section of the talk page. The Daily Dharti has also announced a few days ago that Sehgal has given out a prize for edits made to Wikipedia.

Unconnected to that, it seems we suddenly have a lot of new anon users who's only edits are on this topic. Landscape repton (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whenever somone try to fix the issues page had they start emptying the content from different identities or IPs using internet censorship circumvention tool. I don't think it will work again. They are doing what they had done in 2012. This way they think somone will save article again. Because of dubious references per WP:RS, fail to verify per WP:V he fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO or whatever article says he has done. Greenbörg (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will stick with the consensus from the previous two AfDs, which is that the subject is deemed notable to a sufficient standard as required by WP:GNG. This piece on Dawn mentions him amongst Pakistan's notable English language poets, which is interesting. That being said, I need to cross-check and look further into the Urdu sources available. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have seen that reference before. It updated on 9 April 2017. The source only mention him rather discusses him. We use sources that discusses the subject. You could check other sources so we could verify his notability. We should be clear what is notable should be kept but what is not should be deleted. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering to look into the Urdu sources, @Mar4d:. Would you be able to check the Daily Jang reference dated 2012-11-28 (looks like it's available here), and see if it supports the claim that "[Sehgal] has been praised by many Urdu writers and poets."? Establishing that would go a long way to establishing notability in reliable sources. Landscape repton (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Landscape repton:. here is the archive copy and it doean't says anywhere "[Sehgal] has been praised by many Urdu writers and poets." however it does mention the subject as a poet and a journalist. it was occasion of his book launch ceremony. this also contains some exaggerated praise of the subject, though.. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO; WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers explicitly to "Poorly sourced biographical articles" (my emph.), which this most certainly is not, and therefore does not apply. It also requires that there be "here is no rough consensus", yet, as we are on the third attempt to delete the article, it could be cogently argued that a "rough consensus" has plainly been estabished. In any case, per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion is normally a last resort." Other delete !votes fail to present sound policy-based arguments: Greenborg's, for example, is an alphabet soup with no focussed explanation for the soup presented, BLPREQUESTetc does not apply, and other suggestions ('refs are a mess', for example) are pure WP:ATA. WP:IDLI presumably also applies :) Incidentally, regarding the question as to whether BLPREQUEST is relevant, this may well be a continuiation of a previous request; but I note that, actually, the filer has made over 75% of all their edits to improving (that is adding material to) the article for the last six years. — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of references does not equate to quality of sources. This article is poorly sourced, even though a number of sources have been used and misused. There are two issues now: 1) In the mess of references is there enough that establishes notability in reliable sources? (I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate that there is.) 2) Are these of sufficient quality and notability to override the delete request?Landscape repton (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's evaluation of wp:notability and wp:gng Govindaharihari (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you could provide a link to the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that you are seeing, that would be very useful in helping us source and improve the article.Landscape repton (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @Govindaharihari: @Saqib: No one is saying that there are no sources. We have spent hours on finding reliable sources. You could help us on this thread or other new threads. Many of keep comments are saying keep only because it is nominated by his daughter. I don't think this could be kept per comments. We don't need keep or delete comments. We need keep comments who demonstrate why article should be kept. Similarily, we need delete comments if they really can show these sources are unreliable and are dependent. Previous nominations haven't done that. 1st one was nominated because of dispute between users and 2nd one was self-nominated like this one to avoid removing unreliable sources. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is supported by twenty-eight reference from major publications in the Indian subcontinent, such the Daily Jang. It passes WP:GNG and previous AfDs supported keeping this article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is no argument that it was kept in previous AfDs. I have read the source as did Saqib. The ceremony was launching of his book at Karachi Press Club and there is no mention of that he was praised by many. Greenbörg (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. (I would say this in any event, whether he requested deletion or not).It's still basedon vague praise from news sources many of very uncertain reliability, especially in the creative arts. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources are fine, as most of them are Pakistan's major national newspapers. But the problem was with the overly promotional tone, which has already been dealt with. The present version has just bare facts about the subject, nearly all of which are already reliably sourced. And the article can expand from here. BTW, if any source makes extraordinary claims then it can be easily dealt per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. So, that's not the issue as well. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources? have folks who have !voted keep citing the sources actually looked at them? They are almost all tiny posts for this odd "daily times" site like this, that you cannot even put through google translate since they are pictures. This article has been a mess of promotionalism and is not worth maintaining. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Jytdog, the link given by you is of Daily Dharti, which is a regional Urdu newspaper. And it has nothing to do with Daily Times, which is Pakistan's major national English newspaper. Please also see my !vote below. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. I don't know Dutch but English and Urdu are not enough to prove individual notable. 111.68.107.38 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Per User:Mar4d, and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. The subject sources demonstrate clear and open notability of the subject, which has been significantly covered by the international main stream newspapers, no matter if that are not anymore online, but we can see on website, for the that, that sources anyhow exist, policy does not force that sources must be online, that must be assessable, and the all sources have been very carefully accessed by the previous nomination for deletion, decision Keep.

