The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 07:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation[edit]

Material Sciences Corporation (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 evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with both the previous WP:PROD rationales. This is a poorly-sourced article on a company which was previously public but was acquired in early 2014 [1]. There is mention of the name in subsequent ongoing consolidations ([2]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a former publicly traded company, which gives it permanent notability. Even if it had since gone out of business, it would deserve a page. The article should notice the privatization and consolidations. Those are encyclopedic changes. There is clearly encyclopedic content on this subject with WP:RS to support that fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  [3], [4], [5].  As per these sources, company was listed on NYSE as MSC, now listed on NASDAQ as MASC.  As per WP:NOIMPROVEMENT,

  "...articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles...See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

  (See § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), above, for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.)" 

  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are simply not enough sources available to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply being listed on a stock exchange does not lead to automatic notability. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources, we should not have an article on it (See WP:WHYN). Also arguments of the type WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are not useful if proof cannot be shown. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two.  Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.
  WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason.  It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article.  The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.
  WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend

1. Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
2. The burden of proof to show sources lies on the people who are arguing that the article should be kept. So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
3. WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
4. WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
5. "Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.

There aren't enough reliable sources for this article. I stick to my delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research.  Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete I can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings. The references provided aren't independent and/or significant discussions.Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write-up and sources at International Directory of Company Histories convinces me there is notability here.Glendoremus (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I normally wouldn't do this and make my own arguments but I couldn't have put it any better than User:Unscintillating - Pmedema (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and AllyD. Sources do not show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and the in-depth coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are sufficient sources, passes WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- The available sources do not demonstrate that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, and I've been unable to find anything better. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation. Keep The sources found by Cunard below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I found below? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cunard: These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), thank you for the kind words and for evaluating the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

     The article notes:

     In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues.

     ...

     Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals.

     ...

     As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”

  2. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

     The article notes:

     Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest

  3. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

     The article notes:

     With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors.

     Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances.

     In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks.

     ...

     Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford.

     ...

     It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position.

  4. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22 – via Encyclopedia.com.

     From Cengage.com:

     When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.

     The book notes:

     Public Company

     Incorporated: 1971

     Employees: 740

     Sales: $266.8 million (2003)

     Stock Exchanges: New York

     Ticker Symbol: MSC

     NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
     
     Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
     
     Founding the Company in 1971
     
     MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...

     The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
  5. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:

     Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.

     Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.

     Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.

     Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.

     Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.

     Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.

     Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.

  6. Hoover's has an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes:

     Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US.

     Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail.

     Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.

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

  Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales, That win helped land a contract for the same part, Material Sciences has spent $1 million, Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces, MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets., . The company's products are used, they most of their sales in US. Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banstead Preparatory School[edit]

Banstead Preparatory 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)

Non-notable (as of yet), not yet existing pre- and primary school. No substantial coverage found, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. The article's author has noted (when removing my PROD tag) that it is going to happen and it is a merger of existing schools with articles, but I still don't find that the merged school has become independently notable at this time; and, since it hasn't existed yet, there isn't much to be said about it independently of its component schools. Others may see it otherwise, but I figured I'd put it up for discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This doesn't even come close to notability based on the very few sources I could find. It seems enough to add the few sentences on the existing articles for schools that are closing. If the buildings and location are the same, to some extent this is a renaming and continuing history for Greenacre, so should the Greenacre School article be renamed (with a redirect) after the merger of the schools is complete? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails my standards for schools. May be too soon. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing remotely notable about this school. WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG. Get rid now.CalzGuy (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Robinson (soccer)[edit]

Miles Robinson (soccer) (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:25, 15 March 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) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Fails NFOOTY, at least for now. He may meet that criteria eventually, in which case I'd be okay with a recreation of the article. Ultiumately, I'd really like to see NFOOTY be altered to include youth players on professional level teams that are expected to be named to the first team within an upcoming season. South Nashua (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable soccer player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:10, 22 March 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:SNOW. All relevant Notability guidelines met including WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The nomination for a Logie Award makes it unlikely that a full discussion would come to any other conclusion. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottersnikes and Gumbles (TV series)[edit]

Bottersnikes and Gumbles (TV series) (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 1 ref film fails NFILM L3X1 (distant write) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Item is a television series and there are three sources in the article, not just one (please use plain English for your deletion rationales, L3X1, it isn't up to discussors to decode them). Known series airing on two national networks along with a Netflix release; WP:N is more than met. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the illegible rationale. Can you show how it meets NFILM? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources It hasn't, AWN and Screen Australia are like IMDB, they write about everything, and don't count as notablity sources. I also don't see it passing WP:NFO L3X1 (distant write) 20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again this isn't a film. It can't meet NFILM. Please re-read the notability guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market OK, it's on 2 networks, which is called turning your head sideways and squinting, but thats my opnion which is why I AfDd this article. And on BeIN Series (MENA) you could of stated that other BeIN offshoots had been voted "Keep" on. And Shawn's right, rather than assume the nom. has forgotten the N guidelines, cite the WP you believe something slots under, rather than laying down broad statements "N is more than met". L3X1 (distant write) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on you to know what policies you're citing and why you'd like the article deleted before you bring a nomination. It is becoming exhausting to see noms which are malformed, vague and which require a discussor to do their own homework to decide a nomination's fate because the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE. I have other things to do and I don't have time to point out policies which you should already know when you create the nom. Also, CBBC is one of the largest children's broadcasters in the world and 7TWO broadcasts throughout Australia. WP:N is clinched with the show's over-the-air coverage. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the nominator's benefit, WP:TVSHOW would be the guideline in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And it pretty much steers us back to GNG, from what I can see.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal Thanks, I had aleady gotten to it, but was unable to respond earlier. L3X1 (distant write) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that the fact it has been nominated for a Logie Award, is being aired in Australia, the UK and the US, pretty well establishes its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a review by The Independent. I dispute the allegation that Screen Australia is "like IMDB" or "don't count as notability sources". The article passes WP:TVSHOW with its appearance on at least one national TV network (it actually is on two such networks + netflix). The article has RS supporting the subject's notability. It also passes WP:GNG with substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from the refs and the context it is notable and adequately covered JarrahTree 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - rather a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. WP:TVSHOW states that: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. This show airs in more than three nations, the UK and Australia, as well as on Netflix for North America. Add the fact that it has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and that it was nominated for a Logie Award, I don't see any reasonable argument for this to not be kept. — Yash ^talk stalk 16:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Madison Misnomer[edit]

The Madison Misnomer (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)

Tabloid satire student paper that gets published maybe every other month. There's an interview with the editor in a 2010 edition of the Badger Herald student paper. The only other coverage is blowback the same editor received when he appeared in an Obama ad. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable small time publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 20 March 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 Politics of Iran. An ill-defined term, which appears to be just a general phrase rather than a specific name for a group of people. Yes, the phrase appears in many sources but none of them give a consistent definition. A redirect to Politics of Iran is the most appropriate course of action. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian moderates[edit]

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

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

• Redirect to Politics of Iran. Wikipedia:Notability: There is no solid literature around the term, which is apparently a neologism. Most of the article is WP:OR. Pahlevun (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have plenty of reliable sources that talk about "moderates" in Iranian politics:

• the Brookings Institute mentions "moderates" and "moderate conservatives" [6]
• The Atlantic ponders whether "moderates are actually hardliners" which proves the contentious nature of the term [7]
• The Telegraph also mentions "moderate conservatives" [8]
• The New York Times does the same [9]
• The Washington Post as well [10]

So, reliable sources show that (1) the term 'moderate' is part of the Iranian political parlance and that (2) the term is contentious.

