The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CakeMail[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is passing mentions, directory listings or PR-driven. Google books search produces a short case study (link), but its about the company's use of Twitter, not about the company itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing (I agree with the logic; current sourcing is weak. I havent personally looked for sources though) Martinp (talk) 02:50, 24 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 redirect to Kasba Upazila#Education. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuti Girls' High School[edit]

Kuti Girls' High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As a high school, this should be notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). However, it has been 5 months and it has no sources (creator hasn't edited since Feb and hasn't responded to recent message requesting sources. I could only find a couple of sources on this level: [1]. That indicates it exists, but isn't really coverage. As we can't WP:VERIFY that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, Ithink we should delete it for now. It has been in a half-finished state for 5 months and has little info, so I don't think it is useful to the reader at present. Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've not been able to find significant sources; could find two incidental mentions. The current article should be deleted; it may be later recreated if something notable turns up. Lourdes 07:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect . The school exists, Redirect it to Kasba Upazila#Education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Kudpung Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 24 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Siulapwa[edit]

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

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

Google search turns up Facebook, youtube, and a host of sites that are not independent from the subject. Non-trivial discussion of the subject in reliable independent secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 11 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) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Borthwick (journalist)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article on a TV reporter, sourced to his LinkedIn. The article merely lists his jobs, and searches (not helped by there being a TV actor of the same name) are not finding anything better than passing in-role mentions. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as individual fails WP:JOURNALIST. 111.68.107.38 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per AllyD. There isn't anything in the description in the article that sets him apart- no remarkable roles or awards. The only source is a self-published LinkedIn profile and I couldn't see any sources that provide coverage of his activities. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:26, 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) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis[edit]

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

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

Article about a definition. Fails WP:NOTDICT. - MrX 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This in not really an encyclopedic topic covered in multiple reliable sources. It is word with definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as noted by the nom). Steve Quinn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 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. SoWhy 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conan (C/C++ package manager)[edit]

Conan (C/C++ package manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable software.Hardly passes WP:GNG.Mentioned on own-published or non-reliable sources etc. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only thing I can find out about this package manager is that it has been bought by JFrog, and every source on that is from JFrog (which also seems to be NN). Fails to pass WP:N/WP:NRVE. menaechmi (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just another one of many many many package managers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 24 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 article has two sentences and three lines. Consensus is to not keep, no consensus about redirect. I.e., anybody can now create (and anybody else can then RfD) a redirect. This does not prevent a competent recreation along the lines of what Derek Andrews suggests.  Sandstein  11:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Chhattisgarh[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The information is verifiable, but the subject does not appear to be notable. - MrX 14:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to nominator: Are you assuming that the stub's content is all there is to be said about the subject? The subject is a minority religion in a state of 28 million people. A quick Google News search brings up concerns of inter-religious violence ([2] [3]), and a cursory search of Google Books offers snippet views suggesting some historic importance. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chhattisgarh#Religion. It is a plausible search term, so i would not outright delete it. However, considering the amount of WP:SYNTHESIS one would have to commit to make something out of the sources mentioned above, I am not convinced this can go anywhere beyond a mishmash of news snippets. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is just one line pulled from census statistics. Nothing much to be lost here.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not an encyclopedically relevant topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per HyperGaruda. The subject is not enough to be its own separate article, regardless of whether it is a stub or not. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see this possibly developing into something at least as good as Islam in Punjab, India, maybe even Islam in Assam or Islam in Kerala. I note that there is a nav box for 'India Islam in India by state and union territory' so maybe there is a move to create all these articles and improve coverage. One important thing to note is that the state of Chhattisgarh has only existed since 2000 when it was partitioned from Madhya Pradesh. This will make references hard to find and may need to be done at the district level. While creation of this stub by a new editor was premature, I think deleting it now would be too.Derek Andrews (talk) 00:06, 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. SoWhy 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nogrid points[edit]

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

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

I fail to see any non-promotional covg. in reliable secondary sources about the software. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nogrid pointsblow seems closely tied to this. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All I can find in Google scholar are false positives and a handful of almost-uncited papers by the same people. I don't think it passes the standard of WP:GNG that people independent of its developers have written and reliably published nontrivial material about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - news and book searches drew a blank. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 24 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) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-Four Hours (TV program)[edit]

Twenty-Four Hours (TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sourced only to a dead link, main editor blocked for vandalism. No substantial content contributions by other editors. Mduvekot (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a cut and paste move of an article I moved to draft because it had no references and the earlier edits have been left out so on those grounds as well as the lack of references it would be best to delete and if a different editor finds rs they can edit the draft version Draft:Twenty-Four Hours (TV program) and go through the WP:AFC process Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Atlantic306. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note here to clarify that although Ellen Ratner, the founder of this, had a WP:BLP on Wikipedia, the article wasn't actually linking to it and thus its existence didn't get noticed by anybody while this discussion was active. Accordingly, once I discovered that it did exist, I recreated the title as a redirect to her — and of course, I would have done that right off the bat if I'd known about her BLP earlier. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Media News[edit]

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

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

Although this is technically a second nomination, this isn't eligible for speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content — while this certainly sounds like the same thing as the deleted article, there are conflicting history claims that make it unclear whether or not it really is. (As well, this is a five-year-old article that got moved overtop this title after the first discussion, not a newly-created article.) At any rate, regardless of whether it's the same thing or not, there's no indication being provided here that this meets WP:GNG any better than the other version did — there are just two sources here, of which one is a deadlink on an advocacy organization's blog and the other is a brief blurb in a radio industry trade newsletter. Radio networks do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because they can be nominally verified as existing — they need to be the subject of substantive media coverage in reliable sources, but the sources here aren't demonstrating that. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The radio equivalent of a white-label product; the consumer doesn't know where it's coming from, and obvious they don't even get that much attention from industry media, and they have little reach in radio syndication. Company seems dead judging from the lack of a website and Twitter being last updated a year ago. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think this page could conceivably be expanded with more information about the organization. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep poorly sourced articles just because expansion could "conceivably" be possible — it would need to be shown that the reliable sources needed to expand the article with are actually out there. But the only new source you've added to the article at all is its own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-assisting source: notability is demonstrated by media outlets other than itself devoting their resources to producing content about it, not by self-publishing its own web presence. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly did that because I couldn't think of anything else to post, as I do not have additional sources right now. I just think maybe we should be a little more careful about deleting an article on a company with a seat in the White House press pool. Scratch that. I see you've redirected the article. Fine by me. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:22, 26 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) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Guliyeva[edit]