International The News, Daily Jang,

Nawaiwaqt,

Hurriyat,

Family Magazine,

The Times of Karachi,

2, Daily Times

Nation Today, Daily Dharti,

The Daily Rising Kashmir,

Haagsche Courant,

AD Haagsche Courant, Bussiness Recorder,

Daily Dawn

and other. The article is with brutally and bad faith being spoiled and cited sources have been removed without the legitimation and consensus. Multiple editors have accessed all the sources, how is possible, if the sources become dead link, subject also become unnotable? It seems clear, here is being shown bad faith against the subject, involving the three editors, whom edits are not considered neutral and fair. There are also the ping editors, who have the same agenda and applying that without respecting the Wikipedia policies.

I found this.

i just feel so strange that what a lack of knowledge to search properly, it is pure blindness with the bad faith, though I not nominated the article for deletion, but u both, what doing with references, removing them, removing text and claiming not notable i cannot believe wikipedia can bear such kinds of contributors, who have no any clue of the reality. i feel so shame, really i am sorry, i asked help in real life about daily dharti, that is newspaper or just website as u both claim as unreliable, i cannot even think that u both what did with the article, i do not think, i can learn here any good thing except dishonesty, personal jealousy and etc. when i search daily dharti on google, it was on the top,

1- https://www.google.nl/search?q=daily+dharti&oq=daily+dharti&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.6521j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

2 - http://www.roznamadharti.com/contact_us.php (editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.109.55.10 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading these clipping scans, these could be useful in improving the referencing situation in the article. Would it perhaps be possible to upload some higher quality scans? Some of the sources, such as The International News article for example, aren't quite readable.

I'd invite you to take part in the discussions about the various sources on the talk page of the article. One of the concerns with some sources has been to establish whether they are still accessible or not. That doesn't mean they have to be available online, but the consensus is that they have to be currently accessible to the public somewhere, whether online or in an offline collection somewhere, such as a library collection.

Other issues have been with the reliability of some of the sources (e.g. one of the references that was removed was a WordPress blog, for example), or with the claims in the Wikipedia article not aligning with what was written in the reference. But again, I'd invite you to join in with talk page discussions on specific cases. Landscape repton (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, you are giving link of Google in the Netherlands but your IP shows you are from Iran. Why are you gaming the system per WP:FILIBUSTER. Saying strong keep or keep using different IPs doesn't make any difference as Wikipedia doesn't works on majority or number of heads but sensible arguments. Comments like these are likely to be discarded. Greenbörg (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The links provided by the above anon user show that the cited offline sources of this BLP not only exist but also discuss the subject in detail.