Regarding the WP:OR claims, that's a content issue. Nominator is advised to tag what he considers OR so that it can either be referenced or removed from the article.

Also, the argument that the term 'moderate' is a neologism does not make sense considering that it has been mentioned since 1987 as shown by the Boyd reference. That's 20 years in the making.

IdlePheasant (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gnews reveals this to be a widely used term and concept. Also, the notion that it's a neologism is rather incredible to me: it's a term I've been hearing for about a generation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The term is mentioned, no doubt about it, but the first sentence in the article reads "The term Iranian moderate is subjective and lacks formal definition" (and the rest of it is unsourced). The subjects is not really clear. A few years ago, the term referred to the reformers, but now it is used for another grouping. It seems to me more of a journalistic, rather than a scholarly term. Pahlevun (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But the Gatestone Institute is not a news organizations and they still talk about moderates and the subjectivity of the term. [11] Furthermore, Wikipedia does not care if the term is used mostly by journalists, we only care about reliable sources. The sources provided above are considered as such. IdlePheasant (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentWe should not be using an institute described as Islamophobic for BLP articles. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it doesn't have to be "scholarly" - just for me the stub is so underdeveloped that it's little more than a sort of hybrid disambiguation/redirect page anyway. I won't be moving to the delete side, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I won't do so mainly because the article was created today and I think there is at least potential for growth here, and around the apparently changing concepts of Iranian moderates. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge into Iran–United_States_relations or Politics of Iran. This appears to be a term that can easily be defined by a dictionary or wiktionary definition. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, What about Iranian moderates would this article discuss that could not be discussed on the other Iranian articles? Waters.Justin (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what other articles you refer to, but the term moderates has been used to describe certain factions in Iranian politics since the 1980s. There are enough references available (and provided) to expand the article. In regards to what could be discussed here: (i) the debate regarding the use of the term 'moderates' to describe a certain faction, (ii) people belonging to that faction, and (iii) how moderates have played a role in Iranian politics. IdlePheasant (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Politics of Iran. This stub of an article attempts to define the term, but admits in the first sentence that the term is not well defined. This is essentially a WP:DICDEF, so not encyclopedic. Pburka (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, a sub-policy of the policy you just cited, this article must be kept because "the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." This article provides sufficient reliable sources that establish the notability of the term 'moderates' within the context of Iranian politics. Furthermore, per the policy you cited, "encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded." This article provides enough reliable sources so that editors can expand it beyond stub status. IdlePheasant (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That might be valid if this were a well-defined topic. Instead, the article says that the term "Iranian moderate" can refer to different groups. Which one of those groups is the topic of this article? Pburka (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirek Bodnar[edit]

Mirek Bodnar (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. Only sources are his own publishers. Cabayi (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was unable to find reliable independent sources to demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Warwick[edit]

David Warwick (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:NACTOR as all roles in TV series are insignificant (Doctor Who comes the closest, but even that was not a very large role). Lack of sources in the article, and lack of reliable sources available (on Google) also demonstrates this non-notability. Quasar G ^{t - c} 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What is to be gained by deleting this article about a well-known actor?DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that he is well-known? At the moment, the acting roles listed and the sources available do not support this view. Quasar G ^{t - c} 00:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He's certainly got credits, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions and cast lists. Pburka (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria Student[edit]

Northumbria Student (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)

Hard to tell if this monthly defunct student paper is notable without any sources. I was not able to locate any. Considering it only had a seven-year run, it probably isn't. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no evidence that this newspaper has ever been widely cited or talk about outside of its limited audience. Indeed, the article itself doesn't make any such claim. By the way, the paper's run was for only four years, not seven. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ang Lu Hiong[edit]

Andrew Ang Lu Hiong (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 person (WP:BIO) Brianga (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "National Robotics Competition" is actually "National Robotics Competition for Primary Schools" (and on top of that all participating schools appear to be Chinese-language schools). The kid is 20 years old and the "Career" section is virtually blank. Timmyshin (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Brianga I think his primary school teammate Jayden Yoon Zeng Khai should also be AFDed. Timmyshin (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Brianga (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayden Yoon Zeng Khai Timmyshin (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, references puffed up. I removed several that attest indirectly to his (routine) ability to organize a school blood drive.104.163.144.60 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a person who has excelled in student competitions, but there is nothing inherently notable about his actions. Winning primary school robotics competitions is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Week[edit]

The Weekly Week (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)

A bi-weekly satire newspaper that lasted a year and a half (forty-ish issues). Only found a passing mention in Splitsider. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Only trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 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 per consensus of opinion that this person's body of work doesn't meet notability criteria and that mention of her in Reliable Sources lacks significant coverage, being related only to a single event. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Grey[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)).