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

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

I do not see why she is notable. Additionally, we already have Alkhanly attack which is about the same thing and which has been PRODded as a run-of-the-mill event. May be one line could be added to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or smth like this. Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: tragedy but, as per long established policy, victimhood alone cannot confer notability as has been long established. Quis separabit? 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She's non-notable except as a statistic; I wouldn't even redirect.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:53, 23 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. Particularly, due to the sourcing added by User:Megalibrarygirl. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Win Conference[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't see any meaningful coverage, and doesn't seem like a major notable event.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Women's International Networking Conference the correct name for the article. Searching under different terms, I found plenty of RS covering the conference across the world, including Japan Times, The Financial Express, Vanity Fair, and The Hindu. Other RS mention the conference, such as The New York Times and others. I've added the sources to the article, cleared out the fluff and moved unsourced information to the talk page. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- business conferences are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. No need for an encyclopedia entry just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Women's International Networking Conference. New sources are OK. Most are passing mentions, but the Gairdian called it "Europe's biggest women's networking conference", and a mention in the New York Times is nothing to scoff at. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per mentions and above. I have done a preliminary move to WIN Conference and support moving it per MegaLibraryGirl. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Megalibrarygirl: Could you please link to two or three of the best sources that you found? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG and in this case I find that the presumption of notability leads me into thinking there should be an article. @K.e.coffman: The links you require to the recommendations MLG gave above are[4][5][6][7] I hope you are able to follow these. It seems four references are more than you are wishing to read, possibly based on your assertion of inherent non-notability (also above). If so I suggest omitting The Hindu but this has to be merely my personal opinion. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinko Simov[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If the individual played a major role in Bulgarian politics, it's not forthcoming from the article's sole source. I didn't find anything substantial in database searches for the English-language name. If his role is worth mentioning and if there perhaps are some Bulgarian-language sources that bear it out, it would be more appropriate to write an article on anarchism in Bulgaria or section on the region's history than a dedicated biographical article. Ultimately, there isn't enough reliable sourcing to describe the topic in encyclopedic depth, nevertheless to do basic justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile mentions to use as redirect targets (article is orphaned). PROD'd in 2010. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of the two sources, only one is not a dead link and I am not sure as to its overall notability. As the nominator said, if the individual had played a major role in Bulgarian politics, you would expect there to be more coverage readily available and included within the article. Would definitely be open to keeping it should new evidence arise demonstrating/proving notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - @Czar:, @TheSandDoctor:, there is an online version of the one google books hit for the individual. It is a book/pamphlet written by an anarchist, Georges Balkanski, about one of Simov's collaborators, Georges Cheïtanov. It is in french and here is the link[8]. Cheïtanov does not have an article. However, given the number of hits written in Cyrillic (most or all in Bulgarian) for his at google books, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Тинко+Симов", at least some of which are certainly about this Simov, it seems he is probably covered in multiple sources, and probably at times in depth, as with the biography of Cheïtanov. I think he passes NPOV and NOR as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep on probability—what sources have depth and can be used to write an article? Surely not a bunch of mentions. Also why did you use http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html—it has no signs of reliability... Note that our Bulgarian article too has no sources. czar 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be slow to respond. I didn't mean to say, "there must be sources", but rather, look at all of these sources in Bulgarian. I see most of them in snippet view, but it is not too hard to string together snippets to find out if a particular source is in depth. I have just started trying to add sources to the article from google books, and will try to do a bit more tonight or this weekend. If you can read Bulgarian (which I cannot), or have experience, do you know if topwar.ru is a reliable source? It seems somewhere between a high level blog and a news site. Simov's coverage in that source is certainly in depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes non-English sources give the impression of depth but have little, which is why it's necessary to read the actual contents to argue that there's enough substance with which to write an article. For example, topwar.ru (Военное обозрение) appears to be more of a blog with a big forum. It doesn't have a presence on ruwp but has been used in some enwp articles, likely without discrimination. The only article they have on Simov (Тинко Симов) is this 2015 section, but its text rips wholesale from bgwp's pre-2015 ... so that and no explicit editorial policy/pedigree for accuracy leaves little trust for reliability. Is there perhaps some separate, larger Bulgarian military history action or topic that might be able to house the information you found? czar 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll keep chipping away at the statements cited to either web-page, sourcing them to books. I've struck weak from my !vote, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if the material would be a good fit anywhere else. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- For a Bulgarian subject, we cannot expect to have a lot of English language sources. However, I observe the Bulgarian WP has an article and assume that says much the same as the English one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron, the Bulgarian article was already noted for having no sourcing... czar 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I do not read Bulgarian, but as there is a Bulgarian WP article, we should follow their lead. If the article is removed from AFD there we should also remove it. Until then we should assume good faith. Even a site pushing a strong POV is not necessarily unreliable, merely suspicious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron, but that's not how AfD or AGF works? Every language WP has its own notability standards, and more importantly, each has its own pace for addressing unsourced articles. The Bulgarian article has no sources, so there is nothing for us to take from it. Good faith is about assuming that others mean well and are trying to help the project, especially as the Internet decontextualizes their actions. It doesn't mean blind faith in assuming that another's work cannot be checked/verified. czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is that articled should be verifiable, bit that they should be verified by references. If a Bulgarian WP's AFD removed the article, we should follow, but until then, I would prefer to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your logic here. A "keep" rationale based on appearance in other Wikipedias is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid for reasons I already explained czar 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• http://ikonomov.a-bg.net is also unreliable and should be removed. (It's used in double refs, and not knowing what exactly the other ref covers, I'd prefer not to leave something unsourced by removing it myself) czar 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a-bg.net, I'm not sure if this site is clearly unreliable. The site is now anarchy.bg and is run by the Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria (Федерация на Анархистите в България). Clearly the site is POV and should be used carefully and in conjunction with other hopefully more reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Well it certainly doesn't have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, as our definition of reliability, and if it helps, we certainly wouldn't use a partisan English-language anarchist site as a reliable source for historical information, either. We're not even getting a clear lineage of authorship on a-bg.net... czar 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know its reputation and defer to you, if you are more familiar with it. I think removing the link is disengenuous to our reader, per WP:SWYGI, but I agree that it is good that we now have published oook citations for most (all?) of the material in the article. Regarding your second statement, we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources, I don't know if they are anarchist, and I agree that when used, usually they should be improved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources

Not for general facts when the partisan sources have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which is what makes a site reliable and which http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html does not do. (Mind that anarchy.bg is separate/different in organization from ikonomov.a-bg.net.) Since you stacked the refs, I could use your help confirming that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are talking past each other regarding partisan sources, but before requesting that we put that issue aside, I want to reiterate that I am not particularly interested in the source except in as much as it is the richest source I found on Simov and our readers might be well served if pointed in that direction. In any case, the link to the original source of the article exists in the article history and can be found if someone needs it.