I also looked at the revision history of this BLP. It's clear that most of its online sources are archived at archive.is & Internet Archive. I am adding some of those archived sources here:

Bilingual literary read. Daily Times.
Daily Jang. 15 May 2012.
Daily Jang. 24 November 2012.
A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.
Geo Urdu. 2 January 2014.
Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir

P.S. As one can see in the BLP's revision history, User:Landscape repton – who registered here a few days ago – has cleaned it up, which includes addition of 20 plus tags by them. And its lots of sources & content has been deleted. So, I guess one will have to look at older revisions like this one for analyzing the sources. BTW, the user has also done similar sort of edits at the subject's book article – see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also have noted I've provided detailed summaries for every edit I made, and provided a very thorough commentary on the talk page, sub-divided by category. I have, in cooperation with other editors, stripped out several references--a WordPress blog, an irrelevant article about robots, an entry from a website that states it maintains no editorial controls. I've also added details to others and moved them to more relevant parts of the article. Please judge me by that record rather than the age of my account (which is several weeks, and obviously not created in conjunction with this specific article).

I'm sure this is unintentional, but your tone comes off as distinctly accusatory and unfriendly. If you think some of the changes are not warranted or could be executed different, why not enter into conversation about them first? Landscape repton (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to accuse you of anything. Just read my comment again. I just stated the plain facts. BTW, instead of "several weeks", your account was 10-day-old when I made the comment. I commented about your account's age as I thought your excessive tagging of the article was due to your inexperience. But now I can see that the real reason was online inaccessibility of sources. Now that most of the sources are in front of you, hopefully you will reinstate/add the verifiable content.

I can also see what confused you in believing that the source you mentioned was about robots. If you will look at the Ref 5 in this revision, it reads "....p. 23. Retrieved 9 May 1998." But when you will click on its URL, it will take you to the magazine's homepage, which is showing its latest edition of July 2017. You can see date at the top-right corner of the magazine's cover & also on the left edge of the webpage. Anyway, the scan provided by the anon user clearly shows its page no. & date at the bottom left corner, both of which matches with the article's citation. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: --- I do not let it happens again and again that three editors, Landscape repton, Greenbörg and Saqib's unconstructive edits on the notable subject that twice has been reached a consensus as keep by experienced editors, as,

AfD - 1 Eastmain, Brianhe, Anupam, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday), Mar4d,

AfD - 2

Nolelover, gråb whåt you cån, Yunshui 雲‍水, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex, MJ84,

I ping them, to review it again, to reach the third consensus. I stress that if Wikipedian let such editors, to stay unconstructive editing, we should, surely, expect the 4th nomination. Behind all this revenge full behavior, is the editor Saqib, I have checked his edits and conflict between Justice007, even he disclose his identity, to damage him, strange, Saqib is still targeting him. This is all a drama on the Wikipedia ground, neutral and honest admins must take action to, investigate on the large level of this conspiracy. The three suspected editors remain to persist on their unconstructive and illegitimate edits. It should be stopped, for the best of the Wikipedia project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.58.87 (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note the nomination was withdrawn last night. — fortunavelut luna 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will effect the AfD. Greenbörg (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since I am the one who told you that on Kudpung's page! It was a procedural point of information. — fortunavelut luna 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the subject meets WP:GNG. I've kept Daily Dharti sources out of my analysis as per comments by user Landscape repton. Here's my analysis of the selected sources:

Martial laws badly affected literary activities. The News International.

This is among the most comprehensive English sources dedicated to him. With some efforts, one can read whole of it. The article comprehensively describes the subject's life & career.

A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.

This source, which is authored by Amjad Parvez, sums up their poetry career along with discussing their book (Zarb-e-Sukhan) comprehensively.

Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir:

This source discusses the subject comprehensive along with discussing one of their books. BTW, the newspaper is in editorial oversight.

There are scanned copies of two articles of Haagsche Courant. One of them – Gevlucht – is non-trivial coverage, while the other one – Even vragen aan: Ehsan Sehgal, dichter – is their interview, which surely contributes toward their notability.

