< 15 November	17 November >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blades (boutique)[edit]

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

Non notable boutique, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a shop. nn. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm hesitant, as there is plenty in the section on Rupert Lycett Green. But I think it really fits well on Green's page, and doesn't need it's own article. = paul2520 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Green himself is notable, the shop isn't. The citations are dead/empty but for one to a book that I can't verify as I don't have the book of course. But, none of the provide cites nor searches of the web turn up anything of note about the shop other than it was owned/operated by Green. Nothing in the article speaks to the shop's notability, and nothing in it is of use to the Green article that isn't already on the Green article, except for the picture. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The picture would work well in the section on Green's page, especially since there is not yet a photo in that article. = paul2520 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the image to the article :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked and the Dead (band)[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources, band that released one demo tape and a self-published album years later, no chart positions, no notable members. The major contributor to the article was a member of the band. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spitshine Records[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:MUSIC. I could not locate additional reliable secondary sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Bedfellows[edit]

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

Notability is asserted, but the article cites no reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real notability claim is a WCCA nomination. There's debate and no real consensus over whether a WCCA win establishes notability, so a mere nomination surely doesn't. ApLundell (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reliable sources have ever written anything about this webcomic as far as I have been able to find. The webcomic doesn't meet WP:GNG. ~Mable (chat) 09:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's some suggestions here on how to improve the article, which might include a rename. All of that can be done without further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education segregation in Mississippi Delta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

essay entry, reads like someone's thesis, was not deleted as it should have been after 2010 afd, at best find a suitable merge target Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Delete. Note previous AfD was overturned at DRV to no consensus. This article lacks sources all together in some POVish sections, overall fails WP:NOTESSAY, and should probably not be standalone from an overall segregation article for Mississippi.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Modified to neutral assuming rename + rewrite done as proposed below by Rhadow.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep unless someone can suggest a merge target. This is a poor article, but it does have academic sourcing. It is actually more about the desegregation process. Possibly restructuring it as Education in Sunflower County, Mississippi might provide it with more context. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945–1986 . All of the strong academic sourcing comes from this book. The rest of the sources are either (a) generic to desegregation in all of Mississippi, or (b) failed my efforts at verification. (I skimmed a copy of The Senator and the Sharecropper and could not find the quote.) Billhpike (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename Educational segregation in Mississippi Delta or Educational segregation in Mississippi (or similar) per Rhadow and Smmurphy. Billhpike (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge without redirect into Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945–1986 per Billhpike. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article may not stay with the same title, but I will take responsibility to turn it into something useful. The problem with the article is that it is three book reviews, not an article. A better article would describe the context of segregation and desegregation in Sunflower and Bolivar counties (adjoining). Cleveland, MS (in Bolivar) fought integration in the the courts until this year, 2017. Closer -- If the vote is to delete, please leave me a copy. Rhadow (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree and am striking my !vote in support of the idea. I also think a different title would possibly be good (as suggested by Peterkingiron) and maybe in the meantime userfication (if that is ok with Rhadow). Once cleaned up, they can think about the best title. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to delete this one - whoch has the wrong title, is essentially an essay / couple of book reviews mostly focused on Drew (and not even the entire county!) - and start anew (with a copy pasted of whatever is useful here) then keep and hope this will happen (it did not since the last afd). HEY may be possible here (couple with a rename) - but you need to do it first!Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Icewhiz -- It's easier to be critical than creative. Rhadow (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admire creativity, but in this case there is some legwork to be done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the developing ideas are not quite what I suggested. I would support them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't a chance this is going to end any other way, and WP:NOTBURO. Wikipedia is not a place for essays. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of Brexit on climate policy[edit]