Regarding your other point, I do not know what you mean by "stacked the refs". Perhaps you are referring to the process of adding an abundance of loosely related to the subject references to "save" an article on AfD. If so, I did not mean to do that, I only meant to provide refs for the article from the google books search I linked as you suggested on the 15th. Regarding helping confirm that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs, I am not sure how to do that for snippets. Do you speak Bulgarian? Do you see snippets for the pages I provided when searching for Тинко Симов or a related string? Sometimes it is requested that a quote be added from a reference to establish connection between the reference and the point in the article. Is that what you are requesting? If so, I again want to note that I do not speak Bulgarian and am relying on google translate (and I do not use a Cyrillic keyboard and was forced to rely on a slow process in some cases where directly copy-pasting text was less possible); so while it is perfectly acceptable for you to make such a request, I am not sure how best to respond given the amount of time complying would take. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if a paragraph reads "Fact A. Fact B.[ref 1][ref 2]" and ref 1 is removed, then either facts A and B should be verifiable in ref 2, or the facts should be removed (so the content matches the sourcing). I thought you'd be familiar with the contents of each source as you added the refs czar 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree that facts should be removed, I'll double check and add ((cn)) to statements for which I haven't found anything other than the a-bg.net article. I propose we leave these statements in at least until the end of the AfD, so that anyone who sees our discussion can see what material will be removed due to questions regarding that source. I'll also remove the verification needed tags where appropriate, if you don't mind. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 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) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triplex (game)[edit]

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

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

There is no indication that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Indeed the website [9] for the game states it is still in "the market testing phase". Also note WP:COI by article originator User:Ljtsouthatx. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Promotional and unsourced. A search didn't find me any obviously independent coverage. Parts of wording very similar to this. If it ever becomes well known, there would be sources, and an unconnected editor would eventually create an article. Yeryry (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are a few games with this name [10], none of them seem notable and none of them are this game. Basically per WP:N not being met. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty (Good Rats album)[edit]

Tasty (Good Rats album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only significant source available, online or by other means, is the album's own liner notes. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fine album, and there are some informative, decades-after-the-fact reviews on such sites as rateyourmusic, allmusic, and sputnikmusic, but I must reluctantly agree that it fails GNG, having never received significant coverage in (or by) any reliable, independent sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I really don't understand why I'm able to find sources given a couple of minutes of Googling while other people's exhaustive searches determine that nothing exists, but there are contemporary reviews available online from Billboard, Creem, and Robert Christgau. Given that it's from the mid-70s, further coverage in print sources will almost certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably because most editors do not consider 2-3 sentences (one source is clearly promotional) as significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is 'clearly promotional'? The 509-word article in Creem, where only the first part is visible to non-subscribers to RBP? --Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the band released multiple albums on a major label, it makes sense to have article on all of them. Just because they only have a tracklisting now, doesn't mean they can't be expanded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 24 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. Article was a hoax, deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Tuba[edit]

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

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 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. per WP:NOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Your Daddy? (video game)[edit]

Who's Your Daddy? (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains 4 sources, not enough to meet WP:GNG, and despite recent updates to the current build of the game, has not been changed to reflect those updates since the last major edit back in December. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:NOTCLEANUP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've dropped 8 more sources on the article's talk page, from WP:VG/RS's reliable custom search. I'm currently neutral on keep or delete, but the nom's rationale is weak. AFD is not cleanup. Having only 4 sources in the article, and whether or not the article has been updated to follow recent changes or updates, are not valid deletion rationales. There's a difference between the article only having four sources in it, and there only BEING four sources in existence. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 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) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zolzaya Munkhtseren[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced, can't verify the subject even exist - Google Scholar has 0 hits for this name. Hoax, or likely fail at WP:GNG/WP:PROF. If the latter, this is also a WP:VANITY autobio, created by WP:SPA User:Zolzaya M, who also deprodded it. Prod by User:Largoplazo. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete autobiography & subject doesn't meet WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's hard enough to even find this researchers publications, let alone demonstrate that they've had "significant impact" as per WP:NACADEMIC. Clearly not notable in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am 99% sure this is a hoax. I can find no other sources that mention this person. Even if this person somehow exists, this article does not meet Wikipedia notability inclusion criteria. Jliboe (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's a hoax because I've found one work so far that lists "M. Zolzaya" along with "D. Dashjamts, P. Darikhuu"—though the article has her collaborating with a D. Dashjamts and an R. Darikhuu. She's also listed here as the secretary of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 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) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagoranao[edit]

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

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

Poorly written article with no sources. Google searches for "Tagoranao Goldiano Macapaar bin Sabbar", "Tagoranao", and "Commander James Bond" mostly turn up information on his brother and copies of this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Interesting, but unreferenced. WP:OR if not WP:HOAX. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless WP:GNG is proven. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pave Mover[edit]