I can't read Urdu. So, I will only discuss their reliability & comprehensiveness, but Urdu-speaking participants are invited to translate & summarize their content at the article's talk page:

The multiple sources – [57], [58], [59] (dead link) – published by the Daily Jang definitely show notability.

This comprehensive article of the reputed Nawa-i-Waqt surely adds to notability.

Then there is full page dedicated to them in the Family Magazine. If nothing else, it can be used for describing their personal/non-controversial details, as the source is published by the Nawa-i-Waqt's publishing group.

There is also a full page dedicated to them by the Hurriyet, but it is not present online. Official website of Sind govt. has listed it as a newspaper – see here. And user-generated sources also mention its details – see here. So, we can consider it reliable unless someone can prove otherwise.

The anon user also gave two sources of The Times of Karachi – [60] & [61] – which are reviews of the subject's two seemingly non-notable books. There's no online info regarding this 1990s newspaper. And it should not to be confused with the namesake newspaper, which started in 2015. Same is the situation with the Nation Today, which discusses the subject & review one of their books under the title of Ehsan Sehgal: Poet of Pathos. So, I am not counting them, although not having online presence, esp. in case of older newspapers, shouldn't automatically make them unreliable.

All in all there are at least 10 reliable sources which discuss them in detail. And they are spread over three languages & a time span of few decades. That's more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much we stretch the definition of it. In fact, to see such coverage of the subcontinent's local language poet – who was active mainly till 1990s – is actually surprising.

Now coming to their two books. Zarb-e-Sukhan is poetry collection of their four-decade long career & it consists 1000 plus pages. There are around half a dozen reviews of it in the top national newspapers & it seems to meet notability. But I guess it can be merged to the BLP via talk page discussion, provided the BLP is kept. Their another book is already at the AFD & consensus seems to be going toward merge/redirect, although it is revivewed in quality sources like this one. So, we can dedicate a section of this BLP to the details/reviews of these two books. One of them seems notable & other one has got a few quality reviews. Although none of them might sufficiently meet notability criteria for a stand-alone article, they definitely contribute toward the subject's overall notability.

Finally, not notwithstanding the unnecessary tags of the present version, the article has already been TNTed by the user Landscape repton. And it can be expanded from here on, as we have now access to nearly all of the sources.

P.S. Before the anon user provided copies of the sources – which I supplemented by providing archived links – the participants had not access to most of the sources. One of the editors even tagged the BLP as a hoax. So, their !votes should be evaluated in that context. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have not 'TNTed' the page, which would have entailed deleting everything from it and starting over. I do think, given how much of the page is a creation of the subject and those associated with him and given how pervasive issues of promotional language and mis-used sources have been in it, that that would have been a perfectly valid way to approach the article in this case. Landscape repton (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did TNTed it, although by a different approach. You removed a large amount of content along with moving the remaining content around & fixing its tone, leaving behind a stub, which just contains the bare facts about the subject. Even if you had started from scratch, you would've mentioned those facts, although in much more detail as now you have online access to them. Keeping the fact in mind that it was already edited by others to remove COI, it does count as TNT. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. It's more than a stub atm. If I'd TNT'd it, there's no way I'd have taken responsibility for putting in the properly dodgy sources, like the Daily Dharti links. And I wouldn't have included the articles that seem to be completely inaccessible and unverifiable, like the old News International article. And we don't have a source that supports the bibliography of the article. There's still a lot in there that needs to be properly sourced or cut. Landscape repton (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read the provided sources & improve the remaining dodgy bits. BTW, I've gone through ref 2 of the present version. And will make some of the relevant changes shortly. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to vote to delete from a different perspective. Most of his writings and most of his audience appear to be Urdu. There's an article in the Urdu Wikipedia [[62]], so I'm comfortable that after deleting this, his information is still available for his audience. I don't want to sound Xenophobic, but nothing that I've read above suggests that his impact has crossed over to the Western world. I saw some wiki-clones with info about him trying to found a group called the Muslim United Nations, but Google doesn't come up with anything that suggests the group got any traction. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's the oddest !vote I have ever seen. Most of the artists, businessmen, politicians, etc. of Asia & Africa have no impact on the Western world. Same is true about a large number of personalities from Europe. So, I guess we should delete those & similar type of articles, which might be million plus in number. You do realise that it is a global Wikipedia instead of being Western world Wikipedia. BTW, if WP is to be believed, Urdu is the fourth largest spoken language in the world. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to read the newspaper clippings and sources, and from the limited info that I could see, I don't see notability. That being said, since he has an article on the Urdu Wikipedia, I felt that was enough, since if he has any cultural impact, that's where it would be felt. I didn't mean to come across as Xenophobic, but without any tangible sources, I'm leaving it up to the Urdo readers to decide if he should be there. I've voted keep and even personally worked to save articles that have no impact on the western world, but nonetheless had no problem proving notability somewhere. Here's an Indian album I saved that was declined five times and ultimately moved into namespace by SwisterTwister [63] and here's I wasn't able to save, as the only keep vote.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament