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

Typical WikiEd project that is written as a term paper and not as an encyclopedia article. Excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTESSAY. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't be against userfying this, as I am sure some of the content is salvageable and usable in existing articles with a bit of editing. Unfortunately both this WikiEd participant and their course leader seem not to understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and an essay. As the nom says this falls foul of WP:NOTESSAY, and imo also WP:CRYSTAL (especially point 3). – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be some salvageable content, but this particular article isn't where to put it. I'd question the merits of userfication for the same reason, to be honest. I do share the concerns regarding the confusion about articles versus essays, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly against WP:NOTESSAY and WP:CRYSTAL as already shown above. Though I don't actually care to know how WikiEd project works but the project management has more problem that needs addressing than the newbie creators. For instance Data Politics, Racial Identity/Class in Colombia (Post-Abolition), Digital Divide in Colombia, The Digital Divide in Myanmar and many more are created in similar essay style from WikiEd Project and basically not conforming with many Wikipedia guidelines. These and many I know of have been either deleted or draftified in few hours of their creation this will only discourage the newbies creator when they understand there Adticles are deleted sooner than they thought of. — Ammarpad (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the people arguing to keep simply make assertions that WP:GNG is met, without explaining how. The strongest argument is from User:Fenix down, who gives a detailed analysis of why the suggested sources are insufficient.

There's a side-thread here about how WP:NFOOTY handles women, but that's something that should get hashed out in another forum. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaneta Wyne[edit]

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

Isn't notable: doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY as she hasn't played in a fully-pro league and hasn't represented a senior international team. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and sources referenced are WP:ROUTINE.

The C of E removed PROD, saying the forign language sources adequately cover GNG [sic]. However looking through those sources, the three first ones ([1], [2], [3]) are WP:ROUTINE (when the player joined/left a club) and are about a paragraph long. The last one (from Morgunblaðið) might be a relevant source, but as far as I know one source doesn't satisfy WP:GNG --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 14:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per NFOOTY failure. Can be recreated if she makes an international appearance or plays in the WSL when it becomes fully-professional next season(?). Number 5 7 14:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Could you please expand regarding if the article passes or fails WP:GNG? --SuperJew (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments here, I don't think GNG is usefully applicable to football bios due the blanket coverage the sport gets – if we went solely on GNG then we'd have articles on hundreds if not thousands of semi-pro players in England alone (a case could probably be quite easily made for most National League players given the BBC Sport coverage of the league and local newspapers), so IMO we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and playing internationally or in a fully-pro league is a fair place to draw that line. Of course there will be some players who do fail WP:NFOOTY but are notable in reality, but generally they would need to have some kind of seriously special claim to notability to get an article – i.e. long-standing recognition of their name (Sonny Pike – a player famous as a child who never made it, but still gets national newspaper coverage years after he disappeared from football would be an example). Number 5 7 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and the fact she plays in a top-flight women's league. NFOOTY fails women athletes in the vast majority of top leagues as it only includes ~~two~~ one active league in the entire world - when in the real world there are more than 70 top leagues. Why aren't those leagues listed anywhere on WP:FPL? One would need to look at the edit history of the essay as well as who makes the additions and deletions. As for the WP:GNG guideline which takes precedence over sport-specific notability essays, I'm seeing more than routine coverage. Hmlarson (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Could you please expand in how you see the sources as more than routine coverage? --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Sure, would you be willing to acknowledge that WP:FOOTY fails the majority of women's players in your rationale up top (as you have in the past)? Why not just say GNG if that's your rationale - because clearly WP:FOOTY is irrelevant here. The Washington Post considers her notable enough to include in their weekly reports about American soccer players playing abroad. ref Yes, that's routine coverage of the The Washington Post considering the FA WSL notable. The BBC, too. The Wikipedia Football Project notability essay? "Eww girls" is my interpretation.

Examples of non-routine coverage currently included in the article for this specific player are: the Kieran Thievam piece, She Kicks Magazine, and the mbl.is article. Looks like she also has French nationality. I'll add that to the article or did you want to? Hmlarson (talk)

I mentioned both WP:NFOOTY and GNG as they are both applicable here per our current notability guidelines. I agree with you that WP:NFOOTY doesn't service women soccer correctly, but that is a different discussion. That's an interesting point about the Washington Post's routine coverage, but it should be brought up in a discussion about FAWSL notability and inclusion in WP:NFOOTY.