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

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

Reference is self-linking. Pave Mover essentially links to a list in article PAVE with no article Student7 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Per CSD A3. There isn't anything other than the AFD notice on the article. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: page has no content. DrStrauss talk 20:39, 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. There was a clear consensus to keep, notwithstanding the thoroughness of the nominaton. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Bharat Jain[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a mayor, which basically just asserts that she exists and then reference bombs the fact of her existence with sources that aren't really building a strong notability case. While the city is large enough that she would be entitled to keep an article that had some actual substance and was sourced properly, two of the four sources here just glancingly namecheck her existence as a bystander in coverage of someone else, and one is a purely routine blurb about her initial election -- and even the one source here that might actually help to add another sentence to the article ("Bombay high court directs Mira-Bhayander mayor to appoint opposition leader") isn't really much longer than a blurb either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write more than just "she exists" and support it with enough sourcing to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but this as written isn't even close to adequate. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is very poorly sourced, doesn't pass WP:GNG. The sources only assert that she exists, and nothing else. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - After reconsideration, and per Enos733's comment, I've decided to strike my delete vote. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is the mayor of an Indian city of over 800,000 people, about the size of San Francisco. The sources now in the article are adequate to expand the article slightly, adding the date she was elected and her political party, for example. I cannot support deletion unless an experienced editor fluent in the Marathi language reports that local sources cannot be found even after a diligent search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the inclusion criterion for local politicians explicitly states that the core condition is "who have been the subject of significant press coverage". So the standard that it would have to meet is not that sources would need to be determined not to exist before the article could be deleted — it's that the existence of sufficient sourcing has to be affirmatively shown before the article could be kept. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:Politician affords the presumption of notability toward certain classes of elected officials. WP:POLOUTCOMES states that the community consensus for mayors of large cities is a keep (assuming that they were elected directly). Within WP:Politician, it is appropriate to use official sources to verify that they serve(d) in a particular office (and WP:Primary does not prohibit the use of primary sources). It is unclear from the sources, or the article about the city of Mira-Bhayandar what roles and function the mayor plays in the city. --Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 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) 19:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Regina Public[edit]

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

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

Advertorially-toned (note the use of the first person we/our) article about a school, with no reliable sources present to get it over WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG -- the only sources present here are its own website about itself and a PDF of a course registration form. As always, writing about itself and sourcing the article to its own self-published content is not how any topic gets a Wikipedia article -- our standards require neutral content to be sourced to reliable source coverage about the topic in media. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Promotional article, doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article written as an advertisement for the organization.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:44, 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. SoWhy 11:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Hornbill[edit]

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

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability because there is virtually no coverage in independent reliable sources. There is only one acceptable independent source that covers this: [11]. But this is not enough to demonstrate notability. Agree with nom fails GNG and NCORP. This is probably wp:too soon, having only been established in 2016 as a small airline (read source). Steve Quinn (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a news search brought up nothing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 24 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. Uncontested sources trump an assertion of non-notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wiegand[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem notable outside of a very narrow domain--article reads like an advertisement or CV. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article just needs to be improved with reliable secondary sources. Most biographies on Wikipedia are niche-related. He has traveled the country playing Roosevelt and has been covered in publications that are considered major in states/cities/regions. Examples: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]....oh and here's a New York Times piece to seal the deal: [21]. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree, The New York Times article on Weigand being chosen to model for a recent statue of Theodore Roosevelt is, itself, quite notable. I've personally seen resulting statue and its remarkable and always crowed with people taking pictures along-side of the likeness. The sculpting studio even flew him up to their studio, picking up the tab for the flights. Consider that the sculptor could have just found someone roughly of the same size as Roosevelt. No, he was looking for more than just a similar sized model. He indicated that in the Times article. Wiegand WAS chosen because he was considered quite notable in the T.R. role. SimonATL 14:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Rather then merely being "featured in newspapers," Wiegand, for example, reprised Theodore Roosevelt at the White House as part of a White House celebration the 150th birthday of Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States on Oct. 27, 2008 in the East Room of the White House before a crowded audience including a sitting President and members of the Roosevelt family. While a Google search of T.R. Impersonators lists no less than six T.R. reprisers, Wiegand was the only on invited to play T.R. Wiegand is simply NOT a non-notable "local celebrity" unknown beyond a small circle. Doing a Google Search, I've noticed that he has reprised T.R. on several documentaries which I located and will update the article. Bottom line, he IS noteworthy and the article just needs to be updated with more recent and reliable secondary sources. As noted above, Wiegand has performed in the White House and all across the Nation. Wiegand continues to crisscross the US reprising Roosevelt and has been covered in major publications. Wikipedia editors have gone round-and-round on this topic and I think some of it represents left-wing political bias against anyone who portrays even a liberal Republican like T.R. in an effective manner. And PERISH the thought that Wiegand could perform in front of the much-maligned George W. Bush.

Note also that the article has been updated to include Wiegand's work in Education, educating students in high schools across the US, educating American military personnel and their families and, more recently, standing in as a model for the American Museum of Natural History (Night at the Museum)'s statue of Theodore Roosevelt that is in its new Roosevelt Center in the basement. "NON-notable" people do NOT have this range of activities nor contributions to educating the (American) public on the 26th (US) President. Let's SETTLE this "NON-NOTABLE" claim once-and-for-all!SimonATL 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Even Stronger Keep - The article has been updated to include Wiegans work in Education, educating students in high schools across the US, educating American military personnel and their families and, more recently, standing in as a model for the American Museum of Natural History (Night at the Museum)'s statue of Theodore Roosevelt that is in its new Roosevelt Center in the basement. "NON-notable" people do NOT have this range of activities nor contributions to educating the (American) public on the 26th (US) President. Let's SETTLE this "NON-NOTABLE" claim once-and-for-all! SimonATL 19:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a nice article, but isn't notable. A agree per nom, the article concerns a very narrow domain, and being featured in newspapers isn't enough to be featured on Wikipedia.NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is not true. He passes Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. It's not about who thinks what is a niche or what is important or not. Basketball players are a specific niche subject but all professional basketball players have Wikipedia articles and it's primarily because they have merely played one game in a professional league. This man has been featured in numerous publications - and I don't mean merely mentioned. He's even been profiled by the New York Times. Clearly he isn't *that* niche if he also performed at the White House. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding "being featured in newspapers isn't enough to be featured on Wikipedia" above, articles from reliable newspapers that provide significant coverage about a subject are certainly usable to determine topic notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep –Meets WP:BASIC. In addition to the sources presented above, here are more: The New Yorker, The New York Times, The News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Katz[edit]

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)).