Erika Grey (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 bulk of the references are actually just author bios on various websites. The publisher "pedante press" appears to only publish Grey's book making them self-published and not inherently notable. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: called a "Bible-prophecy expert" by the New Yorker. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per prophecy expertise noted in reliable sources.[12][13] StAnselm (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Those 2 mentions are in WP:RS, The New Yorker and the Christian Post. Both are more than the usual quote-from-an-expert-on, albeit neither is extensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: Here is the Courier Times of Roxboro, North Carolina (dunno where Grey lives and if this is local or not,) covering a new book of here [14]. Note that it is published by "PeDante Press", which appears as though it may be self-published, at least, all books listed on Amazon.com as published by PeDante are by Erika Grey [15], and "Pedante Press" doesn't google well [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Grey's 2013 book The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the European Union is published by a vanity press, Next Century Publishing. My gNews search [17] found no mentions of this book. Nor do I find books under he name by searching the catalogue of a major library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd, E.M.Gregory (talk) - I clicked your link, and I found her book mentioned. Maybe click it again? Click the "The+Empire%3A+Bible+Prophecy+and+the+European+Union""&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 All results link. Try that: it shows Grey's book. OK, I can't get the 'All results' link to work: try this. Click your link: gNews search [18] and then click the 'All results' link at the bottom: that shows her book (whereas 1st glance did not).96.59.153.17 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The link in my comment above is a gNews search. It "found no mentions of this book" in any secondary sources. It did produce 1 hit, to an online bookseller. 96.59.153.17, what is needed are WP:RS that discuss & describe the book. things like book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an expert in this gNews search of which you speak, but here, let me tell you what I did. I clicked the little "7" link above, and got one "hit," but below it, there was a blue-clickable-link that said "All results for "The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the ... »," and I clicked it. I got both Barnes & Noble and also Kobo and also some book-seller in a foreign language and also something ending in "dot UK and also "The+Empire:+Bible+Prophecy+and+the+European+Union""&source=bl&ots=nSFRvHUfVg&sig=qKr09yJQcyHJOKZw4pNxWHzwEyo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDwpm5_8nSAhWEeSYKHcJYAMgQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Empire%3A%20Bible%20Prophecy%20and%20the%20European%20Union%22%22&f=false a Google books hit and also some alternative website, maybe hers?? and even a page off her official namesake website, as well as something in Ireland here, and also one of our mirrors, plus also a big headache! Then, if I click the blue-link below that which says: "repeat the search with the omitted results included," I get like "About 335 results (0.59 seconds)," And a bigger headache! Let's see you write a book that gets so many hits! OK, let's do an experiment: HERE is a book by a friend, ok? Now, if you put "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?: Empirical Methodologies and the Bible" (the title to that) into http://News.Google.com, like you did, you get NO hits! So, Grey must be notable after all. We all should be jealous and bust our butt so our books can get notability!96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Despite the recent Trump-related coverage mentioned above, I am not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per EM Gregory BobLaRouche (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This author has been on Coast to Coast AM, at this profile, has authored many books on Amazon.com, and has been cited by The Christian Post in this article. I did not see it, but another editor mentions that she is cited in this article in the New Yorker. (I'm jealous that I'm not as notable!) In all honesty, somewhat borderline, but she definitely makes the grade as notable enough to have an entry and not get deleted, by a small, but definite margin: she has made her mark on the world, and our obligation is to report (not make up, and not out-of-hand "delete") the news. Erika Grey is newsworthy, and thus noteworthy of an entry into an Encyclopedia on the subject on Bible prophecy as it relates to the world's geopolitical developments.96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• With all due respect, E.M.Gregory (talk), I take issue with that! My IP address changes, and I will give you but one example: this diff in the Bohemian Grove article showed my IP address 96.point.something (actually 96.59.138.30, not the 96.59.153.17 which I got by the luck of the draw, today), but not this exact IP address each time, so, no, I'm not a "one purpose" editor or a WP:SPA single-purpose account as you Wikipedians call it!!96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum I noticed this news item in a paper covering "Roxboro" and "Person." Another editor wondered if this was a local paper: For what it's worth, Grey appears to be living in Connecticut, according to her Twitter account (and her own website, which at this link speaks of a Connecticut doctor who was her doctor), which is nowhere near Roxboro,_North_Carolina (a City in North Carolina) and Person_County,_North_Carolina (a County in North Carolina). Perhaps, the other editor was wondering if she only got news coverage from local papers? Apparently, she's 'big time', and the Courier Times from far-off NC felt she was newsworthy. (I'm really jealous now!!) "Keep."96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Page views are spiking upwards (probably due to the Coast to Coast appearance), along with a cool graph of views. And here is an unofficial VfD (Votes for Deletion) vote-counter and here is misc. page information. (These are cool links we can use for any page, not just this one.) Time to take notes and bookmark pages.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see any notability criteria giving a pass to people with books sold on Amazon (half the frigging world can say that much), to those who've been guests on CoastToCoastAM, or who've been namedropped in NN publications. Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as the GNG requires? What part of WP:AUTHOR does she fulfill? I don't see it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• reply OK, about the Amazon thing, heck, yeah I agree: Even I have a book on Amazon. No big deal, if that's all it were, but the author is notable for many more things, and so it is the weight of cumulative evidence. In her field, she's noteworthy.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• She's also mentioned at this radio program and at this other one here. She gets around. When you can get on C2C-AM, and get on all these shows, you can speak from experience. Me and you, we just dream of stuff like that. Addendum: This blog, and this online paper and this book website, and even this page at Right Wing Watch. 96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the New Yorker an "NN publication" seems a bit over the top. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, StAnselm (talk), but calling ALL of these in sum-total to be 'no name' publications is even worse: Sure, some are less worthy news sources than others, but the "lesser" news sources do nothing but ADD to the cake. The cake is there, and if there are some so-called 'no name publications,' they are merely icing on the cake: The cake is quite solid.96.59.153.17 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources' User:StAnselm, I did find that first source in one of my searches, CanaryCryRacio [[19]] Is self-describes as a podcast, a sort of audio blog. It didn't look like a meaningful secondary source. Was I wrong?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The billmartinezlive.com/ show [billmartinezlive.com/] hosted by Bill Martinez interviewed her. He's got 5,000 followers on twitter and 5,000 on Facebook. Is this enough?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what defense St. Anselm might give, but I will point out that after having cleaned up the article (and, as I said, above, no, I'm not a WP:SPA: I edit elsewhere, but my IP changes]]), the case for notability or newsworthiness has increased by about one order of magnitude. You can see the article page, and judge for yourself: I may not be perfect, but my edits are all made in WP:Good Faith, and, on balance, apparently helpful & accepted by others, but take a look: This one is worth saving.96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A number of others have discovered numerous credible secondary sources citing the woman. I imagine more could be found, but that would require Googling and get me a headache. I'll leave it to the experts to find any more sources, if needed.47.192.27.215 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— 47.192.27.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I just now noticed this: http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html her personal page lists her appearences, and while I can't verify the absolute accuracy of them, the few about which I know, on this list, are correct: She is one VERY BUSY person, and is like "Savoir-Faire," she is "everywhere!". This, of course, does not (all by itself) warrant or justify an Encyclopedia entry, but it sure doesn't hurt. Also, I would add that while she is probably only in some "professional organization" directories or "religious" encylopedias (and hinted by her copious & ubiquitous presence on their online counterparts), her possible absence in a "regular" encyclopedia (say: Brittanica as but one example) is not necessary fatal to her entry here: Times are a changing, and so we must change with them: An online encyclopedia e.g., Wikipedia is (or should be) more inclusive than one you might find in your local public library. So, based on these factors, she seems appropriate here (even if, I admit, not as 'notable' as, say, Dr. Billy Graham).(Google lookup on phrase above and related video - funny!. My 0.02 worth.96.59.160.94 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- There are about as many interpreters of Biblical eschatology as commentators. If PeDante Press really publishes nothing but her work, it is self-published (or effectively so), in which case the article should be treated as a mere ADVERT and deleted. Her two books on beating addiction are both published in the same year, which also does not inspire confidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, you raise some good points. I did not know about this aspect of her publishing, but I did a little research and find that NOVEL RANK lists only one book as having been published by them: "The Seat of the Antichrist." However, AMAZON at this link shows a bunch of books, all by her as an author, but every single book in this list has a co-author other than Grey: "by Erika Grey and Lawrence D Palmer" are the authors for one book and "Erika Grey and Lia Frederick" for the rest. The very fact that Amazon lists more then NovelRank suggests to me that these rankers are not exactly comprehensive. (But I would not imagine much would get past Amazon.com. Her authorship, if it were the only thing, might be suspect if she was self-published and didn't sell a lot. But many others think she is an expert, so the book issue is icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Now, http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html lists her schedule. As I said before, I can not vouch for the accuracy of her list, but in several cases, I did some checking, and all the entries I checked were actual cases where she was a guest. The fact that she is a guest on a regular basis (and not as a "one-time" thing), indicates that many others objectively consider her some sort of expert. Myself, as smart as I am, still, by contrast, I'm very lucky to get ONE letter to the editor, or in rare occasion, a guest column, published. And, I have never been a guest on any program, at least in recent memory. I am lucky to call in, and this is in spite of my brilliance, the fact I've written a book, and also accomplished some very impressive things in the legal field, which was not the degree with which I graduated from college. (It was in other than law; I studied hard biosciences.) So, you see, unless you can put together such a solid record of being cited in tap-ranked journals, or put on numerous shows on a regular basis, then I would not stand on equal ground: whether her views are correct or not is not actionable (tho she does seem mostly accurate, at the least). That many others, objectively, think so, when she makes the TV, talk show, or radio show tour on a regular basis [20], and/or gets cited by credible reliable sources is a valid metric. That she has also books is merely additional, not substantive. (But, ten or so books is still impressive; and I would faint under such a heavy TV talk/radio show, and schedule for conferences, unless I devoted myself singly to that: The sheer volume of her TV/radio/conference appearances indicates that she is no small-potatoes expert, in the objective eyes of numerous news media/conferences/etc. So I scanned a few of her appearances, as I said earlier, and verified as accurate at least those few I checked: I might be stronger, faster, and smarter than Grey in a head-to-head battle, but in her specialty, she is much better than me. Here is evidence (even if not proof) of her notability on this head: others (who invite her HERE on a regular basis think so). This implies notability.96.59.183.125 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.183.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