One can actually see a large amount of legible info from reliable sources. And obviously there are "tangible" sources here. In fact, per WP:OFFLINE, they didn't have to produce those sources which weren't online, but they even did that. BTW, thanks for responding. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 22 July 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. Disregarding obvious SPAs, the policy-based votes indicate there is not sufficient coverage in WP:RSes to show that this song passes GNG, so I am closing this as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst (Phase song)[edit]

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

Article doesn't comply to Notability:Music guidance, it contains false statement has gathered rave reviews from press which is blatant advertisement.--SubRE (talk) 22:22, 13 July 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)).

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep hyping on last.fm makes it quite notable if you are asking me, your I start thinking you are the one to know them and have something against them MusicPatrol (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep since I started the article of course. I would have to agree we have to do with an internet troll here rather than someone who wants to improve the wikipedia community. No wonder he is sock puppeting as well One Drive proof sock puppet Asouko (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Both users above is authors of article and active promoters of band, possibly members. So I suggest simply to ignore their "votes". The only "argument" they mentioned is "hyping on last.fm", based on link. Hypescore of a song was 276 on last.fm which equals to around 290 listeners a week. That's next to zero and shows how non-notable single is.--SubRE (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of secondary, and tertiary sources talked about it, and it falls within WP:NOTABILITY. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently if I use Bing News I get these results, plenty to use in the future. ✌🏻😊 --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "plenty" - more like next to none.--SubRE (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commentexcellent gas-lighting technique there...You'll probably have to google this meaning... this is just outrageous! I am out! please experienced editors, you should look into this! Asouko (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, experienced editors really should look into this - no name pub band's self-promotion on Wikipedia. This single exists only as statistical record. No chart positions, no "rave reviews", no any kind of mentions in reputable sources.--SubRE (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment your argument isn't valid... next to zero.. like Coldplay and Katatonia who I doubt you know... maybe go to their page and start deleting... You don't have the background to even have an opinion on the matter MusicPatrol (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Screenshot of the actual Narc Magazine Narc's Tom Hollingworth on Amethyst which aparently is big enough to have an extensive presentation of their festival on BBC here, you can listen for your self Narc festival presentation on BBC MusicPatrol (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the blogspot in the first link is not an RS. The NARC radio episode will only be available to listen to until 23 July – the only mention of Phase during the whole programme is their song "Point of View, Too" (not even the song under consideration in this AfD) which is played at 34:31, and at 42:58 the presenter recaps the band's name and song title, and states it's from a forthcoming remix EP. No other information, and the entire mention lasts fewer than 15 seconds. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly consider redirecting to the album's page where the information should be merged to 86.183.161.31 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Keep it does meet the notability criteria, like it's mentioned above, merging with the album's page isn't a bad idea 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the album itself is also under AfD consideration, so a redirect may not be possible. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, the article is a start class one and deletion should be the last resort anyway, it can be fixed, it just needs time. Asouko (talk) 04:25, 20 July 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.