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

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

The subject of this article appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. As usual in pure mathematics the citation counts are low, but that doesn't tell us much, because they're always low. So we have to rely on other indicators instead. He recently moved from associate professor at one university to assistant at another; this sort of drop is very rare and I don't understand it. I don't think we should count it against him unless we understand why it happened, but the fact remains that he is currently at the assistant level, which is usually below our threshold for a keep. He helped solve a conjecture that caught the attention of Gil Kalai, but that's not enough for notability by itself and raises WP:BIO1E issues. His CV doesn't show any major awards or other factors that would bring up the level of notability of the article. And the only independent sourcing we have for the article are a blog post that has a short mention (one paragraph) on the problem Katz helped solve and an even shorter mention of Katz's contribution to it, and a magazine profile of someone else. I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong preference. I'm flattered that someone made this page. I gave up tenure to get out of Waterloo which was a priority. In any case, I had applied for jobs while I didn't have tenure. There are plenty of good algebraic geometers who don't have wikipedia pages, and I certainly wouldn't mind being in their company. —Eric Katz (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Eric Katz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• No strong preference. David Eppstein raised the question of the notability of the article. I note that the A-H-K paper was subject of one of the four annual talks in the current events in mathematics series at this year's annual AMS meeting, which puts it in remarkable company-- two surveys of hot fields in the resolution of a famous problem by Tao. I will add this to the article, which already cites the AMS notices survey paper by the same authors. I think the notability of the work itself is not at issue. ( I had heard of it long before from colleagues in algebraic geometry as a major breakthrough, solving a very important problem by very unexpected means that connected to a seemingly unrelated area, and thus likely to result in much future work. so I am personally confident that the strong indications I cited are accurate.) The no "strong preference" vote is because I don't know whether it is usual practice for all three authors on a breakthrough paper to merit an article. I see no harm in it, given that it he made a serious contribution to a major intellectual development, which will save someone the bother of having to re-create the article down the line. 122.167.238.108 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — 122.167.238.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak keep. I definitely think this isn't as simple as saying Eric fails WP:NACADEMIC. With regards to the drop from Associate to Assistant Professor position, well, he already was an Associate Professor, and he will become one soon again. If it is the case that say, any associate math professor in a western country can have a Wikipedia page, then I think he should have one. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NACADEMIC #5 we presume that people who have held the title of "distinguished professor" are notable. Associate vs Assistant professor isn't directly relevant to a discussion about notability, and in any case notability isn't temporary so there is no difference in a notability discussion about whether the position is currently held. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article that seems to have triggered the creation of this page (1) was picked up by Wired and is now featured on its homepage and (2) may have been primarily about a collaborator, but also has a great deal about Katz as well. That's still just a single RS, but that RS is not as trivial as originally presented. Calbaer (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No strong preference. There should be a quite simple criterion to decide this; if having contributed to an important paper (A-H-K) merits a wikipedia page (and from what I hear, all authors contributed about equally), then it should stay provided we feel A-H-K is important enough as a contribution to science. I would argue that this is the case. If the paper not being published is a problem, I would advocate for a weak delete of the authors pages until it is. If being mentioned in an article about someone else vs. being the focus is the issue, then the page should be deleted according to this standard. However, I do not think an article mentioning someone should be the point of merit in any case, or we get articles about random socialites or crackpot scientists with more public standing than most serious scientists. 87.77.36.17 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) — 87.77.36.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Per the relister's request for more source discussion: all people (not just academics) are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only independent source that has been presented is Quanta. That source is primarily about June Huh, with a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph) about Katz. I do not think this qualifies as "significant coverage" and it certainly isn't multiple sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that none of the things he is said to have assisted with even have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned in nine paragraphs, plus a caption for his photo, far more than "a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph)." Again, I think his coverage within this article is being presented as more trivial than it actually is. Agreed that it's just one independent reliable source, but that source shouldn't be mischaracterized. Moreover, the criteria you present are sufficient for - but not necessary for - notability. (Then again, no one's brought up any sufficient evidence yet, which someone really should in order to justify keep.) Calbaer (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"He is mentioned" is different than "(~1/2 paragraph) about Katz". How many times his name appears in the article is not relevant; whether the article contains significant coverage of Katz is relevant. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article is about results he co-authored and about both him and his co-authors (albeit focusing primarily on one other than him). Anyone who wants to see the extent of the coverage within the article can read it and judge for themselves. However, I don't want those who haven't read the article to assume it only has "a brief mention" of him based on statements to that effect. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Some links that provide more evidence for notability:

https://uwaterloo.ca/combinatorics-and-optimization/news/adiprasito-huh-and-katz-announce-proof-rotas-log-concavity

http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/meetings/national/jmm2017/2180_invspeakers#bake

https://mattbaker.blog/2014/04/11/effective-chabauty/

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/updates-and-plans-iii/

https://mattbaker.blog/2015/12/14/hodge-theory-in-combinatorics/

http://www.nieuwarchief.nl/serie5/pdf/naw5-2016-17-1-032.pdf

All the above are mentions of Eric Katz with relation to the result he helped bring. Also found http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201704/rnoti-p380.pdf Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just routine material-self published/blogs/university PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I mean, it's evidence other mathematicians are taking Katz's/etc's work seriously. If you don't want self-published/blogs/university PR, there's always Katz's published papers :) Ethanbas ^(talk) 14:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that published papers don't establish notability. There are plenty of people who've published many papers in the most prestigious journals but fail to meet notability. So publication record alone is very, very weak evidence of notability. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Katz's joint work with Karim Adiprasito and June Huh has been prominently featured in Quanta. I'd say keep the article for now. --bender235 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A very significant development in mathematics, combined with at least some detailed coverage, should be enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:56, 23 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) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiblee Group of Colleges[edit]

Shiblee Group of Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Search produces nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, I failed to locate any independent sources about this topic. - TheMagnificentist 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 20:22, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Anani[edit]