• KEEPI have been one of the early contributors of this article and I believe numerous other people accept her as notable as she is regularly invited on radio talk shows and is listed in a key Evangelical Christian directory in her genre.32.208.50.163 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 32.208.50.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While there is disagreement here, I would point out two things: First, notability is inherent in the WP:RS, not our views of them or the subject of the article. Secondly, a good number of comments, on both sides of the issue, have been discussed on this discussion page (and elsewhere, when you include the talk page, Talk:Erika_Grey, individual talk pages, and even in edit comments. One overlooked point was the lack of comparability between a "physical" encyclopedia, with its inherent limitations on space, and an electronic, or online, encyclopedia. I won't reinvent the wheel, but rather refer to the already-robust discussion above, as required reading material for anyone before they aspire to vote. Also, I do find it odd that nothing has been done, even though it has been slightly over a week since the last or most-recent relisting on the 15th.96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.177.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

• With all due respect, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric, that is not entirely correct: I have not only edited recently on other VfD pages such as Glayton Modise and The World Tomorrow (radio and television), but I've also edited other articles, such as Frederick Samuel Modise and the Bohemian Grove article, so it is not entirely correct to assert that I am a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, but my IP address is dynamic, and randomly changes because my ISP is a cheap company that does not have static or dedicated IP addresses LOL. Just saying, to correct the record. Nonetheless, I am sure that you acted in WP:Good Faith, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. (Not that a SPA is necessarily always bad, but I just wanted to correct the record.) 96.59.159.254 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — fails WP:AUTHOR. Coverage in sources is mostly either trivial, incidental, or one-event. Body of work is obviously self-published and not critically cited. Similarly fails WP:GNG due to lack of extensive, significant coverage. Pretty much at best, as far as attempting to establish expertise, we would have [21], which is solely due to a single appearance (Coast to Coast AM, a show that basically also gives random appearances to the Ancient Aliens/tinfoil-hat/pseudoscience crowd) and is probably de facto a self-published media-release biography. She's admittedly covered in exactly 3 news articles ([22] [23] and [24]) that all popped up at the same time (inauguration), which even more seems to reflect the coverage as, at best, WP:BIO1E (i.e., "you'll never guess what some people are saying about Trump!"). --slakr^\ talk / 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly as per Slakr. She's a self-published author who isn't truly recognized as an expert in her field, and who has attracted limited attention from non-notable media appearances. The limited coverage in reliable sources appears to have been around the time of the inauguration and has not continued. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 24 March 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 Sheelah. No evidence that this person is notable on their own. Per WP:MUSICBIO, a redirect to the band's article is the standard procedure. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Li[edit]

Sara Li (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)

She is not notable beyond the band she is a part of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Per WP:MUSIC section 2 and 11, 12 she has had a chart listed song on the main Swedish chart.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment BabbaQ did she chart as a solo performer or in the band? Do you have a source? Flat Out (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All I can find in terms of charting songs is one song which featured her (Mirakel), and which spent one week at number 19 at Sverigetopplistan in 2012. However, she is not credited as the main artist at sverigetopplistan.se , it only says "feat. Sara". She does not appear to have had any solo releases at all, judging by the information at her own website. She was also a member of a band which had several charting songs, but not while she was a member of the band, so that does not factor into her notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not change the fact that she covers section 12 on WP:MUSIC which makes her notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:MUSICBIO point 12, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."? The article does not mention this at all, nor did I find anything about it when I was looking for sources. Could you please provide some details about when that "broadcast segment" (weird term IMO) took place, and through which medium? --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC: 'Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band.' O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore to give proof of how she fails several sections of WP:MUSIC which has been raised as proof that she is notable. Her participation in Melodifestivalen and her finslist status alone makes her notable per WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Charting song http://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Bj%F6rn+Ranelid+feat%2E+Sara+Li&titel=Mirakel&cat=s J 1982 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the discussion above, that's the song that was briefly at no 19 of the Sverigetopplistan. She does not seem to have been the main artist, though - it says "Feat." and to me that seems like a deal breaker. --bonadea contributions talk 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That she has a featuring status is irrelevant. Especially since she participated in the Melodifestivalen with the song as co-singer of the track.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Melodifestivalen is not a claim to notability - the song which featured her finished in 10th place per this source. I have posted to the NMUSIC talk page to ask about "featuring" - I would like to know what the general consensus is. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is placed 10th is also irrelevant concerning notability or not. It reached the final in a major TV production and was one of the top 10 songs. And per section point 12 of the WP:MUSIC consensus standard for inclusion she is relevant. Per 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.. And when I came to think about it she also passes criteria 1. as well. BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melodifestivalen is a contest, not a television feature or documentary (fails criterion 12), and so her participation there certainly doesn't mean she meets WP:MUSICBIO - criterion 9 is quite clear on this, only the winner, runner-up, and third place count, even if we ignore the fact that she is not credited as a main artist for the song. As for criterion 1 - really? How is that? There is one source in the article that is about her, and that's an interview - where are the multiple published sources about her, as opposed to sources briefly mentioning her name while discussing the main artist? Because those are the only sources I can find, trivial mentions of her at best. I would not be opposed to redirecting the article to the article about the band she was in, though. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sheelah Per WP:MUSICBIO Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band,. The charting songs are part of the band. The only other song which is relevant was the one in which the subject was a featured artists. I do not see any proof to show notability independent of the band. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote does not mention above tslked about sections of WP:MUSIC which she does passes. You say you dont see proof, but you give no proof that she fails the threshold.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sheelah since she was a member of this group from 2009 to 2010. She does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or the more general WP:BIO. It's possible there are more sources out there that I did not find (I don't read Swedish) but there is nothing in the article to justify keeping this bio. Meters (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sheelah as per above editors. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give an explaination for this !vote otherwise it becomes irrelevant. How is she not notable, per which sections of which guidelines?--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article covers section 2, 11 and 12 of WP:MUSIC it is a fact. A song she was part of charted, and she participated and reached the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major singing competition event broadcast on Swedens main channel SVT. The article is sourced with good sources. The !votes above are basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT per the fact that they dont mention the fact that she covers WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC per above mentioned sections. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite BabbaQ's claims, this is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. This is a case of an article not showing the notability of its subject, and of the subject possibly not being notable. bonadea showed that the subject does not meet MUSIC criterion 2 and you appeared to accept that. Criterion 12 has also been discussed. I agree that simply being a 10th place contestant on a music show does not meet the standard of being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment". As for criterion 11, there is no claim in the article that she "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Please provide sources showing this if this is the case. As for criterion 1, again, there is no claim or evidence in the article that she has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". If there is such coverage please provide the sources. I've looked without finding such sources, but as I said, I don't read Swedish, so I may have missed them. Most of English Wikipedia editors likely have the same problem. Meters (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Whether or not its redirected can be a different RfC. L3X1 (distant write) 17:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: 'Redirect' is a valid policy-based result for an AfD. You realise this isn't a RfC though? From your comment it isn't completely clear. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Sorry my !vote isn't clear. The reason I gave duality is J 1982's keep argument is good yet looks a slightly flimsy to me, and Meter and Lemongirl's votes aren't convincing enough to make me vote Redirect. Her being "feat." is of less interest to me then the song only getting to 19, but I suppose 19 is better than not at all. Now I'm leaning more towards redirect. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 3 Keep*, 3 Redirect, 2 Del+Nom. *= I'm fine with redirect, but I support the relisting. Should we ping others?L3X1 (distant write) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote. It's a consensus based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The policy based arguments, in my opinion, don't support keeping this as an article. The AFD has been open for almost 3 weeks, and no new sources have been added to the article to help establish notability. For that matter, there have been no content additions to this article since the day it was created almost 4 years ago. If she's notable let's see the evidence, because I can't find it. Meters (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more than aware. If a consensus exists, it is keep. That was all I was stating. And consensus is based off the merits of the arguments, if we're going to keep quoting WP at each other. L3X1 (distant write) 23:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are aware, then don't don't bother posting a count. It just makes inexperienced editors think this is a vote. The closing admin will evaluate the arguments. Meters (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why this attitude. This is an Keep worthy article and user L3X1 agrees with me and other editors of that. No need to be pointy and having an attitude about it. As you state, the closing admin will consider reasons given. So why be pointy about someone elses reasonings. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • But while we are at it. There is no consensus for deletion, or redirect. Then Keep for new re-evaluation in the future is the way it should closed. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her band as we have so often in the past. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant per WP;OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We dont base !votes on previous and other AfDs. You give no explaination for your !vote either.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Users are entitled to !v without you jumping down their throats every sentence. Please just let the process evolve organically: you will change neither the editor's opinion not the closing admin's decision, so way to waste your time  :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see "this behaviour all the time. It is called making an argument, you would have never made this "tantrum" comment if I had shared your opinion on this article. If you are so sure about it getting deleted or having no impact than why respond. I think your biggest concern is that I do not share your opinion :)BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing user - The article has been expanded and improved since the article was nominated for AfD. BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BabbaQ asked me User_talk:Meters#Sara_Li to review the new material [25] added to the article. The birth of her daughter is not notable. The 10th place finish at Melodifestivalen 2012 has already been analysed above by User:Bonadea and does not show notability. The appearance on Så ska det låta doesn't show notability in my opinion. It's just a guest appearance in one episode of a musical game show show that has been running for 22 seasons. I don't object to adding this material to the article, but none of it shows notability. Meters (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So you basically ignore the sources. POV does not trump Wikipedia guidelines. Sara Li covers several sections of WP:MUSIC above. I understand your position but no one still has given me anything else than POV. Or a drive-by !vote of redirect without any further commenting. I just find it a bit odd overall. BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV? I didn't ignore the sources. You asked me to look at the new material and I did. The sources are fine (well, the Så ska det låta source is a bit weak). They just don't contribute to showing Li's notability. She had a daughter. So what? Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not make her notable. Adding a sourced mention that she finished 10th in the Melodifestivalen 2012 contest rather than just participating is an improvement to the article, but again, it does not show her notability. As I said, Bonadea has looked at this and shown that it is not sufficient for notability. And, as I also said, I don't think one guest appearance on a long-running musical game show show is sufficient for notability either. Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not help show notability. The show may be notable but simply appearing on it does not make musicians notable. Meters (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The 4-Hour Body. (and/or Low-glycemic diet). Most arguments revolve around being basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of both of those, so I rounded to Merge per that guideline. It looks like the argument is that the science behind it is Low-glycemic diet; notability/critical examination cited is actually of The 4-Hour Body and/or Low-glycemic diets as a whole; the rest WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Incidentally I noticed the proper name matches the name of the author's blog, which gives further weight to the arguments of the article being largely promotional in nature. slakr^\ talk / 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-Carb Diet[edit]

Slow-Carb Diet (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 are no secondary sources used except to make OR claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are 227,000 results on Google for "Slow-Carb Diet" so I think this is notable enough to have an article. Yes, it needs more and better sources. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 361,000 hits on google for "Mjolnir Pants". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