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

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

Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• fyi, [[User:Govindaharihari, nominations are more persuasive when they show evidence of a proper WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Difficult to find reliable sources (most are religious literature, self-published or user content). —PaleoNeonate - 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Try clicking HighBeam on toolbar. And Note that "religious" sources are not inherently non-reliable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the Christian propaganda blogs I was refering to before, they are not reliable sources (but those may not be the ones you were justifying). I also respect your keep vote. —PaleoNeonate - 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:PaleoNeonate, I apologize for commenting on your edit before doing a rudimentary WP:HEYMANN upgrade. Also, it may be the case that you lack access to news archives. I invite you to take another look at article with new sourcing, or to do a news archive search remembering that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just needs sourcing. Subject was rather extensively covered in books and newspapers, However, google's PRESENTISM may blinker some editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEYMANN. I did a modest expand/source. Lots more material out there, dude was a bit of a thing on the Danger: Warning! Islam is Bad! speaking circuit, especially around 2006-7. Frankly, this looks like an example of editors bringing articles and voting to delete on apparent WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds; article ought to simply to have been tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I (or somebody) needs to make time to source and add material on assertions that he invented or inflated his role as a terrorist, well after immigrating to the U.S. and allegedly as a career move. Pretty sure that I did see sources on this in an archive search, and will try to get back to improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Added such as section; sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a much larger question is: Is this person sufficiently notable? I see nothing in the article as it is now to establish that he deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. That he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims is not enough. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sufficient reliable source that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not appear to have achieved anything significant or worthy of note. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met with the sources already present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would love to keep this article, but I cannot see much of note in it, except the very fact of his conversion, Something that is a rarity as Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for apostacy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Masini[edit]

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

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

Actor with minor roles that do not meet WP:NACTOR, and a junior tier hockey player which fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Article claims "lead" in a notable television series yet official web page does not include him in cast (shows leads). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Hirsutism (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BrokenSegue 22:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there are some sources.[22][23][24][25] - TheMagnificentist 12:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No mentions in reliable sources besides routine coverage. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:33, 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. The discussion is unsatisfactory because it confuses the notability of the TV character and of the real soldier, and many of the "keep" opinions don't really address the sourcing issues, but I still can't find a consensus to delete here.  Sandstein  08:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Nixon (United States Army officer)[edit]

Lewis Nixon (United States Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lewis Nixon was an officer in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II; he was represented in the Band of Brothers miniseries. Nixon served at the company, battalion, and regimental level in the 506th but never rose above the rank of captain and was awarded no decorations above the Bronze Star; he does not meet the standards for WP:SOLDIER. After the War, Nixon ran his father's company, Nixon Nitration Works, "while travelling the world;" the lack of coverage of his life leaves him unqualified under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The character "Lewis Nixon" appeared in all ten episodes of the miniseries, but his point-of-view episode about Landsberg Concentration Camp was a dramatic construct not mentioned in Band of Brothers by Steven Ambrose. Nixon's membership in the 506th falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he is notable enough to have had his memoirs published, and he was also covered in the Band of Brothers book and TV series. WP:SOLDIER says: "it is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable," and I think the coverage of him is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a good argument for deletion; however, his relationship to Nixon Nitration Works as well as his military career (especially in the wake of the Band of Brothers book and miniseries) leads me to argue in favor of keeping the article. Add in his published memoirs and I don't believe deletion is appropriate for this article.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The memoir linked is that of Winters, not Nixon. I'd like to read Nixon's.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, thanks for catching that. I can't find a memoir for Lewis Nixon, lots of searches redirect me to Richard Nixon or Pat Buchanan.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Band of Brothers, fails SOLDIER and GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Nothing stands out here; the subject's career is unremarkable. The article created solely due to the Band of Brothers connection. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Band of Brothers does not confer notability. I also wonder what notability Nixon Nitration Works has beyond its being mentioned in Band of Brothers. BTW does anyone see evidence of Lewis Nixon's memoirs? I can't find anything like that. --Lockley (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only notable thing about Nixon Nitration Works that I can find is the 1924 Nixon Nitration Works disaster. Nixon Nitration Works probably should be turned into a redirect for the disaster. Someone did that once but got reverted. Even then, the disaster page postdates the TV series. As far as I know there is no Nixon memoir.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just got some use out of this article to remind me who was who on Band of Brothers without rewatching the series--places like IMDB don't include biographical information. My life would have been slightly more annoying without this article, so I say keep it. 67.171.230.126 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a teacher this article provided helpful background on a mini-series I show parts of for class. Why is Nix's wiki the only one considered for deletion when he accomplished so much more for easy company than other citations? The relationship between Nixon and Winters is a key in understanding the contributions of Easy Company during World War II. Nixon is noteworthy both in history and pop culture and deserves to be kept. 09:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not the only one proposed. There are two pending and about fifteen have been processed. If Nixon is noteworthy in history, please improve the article (remembering to cite reliable sources).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are several BoB articles are proposed for deletion, has anyone considered a List of Easy Company (Band of Brothers) or the like with the "minor" articles going there and links to the "major ones"? That should provide a location for information on the subject while removing the need for a full article.ip.address.conflict (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a list of Easy Company men but at some point it morphed into surviving members; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans shows the decision process on deleting it. In spite of the much-quoted 140 original members, I think about 400 were eventually on the rolls (not all at once, of course); our chances of identifying them all are slim and listing some when we can not do all is unduly selective.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources about him, including several books. And portrait in a TV-series. That won't happen when you are a no-no. The Banner talk 16:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's time to review the bidding. "Lewis Nixon," the BoB TV character is a creation of the screenwriters; please don't confuse him with the real man. If there are books about the man Lewis Nixon, please list the titles for our benefit.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:38, 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 no consensus. Though there was a general opinion the article in its current state was unsuitable, there was no obvious agreement as to what to do with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hans India[edit]

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

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

I see no indication of notability. It exists, but the only references are itself, the content is promotional. Huon (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify. It doesn't quite meet G11 for advertising IMO. Another thing to consider is that articles about predominantly non-english speaking countries have a lot of sources that don't show up when you search in english. As is it doesn't meet GNG though. If I saw this in the new pages feed I would draftify it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are self-published, I failed to locate any independent and reliable sources that are significant. - TheMagnificentist 12:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article about the newspaper article has selfpublished sources but it should be kept the reason is the newspaper is regional (state level based) not national level so it won't have coverage from the reliable sources like Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express etc other reason may be due to competition fear the reliable sources eg Times of India may not provide it coverage as they too have newspaper business. This subject is notable but not famous. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to House of Night#Hidden. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden (Cast novel)[edit]