True with a margin of error of 360675 ;-) Pengliujian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes there are. I never said I included the quotes. I didn't think I needed to to make my point. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the issue here is notability, then I don't think there is any debate. The 4-Hour Body (the book that launched the diet) was in the NYT bestseller list for three weeks and was in Amazon's top five for two months. The diet has also spawned a slew of websites and blogs. A more interesting question is whether the diet as such deserves a whole article, or whether it should be moved to The_4-Hour_Body or Low-glycemic_diet.Pengliujian (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Websites and blogs?! We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - so we'd be looking for coverage in nutrition text books, secondary works in journal articles, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below about journal articles - journals tend to use the term "low glycemix index" rather than "slow carb", though the two are used interchangeably, which is another reason why I have suggested moving this to Low-glycemic_diet. For non-academic sources (which are relevant here, since we are discussing a popular diet, not a trend in nutritional science) there are plenty of popular books advocating/explaining the diet, providing recipes etc. I don't have the time to investigate them or the money to buy them, though. Please remember that I am not the original author of this page; I just cleaned it up and added some missing information (the sections on Scientific Support, Criticisms and Variations). Pengliujian (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is prohibited by policy. If sources don't state or imply things specifically about the "Slow Carb Diet" you cannot take it upon yourself to do so on Wikipedia's behalf, and make a WP:COATRACK. This is fairly basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I was talking about. I am saying that this article should form a section in Low-glycemic_diet because (a) the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet; (b) the literature uses the terms "slow carb" and "low GI" interchangeably. Generally speaking, scientific/medical journals say "low glycemic index carbohydrates" and more popular sources say "slow carb", but I've seen both terms appear as key words in the same journal article. If you put sources which refer to "low GI" in the slow-carb article, then it would indeed look like synthesis to anyone who wasn't familiar with the topic. (You also have potential confusion between "a slow-carb diet", which refers to any low GI diet, and "the slow-carb diet", which generally refers to Ferriss's version of it. Again this would be cleared up by making this a section inLow-glycemic_diet.) Pengliujian (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete entirely promotional and sourced almost entirely from the book in which the diet is proposed; would need to be completely rewritten to be a WP article, and there are insufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources with which to do that - this fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the need for secondary sources. The problem is, as I state in the article, that there are no controlled studies of the Slow-Carb diet, and I don't want to include low-quality sources. There's a ton of anecdotal stuff, but I don't think that is worth including. What I can do is cite some of the sources that Ferriss himself cites, but that will take some time. Pengliujian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doing that in WP would be WP:SYN. Ferriss can do that; you cannot as a WP editor. We summarize secondary sources here - to meet WP:Golden rule there needs to multiple, independent sources with substantial discussion of the diet. Where are they? If you cannot find them either, please stop arguing. Thx Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point, but I don't think it would be WP:SYN if it's stated along the lines of "Ferriss cites X to support Y." OTOH, it would not then constitute an independent source, which is why I didn't originally do this and just stated "Although The 4-Hour Body contains copious references to the scientific/medical literature, no controlled, peer-reviewed study of the slow-carb diet as such exists to date." As I said, I can provide hundreds of sources from blogs, diet magazines etc., but I was trying to restrict myself to scientific literature and publications with a very wide circulation like WebMD. (I also found Fox News, but didn't want to discredit the article ;-))The point is that the article is not making any claims about the efficacy of the diet (nor should it), but simply describes it, so there is no need for sources outside the original author, except in the sections "Scientific Support" and "Criticisms". (In fact, I replaced some secondary sources with references to the primary sources, since in that case, the latter are more authoritative). Anyway, I've found a few more usable sources (e.g., Mayo Clinic) and will add later today. Pengliujian (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the Mayo clinic for health claims (it's not a WP:MEDRS). A single word mention hardly counts as substantial coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's in the Criticisms section, not the Scientific Support section. Pengliujian (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Terrible puff-piece on a non-notable diet. At most a mention in The 4-Hour Body may be due. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article is purely descriptive and does not advocate the diet. Pengliujian (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this condemnation of the article have anything to do with my recent comments in Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques by any chance? I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to try to have someone's contributions deleted because they disagreed with you on a talk page. Pengliujian (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor makes problematic edits on one fringe topic, it's natural to check if there is a wider problematic pattern - this led me to this (problem) article. As it happens, I edit on fad diet topics a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Pengliujian (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move. Merge Since the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet, it might be better to condense and move this to Low-glycemic_diet, except for the parts which deal with the reception of the book, which should go to The 4-Hour Body, and some parts which can be safely lost (e.g., the recipes section). The dearth of high-quality secondary sources referred to above is largely because any serious assessment of this type of diet uses the term "low GI" rather than "Slow Carb". Pengliujian (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this above, and you didn't answer. To have any content about this in WP, much less a whole article, we need independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss it. As the WP page of the author of this diet notes, the guy is a relentless self-promoter. So I ask you again - please provide three such sources about this diet. High quality, independent, secondary sources. What are they? Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point - to labour it somewhat - is that there are plenty of high quality sources discussing low GI diets; this is a popular low GI diet; therefore, it should be a section in the Low-glycemic_diet article. In the literature - and the industry - where "slow carb" or "slow carbohydrate" is used, it is synonymous with "low GI". (See, for example, Peters et al. (2011) "Effect of carbohydrate digestibility on appetite and its relationship to postprandial blood glucose and insulin levels"; Mitchell (2008) "The glycemic index concept in action"; Hamm (2009) Die richtige Ernährung für Sportler.) We should remember that Ferriss did not invent the slow carb concept or term; he simply tweaked and popularised it, something that I tried to make plainer with my last edit. Pengliujian (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even here you are promoting this by calling it a "popular diet" and I ask you a direct question and you offer me sloppy garbage about the general concept instead of this particular diet. I am done asking for independent, reliable sources about this diet - there clearly are none and you clearly can produce none. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this deletion discussion, btw. (pls read WP:BLUDGEON if you have never have) Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Etiquette. Pengliujian (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is now impossible to improve the page because Alexbrn is reverting changes. I have tried to address the criticisms that it is promotional by only focusing on Ferriss's diet; however, any attempt to include information on slow carb diets in general (i.e., other than Ferriss's) are reverted. Pengliujian (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal rules of editing are not suspended because the article is at AfD. Adding completely unsourced notions, as you did here is a non-no; doing it to try and skew the AfD takes us into disruptive territory. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to be helpful by responding to your pointing out (on the talk page) the fact that the cheat day is not a part of all low GI diets. The disruption is all on your part. You have scheduled an article for deletion then sabotage any attempt to improve it. Pengliujian (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies like WP:NOR and WP:V which are not optional. Adding dubious material in contravention of them does not improve the article, it makes it even worse. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was you that pointed out that a cheat day was not part of most low GI diets: "Are you seriously proposing that when researchers write about low GI diets, they have in mind that the subject is interchangeable with a trademarked fad diet with its gimmicky cheat days &c. ?!" This is not OR; it is disambiguation, since otherwise the reader might not realise that a cheat day is - as you say - peculiar to this particular diet (the idea seems to be borrowed from cyclic ketogenic diets, but that's another story). Still, I'm done with trying to be helpful, since you are determined to have the article deleted come what may. Pengliujian (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting awefully personal for a namespace that admins regularly watch. I suggest you take it down a notch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bırol Guven[edit]

Bırol Guven (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)

Sources of questionable reliability do not appear to demonstrate notability. Created at this incorrect title apparently due to page protection at both Birol Guven and Birol Güven, both salted due to incessant socking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable filmmaker. We do not have sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of South Carolina Aiken. Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pacer Times[edit]

Pacer Times (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)

Student newspaper that serves three thousand undergrads. Couldn't find anything to indicate notability. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to an appropriate new section in University of South Carolina Aiken. Generally speaking, some content about a university's newspaper is appropriately included somewhere in our coverage of the university. In addition to the primary-source paper and school websites, at least a few other sources are available to verify the content here, such as [26][27] Without more, these sources are not enough to warrant a separate article, but it's relevant content about the university, and better merged than deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with University of South Carolina Aiken. The Pacer Times does not have notability independent of the university, and it is not covered in secondary sources. Imalawyer (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyle Shield[edit]

Hoyle Shield (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)

Seems to fail on all known notability grounds. This is really an engineering concept and as far as I know we don't have any notability guidelines for proposed systems like this, so I think the only thing we can go by is WP:GNG. I don't really see it passing any of those criteria as it seems that only associated people and flash-in-the-pan news-sources have covered this particular idea of William E. Smith (himself not notable, I believe). jps (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only two GS hits, both by Smith, neither of which has more than 2 citations (all of which are self-citations, in this rather dubious "journal"). So there are no independent reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Not seeing a lot of RS, and seems all a bit Crystal bally to me.14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theories are highly notable. This isn't so much INHERITED as tagging weakly onto its coat tails. If this very large project is real, then it has to demonstrate notability for itself. I'm unconvinced that it can achieve either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with reasons stated by others. Dismally small number of hits in google for this. It's an interesting idea, but it's WP:TOOSOON for this article without some markedly better sources. --Krelnik (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with @Andy Dingley: Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lateef Bakare[edit]

Lateef Bakare (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) 13:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the references in the article suggest that the subject of this article meets notability guidelines. The references are primarily about other subjects, such as Bakare's employer, making only passing mentions to Bakare himself. Deli nk (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Track Burnaz[edit]

The Track Burnaz (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 duo exists, they do good work. They are not notable. Current sourcing consists of mere mentions, non-RS (Genius & Twitter), and a press release. Searches turned up a few mentions, but no in-depth coverage of the duo. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV for the group. Articles don't go in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starling Software[edit]

Starling Software (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) 10:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Has been created and edited by a range of new WP:SPAs, (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnewtonSoft), all but one reference added were to completely different companies, the one reference remaining is simply a business listing. Nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP Melcous (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (possible CSD A7): An article on a start-up firm, sourced only to a business listing. My searches are finding nothing better. (Note that there is also a similarly named company in Brazil [28] and others in South Africa, India, etc.) Regarding this one, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iain D. Campbell[edit]

Iain D. Campbell (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)

His death had some news coverage, but fails WP:BIO1E. Being Moderator of the Free Church does not confer notability: it is a rotating leadership position in a relatively small (13,000 people) denomination. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (declaration of interest - I created the article). The subject's death has been covered widely in numerous media. He was a published author with at least 12 books to his name. An obituary said "Iain was a well-known figure in Evangelical circles throughout Britain, and beyond, and tributes have already come in from the USA and elsewhere". The Daily Telegraph described him as a "well-respected minister who was known as a talented preacher and accomplished theologian". It is clear that he was influential beyond his own small denomination. The circumstance of his death were unusual and notable. I submit that all these reasons combine to meet WP:GNG. SmilingFace (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectives used - well-respected, talented, accomplished - are all ones that fall short of notability. If he wasn't notable before his death, WP:BIO1E suggests he shouldn't have an article now. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I have now located 17 books he authored, two he was joint editor of, and 1 he contributed to. Also...

From [29] :

He could have adorned pulpits in the largest cities in the world or become a professor in an American seminary, but he valued the community which nourished and nurtured him, and he shared their values (Geoff Thomas (pastor))

Iain D. Campbell was a brilliant communicator, in constant demand as a lecturer and conference-speaker... But he was also a master of the written word, as his many publications show (Donald Macleod (theologian))

He was a gifted Reformed theologian who longed to see it taught faithfully, warmly, imaginatively and clearly. (Dr. Malcolm Maclean, chair of the board of Edinburgh Theological Seminary)

From [30]:

Iain D was a rare gift – a brilliant communicator, an academic, a master of the written word and a pastor...It is hard to over-estimate the colossal impact of Iain D. Campbell’s ministry both locally, nationally and internationally (Gavin Mackemzie, Christian Focus Publications)

From [31]:

Dr Campbell was understandably in demand as a conference speaker throughout the country and overseas. He was due to go to Korea later this month to deliver lectures at a Theological Seminary in Seoul. In addition to his powers of speech he also possessed admirable writing skills...His writings are marked by rigorous research, clarity, faithfulness to Scripture, humility, purpose and an obvious concern to honour and exalt the God who had so wonderfully gifted him as a communicator of the gospel (Rev James Maciver, minister of Stornoway Free Church)

I quoted all that because point 1 of WP:AUTHOR says The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The subject's peers clearly regard him as an important figure and hence this criteria is met. Combine that with the unusual circumstances of his death, his body of work, and I submit that, whether or not he was notable before his death, he is notable now. SmilingFace (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- (1) Author of a significant body of books (2) as Moderator of a significant denomination he was in a position similar to a bishop. While that office is for a shorter term and less prominent, it probably still makes him WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know the person, and have not verified if I am correct, but it's not impossible that if notable, it be because of the extra-marital affair and suicide, if it made the papers. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Addressing the nominators point that "Being Moderator of the Free Church does not confer notability: it is a rotating leadership position in a relatively small (13,000 people) denomination." First, are we sure that being FCofS moderator does not confer notability? By means of comparison, the four year rotating leadership position of an organization of 14,000 people seems to convey notability on its incumbents. Granted it is not quite the same - four years not one but the organizational sizes are similar. Secondly, is the denomination really that small? It could be argued that while it is small by historical standards, it is currently the fourth largest denomination in Scotland, easily has many more people in its churches on a Sunday than the majority of denominations in the UK (some of which really are small) and, in parts of the highlands and islands, it is the majority religious organization. In general, if there are multiple reliable sources for moderators such that there is enough material for biographical articles of decent length then I fail to see why we could not create them. There seems to be easily enough for an article in this case and all of that is without considering the subject's volume of published works or professorial chair. Greenshed (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take a view on whether every moderator of the Free Church of Scotland is notable. But for the subject of this article, I believe the combination of factors (former moderator, body of work, wider roles, manner of death) is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. SmilingFace (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amine Ibn El Boushaki[edit]

Amine Ibn El Boushaki (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 judoka - did not compete at the highest levels. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is tricky. It's a poor article with many style and grammar errors - and I'm confused as to why MC Alger football team has a judo team, but then it seems to have a volleyball team too - but it was brought here not for that, but for notability. If the subject really was in the national team for 7 years, it is likely that he "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" (WP:SPORTBASIC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Judo that would be World Championships or the Olympics - and there is no evidence that he competed there or anywhere else internationally (WP:MANOTE).Peter Rehse (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Change my !vote to Delete Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There appears to be no record of him competing at a major event, even as a junior (which is generally considered insufficient to show notability), so WP:NSPORT and WP:MANOTE are not met. There also seems to be a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Smith (Singer)[edit]

Sherman Smith (Singer) (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)

Problems with existing references: 1.) This is a YouTube channel 2.) This is an Instagram page. It appears to show something like a newspaper article about the song "Slow", but I can't figure out what the newspaper is supposed to be nor anything else about the article's publication except the date (November 2014). Without knowing what the newspaper's name is, we can't know what its distribution is like, and so we can't assess its value to for establishing a notability claim 3.) This does not link to an article— it appears to be a Dutch music listing of some kind 4.) This ref comes from Cd Baby, which is not an independent source 5.) A verified Facebook page is not evidence of notability

• New Resource is added "Mr Ray Bas Guitar For Slow "; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamluigino (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on people likely to be him turns up listings at Soundcloud, the CD Baby music store, Skempi, and his Twitter account, but no substantive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG other than the aforementioned Instagram of a 4-paragraph article in a local newspaper. All other sources are social media, database listings, passing mentions, etc. The "new resource" referred to by the article creator above is to a blog by a bassist who played on one of the artice subject's singles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style & das Geld[edit]

Style & das Geld (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 stub created 4 years ago. Claimed to have "reached #7 in the German charts" but no evidence to support that claim. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unreferenced two sentence non-notable stub. SL93 (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment and nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:18, 22 March 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 Fler. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airmax Muzik II[edit]

Airmax Muzik II (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 since July 2011. No evidence charted or otherwise meets WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fler per nominator. Limited signs of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Jolly[edit]

Nandini Jolly (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. Outside of the promotional tone, I could not locate any significant, in-depth coverage of subject to establish notability. The closest I found was this from The Globe and Mail which reads more like a testimonial about the company [32]. CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found another in depth recent article a journalist did on Nandini. Do you suggest adding in the Globe and Mail one to the wiki page too? Link Therobmilne (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Therobmilne also created a badly styled article promoting her company's file format: Trusted Encrypted File (TEF) which is also up for deletion. I would say the person has a slightly better argument for notability, but this is clearly a vanity piece. W Nowicki (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:BIO. 1 article in the G&M is not significant coverage, nor establishes any enduring legacy or impact. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In fairness to the article's creator, I do think that the newly-added CPA Canada article strengthens the "keep" argument a little bit, but not enough. Essentially all we have here is a businessperson who started a company. I'm not seeing any claim to significance that goes beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:14, 15 March 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 Ray Lynch. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lynch Anthology[edit]