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

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

Search didn't throw up anything solid enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: They seem to sell fairly well and seem to be well-read. This book has been reviewed in at least one place, but... This whole collection is articles is an utter mess. I don't know if I dare go down the rabbit hole. Rather than this one article being deleted (neither here nor there, frankly- I could envision a decent article being written about this novel) I think we need someone to conscientiously hack away at the articles for a few hours. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to House_of_Night#Hidden. I tried to see if I could find anything for this, but there doesn't seem to be much out there other than a few news stories about a former assistant of P.C. Cast suing the authors because she believed the authors were trying to get even with her via one of the book's characters. (The coverage for this is so slim that it doesn't warrant being added, as legal related matters need quite a bit of coverage to justify adding it.) The only other thing I saw was that it hit the Publishers Weekly bestseller list, but that by itself isn't really enough to justify it passing NBOOK. The only reviews I could find for this were self-published blogs or reviews on e-commerce sites. I think that merging some of the information and then redirecting it to the main series' article would be the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to House of Night, which is the name of the series. There's nothing to merge as the article is all plot w/o secondary sources. A redirect would be cleaner. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Above rationales are sound. Nothing reliably sourced to merge. Next time, try redirecting/merging before taking it to AfD. czar 03:40, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baarish (song)[edit]

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

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings(The HT article).The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Redirect asnd/or Merge to film article sought. Winged Blades ^Godric 17:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:RS not met.-Umair Aj (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- For general information more than 80 percent of notable song from India mostly in Hindi are from Bollywood films, because contrary to North America , India doesn't have a separate independent music sponsoring music industry of its own, so of course doesn't matter how much is the notbility of a song, a film associated with it will always get mentioned. Please don't delete, you can verify it's notability from the web and citations given. It is one of the very notable song in India of this year.Anoptimistix (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
• Merge & Redirect is accepted if the any respected administrators feel the article is not notable Anoptimistix (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the critical reception section of the article shows reviews by reliable sources such as Times of India, DNA and India.com for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to meet GNG. Artw (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--Typical WP:MILL covg.How can't this be adequately covered at the film article?Winged Blades ^Godric 03:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it has got adequate covering through various articles and also on you tube. This being a very famous Indian ( Bollywood ) Song requires to have its own Wikipedia page and must not be considered for deletion. Let us all rather work on its expansion. I also request that this article may be excluded from AfD list and this discussion be concluded. Thanks. Red Pen (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Youtube fails WP:RS.And I fail to see much policy in your argument(s).And we are talking about notability; not assumed popularity(on youtube view/like counts etc.)!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:38, 23 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  12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRISP Algorithm[edit]

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

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

Nothing to suggest that this merits an article. Yet another article written by a college student who has failed to find the topic of an an assignment on Wikipedia, imo. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Unsourced and nearly content-free. As the nominator suggests, this reads like some student's notes from a lecture, with all the actual content not understood and not written down. The article itself, though, suggests in an unverifiable way that there were another couple of steps in the process: the student posted their notes to a web site in some other language and then someone else with even less understanding translated it (possibly introducing copyvio issues in the process). Even if it could be shown to be a notable topic, this article on it would not have any content worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a place to Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V text from a PowerPoint slide deck. Too garbled, perhaps by iterated copying and mistranslation, to be salvageable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 24 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  08:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eslövs AI[edit]

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

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I'm unable to locate any acceptable sources under the WP:CORPDEPTH criterion. - TheMagnificentist 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in this case given they have participated in the highest level of competition there and this is something that is not quite going to qualify for WP:CORP itself, but instead WP:Notability (sports). I'm never one to suggest we accept genuinely unacceptable content at all but this isn't one of those cases. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister, quote WP:Notability (sports) "This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." - TheMagnificentist 04:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eslöv is the dominating club in Sweden, having won the Swedish championships almost every year the last decade. I find a wealth of sources in Swedish when I do a quick search. I have added a couple of them to the article. /Julle (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable in Swedish circles. A stretch, but we should keep it considering the new sources that have been added.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 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 as sources, with one exception, are of insufficient caliber to satisfy WP requirements. Decision supported by consensus.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InvisibleKitchen[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for inclusion. References do not constitute in-depth coverage, nor does a web search turn up enough. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It gets some coverage in reliable sources here; [26] Rrachet (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one reliable source, and the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to demonstrate notability. It's just a cursory guide to food delivery services in HK. Secondly, I find it kind of suspicious that this comment is your first edit. Citobun (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reference meets the guidelines for establishing notability - it is intellectually independent and published by a reliable source. I disagree that it is a mere "cursory guide to food delivery services" - it is a review of the food and value for money also. But as correctly pointed out, a minimum of two sources is required and none of the other sources meet the criteria. If another source can be found, I'll change my !vote to Keep but for now, it is Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the coverage in this article in South China Morning Post, this article in Oriental Daily News, this article in Harper's Bazaar, and this article in Esquire. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard, not for the first time, you appear to not grasp that the policies on guidelines governing whether sources are reliable are different to the guidelines and policies on whether a source is acceptable for establishing notability. This being pointed out to you on multiple occasions. The sources you've listed above (with the exception of the same one by Rrachet above), while published by reliable sources, fail the guidelines for establishing notability. The second reference is an advertisement for Mother's Day and the new buffet menu complete with a video of Tom showcasing his food and even includes prices. The next reference is an advertisement for Christmas dinner and includes a photograph, prices and delivery dates. The final reference is an advertisement for the new Canapé menu. All of those fail references fail WP:ORGIND and cannot be considered as "intellectually independent" sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are articles from reputable publishers, not advertisements. If they were advertisements, the reliable sources would label them as such. As Unscintillating (talk · contribs) wrote, "Delete arguments such as 'I get to tell reliable publishers which articles they publish that are reliable sources' make me wonder what is going on here." There is no evidence that the articles were not independently researched and fact-checked. Information about pricing and photographs are useful for readers, which is why the publications included them. It is improper to without evidence accuse reputable publishers like Harper's Bazaar and Esquire of publishing advertisements masquerading as articles.

      I also found this review from Hong Kong Economic Journal and this review from Time Out.