Ray Lynch Anthology (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 the artist himself (Ray Lynch) is a notable artist, the sheet music by the artist does not show any notability. Also, the original article creator seems to have a connection to the artist in question. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ray Lynch. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ray Lynch seems the most appropriate path. I agree with the above comment on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rishul Karia[edit]

Rishul Karia (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Prodded by User:RA0808, deprodded by creator without a rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I stand by my PROD rationale that this does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The subject of the article has no WP:SIGCOV, the only third party source that can be found is a local newspaper article. All other search results turn up sites like chessgames.com and chess-db.com that do not appear to be reliable sources. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nowhere near master strength, so not considered notable within WikiProject Chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As RA0808 points out, there is a mention in a local newspaper of him playing former World Champion Viswanathan Anand in the Super Rapidplay Open section at the 2014 London Chess Classic (also confirmed in a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph). But that is not enough to meet WP:GNG and merely playing a Grandmaster in a speed format of the game does not make one notable. To put his playing strength into perspective, his FIDE rating of 1744 puts him 2906th in the world for Under-18s. The article calls him an "Under 16 European Chess Champion," but the only source is his own school's website and I have not been able to verify what exactly this tournament is and if it was notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable chess playe.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Floyd[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, significant support. "References" are mostly unrelated to individual or are minor in nature. Advertising page created by related party. reddogsix (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any real claim to significance here. What I am seeing is an article that has been padded with lengthy digressions into the histories and backgrounds of people and organizations that had any connection to the subject. When you disregard those digressions, there really isn't very much being said about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Mover Advantage[edit]

Third Mover Advantage (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 credible claim of significance beyond self-published website. WP:COI and fails to meet WP:GNG. Also possibly WP:NOR. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NFT seems highly apropos. The article creator claims to have thought this up and there is no evidence of any notice by anyone else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frankowska[edit]

Anna Frankowska (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Being in a Top 30 specialized Forbes list does not cut it. Only two sources are about her (instead of mentioning her in passing), both seem to be primarily interviews, so not best for establishing notability, and neither (Belle Magazine, Real Business) seem to be particularly significant or reliable. At best, WP:TOOSOON to be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Hey Piotr, thanks for raising your concerns! Firstly, let me say that I made this article, and think that Anna is notable, as she is a young immigrant woman being covered by media in the UK business arena, that has been traditionally dominated by men. Which is a really notable feat, especially in the present Brexit climate! I have now added three more sources to this article, where Anna was featured. Including the British newspaper Metro, which with a circulation of 1,476,956 is the third most circulated paper in the United Kingdom, this is where I first read about Anna in the print version, when she had a double page spread. I have also added a reference to Bdaily a UK based local business news source, and I would not pass judgement that newer companies such as Real Business or Belle Magazine are not reliable straight away, especially in context to the current revelations about lack of authenticity in the traditional news media. I have also added an international news source from Poland WP Kobieta (Woman). WP is the sixth largest Polish web portal, and had an Alexa rank of 453 in December 2016. Also the sources that "mention her in passing" are in fact about her app, which is what she founded and is notable for, so in the given context they are appropriate in reference to her notability too. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also added references from British news sources, Tech City News, Growth Bussiness, one of the UK's largest banks NatWest's ContentLive, Business Quarter (BQ) a publication, that is title sponsor of the Scottish Export Awards (along with other sponsors HSBC and the government agency Scottish Enterprise). JuneKennedy (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think she is fairly notable and there are enough sources covering her achievements and success in the field of technology. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the editor does have a point, that being simply listed on Forbes alone may not be enough for notability, I think there maybe some confusion here about the Forbes sources. Forbes is referenced twice: one time as a list, but there is a second reference to another Forbes page, which is an article on her. Also her being on that Forbes list, is covered in other sources too. Taking all sources into consideration here, I would say she is notable. ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale))}$ ^{(${\displaystyle Talk}$)} 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She maybe young, but she is already notable in business and technology. Several references from reliable sources are now present. Beautiful future (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable businesswoman. More than adequate and reliable references for an article of this length. RajasthanSab (talk) 17:49, 18 March 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. Can't see any clear consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 05:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Jurgen[edit]

DJ Jurgen (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 does not assert the subjects notability or importance. Merge/Redirect the article to Alice Deejay maybe? JayCodec (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would support a merge, but I wonder why this needed to come to AfD - merges should be proposed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Always check the non-English versions folks. The Dutch article, while it has crap for sources, does appear (through crap machine translation) to list him making national charts per WP:NBAND. A Google news search shows about 300 sources, although basically none of them are in English, so it's hard to comment on their reliability or depth. But still, it's enough for me to slap on an expand Dutch tag and move on. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Two big hits with Alice Deejay, two lesser hits in the Netherlands credited to him alone. Good coverage isn't really jumping out at me from a GNews search - a lot of false positives for other DJs named Jurgen. Arguably satisfies WP:NMUSIC on his own, but as it stands, even if the en version were to be expanded from the nl version, it can all be easily covered in the Alice Deejay article. Definitely not a good deletion candidate either way. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SouLandscape[edit]

SouLandscape (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 came across this article via the related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KillTeaser. The article looked to have problems with notability and a search for sources brought up little to establish notability other than performing at some anime conventions and local events. They exist as a band, but that by itself doesn't give notability and there just isn't any coverage for them that would justify inclusion. They look to be a fairly obscure niche group and while they seem pretty awesome (they play in a lot of genres that I happen to like), the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG for all sorts of reasons. The only citation is to their own website. Not at all to my surprise, that is the only citation in the equivalent Japanese article also. Narky Blert (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Kasassoglou[edit]

Georgios Kasassoglou (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 does not seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. JayCodec (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archport Laboratories[edit]

Archport Laboratories (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:ORG. All the sources I could find are either WP:ROUTINE coverage or are not from independent sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Routine WP:CORPSPAM, I wish we could nuke such WP:YELLOWPAGES on sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pure WP:CORPSPAM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 16 March 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. Hut 8.5 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OFFER India[edit]

OFFER 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)

Was deprodded without rationale. While a worthwhile organization, no indication it meets notability criteria. Unfortunately, searches are difficult due to the commonality of the name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has useful information regarding sensitive issue. Many references to external verfiable sources like Times of India Tusharkumar101 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. This is an NGO that fails WP:NORG. Only one of the linked news sources seem focused on the NGO, and coverage of adoption of five children in three paragraphs seems WP:ROUTINE for this type of an NGO, and does not seem to make it encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles in The Economic Times (link 1 and link 2) do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The Wikipedia article says "OFFER" stands for "Organization for Friends, Energy and Resources". I searched for "Organisation for Friends, Energy and Resources" and "Organization for Friends, Energy and Resources" but did not find significant coverage about the subject. I did not find significant coverage when I searched for the NGO's name and the founder, Kallol Ghosh. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 05:54, 23 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reach the World[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD, no evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough evidence of notability. Founder Marc Gustafson mentioned on the Reach the World page hyperlinks to the Reach the World page. Going to need some secondary notable sources.Sgerbic (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing has changed in regards to notability since its last AfD nomination which ended in delete. SL93 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]