      Cunard (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Cunard, there are criteria for determining is a source is reputable and reliable. And then there are criteria for determining whether references meet the criteria for establishing notability that are different and separate. From your multiple comments on multiple AfDs, you appear to totally disregard the criteria for establishing notability. A topic doesn't "meet GNG" by being mentioned in an article published by a reliable and reputable publisher. If the above is truly the opinion (in all circumstances) of Unscintillating then you both share in your miscomprehension. Just to show you how ridiculous that position is - for example, the NYT publishes a full page advertisement, or the NYT publishes an "open letter", or the NYT publishes a press release (marked as such) or a company announcement (marked as such). All of the above would apparently be acceptable to you but they are not acceptable for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Except for one source highlighted by Rrachet above, the other sources are thinly disguised advertisements that fail WP:ORGIND. I am happy to change my !vote if another source can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear promotionalism both in information and sources and this is easily to tiepin given the fact every single source offered is an unquestionably indiscriminate local or trade publisher, therefore as they say themselves, they can and will requote the company or rearrange their press releases for an article, therefore our acceptance or use of it is no better than labeling ourselves as a company advertiser; the fundamental policies here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, and this has always outweighed suggestive notability guidelines which only emphasize the possbilities for articles, not the instant agreement one will be accepted based on anything. While consumers may find a business profile convenient and appealing, it's not what any encyclopedia has used, but is what a consumer report journal uses. As we've established before, there's always the revealing signs of when promotionalism was solely intended and this here is no different given the fact one author came by and started it with the crystal clear similarities of a press release. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no notability established. "Getting coverage" is largely PR-driven, and is not the same as "meeting WP:CORPDEPTH", which is expected of companies. The current copy showcases such routine coverage and advertorial content, as in:

• "Invisible Kitchen has supported charities including Hong Kong Dog Rescue, Society for Prevention of cruelty to animals, and Hong Kong Adventist Hospital Charity fund raising!" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cunard above mentions two more references. This Hong King Economic Journal review is in Chinese and I've used Google translate to read it - entitled "Five-star food to Gourmet Catering". The article appears to be an advertorial complete with photos of the founder, Tom Burney, quotations and promotional language such as "Tom Burney firmly believes that the best taste is due to the quality of raw materials, so Invisible Kitchen carefully selected the freshest seasonal ingredients, carefully combined to balance the flavor and nutrition, and then personally sent to the guests, so that customers do not need to travel to enjoy chef-style delicacies." Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SPIP. The mention in Timeout is not a review - there is no author and no personal opinions are contained in the text that are related to tastes, experience, etc. Is is clearly an advertisement of five sentences containing beauties such as "The mouthwatering range of goodies goes from beef Wellington to roasted Norwegian salmon" and "If you’ve still room, cram in some apple tarte tatin or Eton mess trifle". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hong Kong Economic Journal article is a review of the company and its food by journalist Bill Kwok. There is no evidence that Bill Kwok was paid to write an advertorial about Invisible Kitchen. Positive reviews can be used to establish notability. The Timeout article was written by Olivia Lai. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional articles are a violation of our basic principles of nPOV, and should be removed from the encyclopedia. If they are notable, good editors like Cunard should be writing them from the sources they are expert at finding, not misusuing their energy defending articles that are essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "If they are notable, good editors like Cunard should be writing them from the sources they are expert at finding, not misusuing their energy defending articles that are essentially advertising." – please do not tell me what to do with my time. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

  Cunard (talk) 06:07, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slonim[edit]

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

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

Just a bloke doing a job or two; coverage due to these rather than the man himself. TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and suggest nominator withdraw. He is notable for what he does... how is this a surprise? The sourcing of this article is not questionable. Numerous in-depth reliable sources, I can practically choose any of the 13 sources of the article to demonstrate this. Meets GNG 10 times over. Qualifies for automatic notability under WP:PROF (#1, #6, #7, and #8 for sure, but possibly others as well). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I concur with user CleverPhrase that WP:GNG has been met to establish subjects notoriety. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - In addition to the sources in the article, Google scholar is showing the subject has authored or co-authored numerous papers in respected journals such as NIH, AMA, etc. Easily passes WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 20:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walusimbi Solomon[edit]

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

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

Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG. High use of peacock language. - TheMagnificentist 14:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:14, 16 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 16 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) 09:04, 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. If editors want to redirect the term to one of the Silicon Graphics related articles, that can be done independently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4Sight[edit]

4Sight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent RS in the article or online. Unsourced since December 2009.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Other than mentions, I found only short news in InfoWorld (22 February 1988, p. 20). What about cheap redirect to IRIX? Pavlor (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Even in the InfoWorld source, 4Sight is only a passing mention that it was a product for the Iris 4D workstation system designed by the company SGI. The system itself has very little coverage (to the point of questioning that article's notability in fact), so a small component of that system surely shouldn't have its own article. A thorough search on the term turns up evidence of former and current product names, companies, and services unrelated to SGI. There's not enough here for it to even exist as reliable redirect to IRIX in my opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there is coverage of Iris 4D in paper magazines catering its market, but these machines were never so popular (cheap...) to have their own dedicated magazines and nobody bothered to scan niche magazines for online use. It is much easier to find references for small Amiga/Apple/Atari/C64/CP-M/DOS applications than for a powerful and expensive graphics workstation. This is a very serious problem, as many computer history related articles may be simply deleted, because we all are too lazy to look for offline sources. 4Sight looks like clear case, but we should be really careful when considering other similar articles of that era for deletion. Pavlor (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 20 minutes of my time looking for online sources. While offline sources may exist, the burden to prove their existence ultimately lies on the editor(s) who are either adding, restoring, or protecting content on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find independent coverage that discusses this topic significantly or that shows widespread coverage. Fails notability criteria. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to index of Byte magazine articles, Vol 15, No 7 (p. 174-176, 178; July 1990) contains review of Silicon Graphics Personal Iris 4D/25 - with "Window systems" among keywords. I don´t have this issue (and can´t find one on archive.org), but there could be some info about 4Sight windowing system. Can someone check this Byte issue? Pavlor (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can clarify that there was a significant portion of text dedicated to 4Sight within that source, we should definitely take that into consideration. But a one or two sentence description that just states 4Sight exists wouldn't be enough to satisfy significant coverage. Also per WP:SUSTAINED, a brief burst or two in the news isn't usually enough to demonstrate notability, so that will still be a factor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Byte magazine November 1988 (cca p. 20) contains news about Personal Iris workstation, preview in Google books shows at least one paragraph about 4Sight (there may be more on that page... or not): [27] I think InfoWorld and Byte references could be enough at least for a simple redirect to main IRIX article. Pavlor (talk) 06:35, 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.