As I mentioned above I also included the mbl.is in non-routine. Regarding the other two, they seem to me routine new player coverages at the beginning of the season when there's not much else to write about. Maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:ROUTINE and anyways would like to hear more opinions here. --SuperJew (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is part of the Notability criteria for Events guideline. This is a biography. WP:GNG doesn't mention it. Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources here to cover GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient sources, combined with a distinguished soccer career. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by the included sources. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Could you please expand on why you think it fails WP:GNG? --SuperJew (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, be careful of WP:VOTESTACK/WP:CANVASS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: This is not at all either of those. Just creating a more thorough discussion with actual arguments. As you can see above I also asked Hmlarson to expand on the keep viewpoint, so hardly swaying the discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hmlarson Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 21 November 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. Keep votes above seem to be confusing the number of references in an article with an indication of GNG. If we look at these sources individually:

ksi.is - the Icelandic football federation, a clear primary source and nothing more than a stat summary anyway
UEFA - again a clear primary source an nothing more than a stat summary
Sunderland Echo - Routine transfer talk from local media dealing with a number of signings, not significant coverage
OCRegister - one mention by name, no discussion. Absolutely not significant coverage of the player in any way shape or form
MaxPreps - nothing more than a stat summary
Equalizer Soccer - brief pen pic in a wider article outlining players to watch out for. Minimal coverage and useable encyclopedic content
Palloliitto - essentially no coverage, 25 word article. Cannot conceivably indicate GNG
Visir.is - very brief match summary. Does not discuss the player in detail. Not suitable for GNG.
Thorsport.is - Routine transfer coverage, very short article, essentially confirmation of signing and one brief quote from her manager. Little to support GNG.
shekicks.net - actual interview with the player. Suitable source for GNG but needs more
Times Free Press - Routine match reporting. Mentions she scored a goal. No other coverage. Clearly not significant coverage.
Guardian - article about a completely different subject, very brief mention at end of her signing for Sunderland
Kaffid.is - very brief routine mention of her move away from Iceland. Almost no encyclopedic content
MBL.is - essentially a duplication of the previous source. Slightly longer but only because it includes a brief discussion on her new team's season. No additional encyclopedic content
MBL.is - brief interview with the player on her departure from Iceland.
Soccerway - stat site

TL;DR - This is a nice looking article full of references. Unfortunately bar two brief interviews with the player, all the references are very brief mentions of the player either in routine transfer talk and match reporting, or worse simply stat sites. There is simply no indication that this player has generated significant coverage, namely, per WP:SIGCOV: coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content [and] is more than a trivial mention. It is a simple statement of fact that individuals claiming they see more than routine coverage are fundamentally mistaken. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I located this which would satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:FPL indicates the Women's league she belongs to will become fully professional in 2018 which would satisfy WP:NFOOTY. I don't see the point of deleting the article and waiting a very short period of time until it could be created again. Operator873^CONNECT 07:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly how on earth does that link indicate GNG, there's almost no content on her at all, it's just a match summary across a number of leagues and as far as I can see she is covered in precisely one sentence. This is the very definition of trivial coverage noted by WP:SIGCOV as not supporting GNG. Furthermore the league she plays in will become fully professional according to plans next season, not at the turn of the year. We don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. --SuperJew (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Called to Serve[edit]

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

This hymn does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, as per several custom source searches. This source provides two short paragraphs of coverage, but additional sources are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two songbooks in which this hymn resides do not have references on their pages. A search reveals various recordings, but otherwise just blogs, a page on the LDS website, and a forum thread. If this particular hymn really stands out, I would just have a mention on Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book) and/or Children's Songbook. = paul2520 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winking (company)[edit]

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

No indication of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources beyond business-as-usual PR stuff. Tagged for notability since 2012. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The coverage provided is unremarkable: routine announcements, presence on a trade trip, etc. Nor are my searches finding better; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (An article on the company CEO, Gerdi Staelens, has also been repeatedly flagged for notability, and edit summaries such as "added his image WITH permission of the owner" [4] indicate a proximity to the subject.) AllyD (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and I am also bundling their product. The sources are just press release, affiliated pages and churnalism. There are no reviews or independent coverage.

@Domdeparis: Per WP:MULTIAFD, bundling AfDs should occur only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion. Since we're already about midway through the 7-day listing period for Winking (company) and several editors have already made comments here related solely to the Winking (company) article, I don't think bundling a new article in at this point is appropriate. Do you think you could start a new AfD for the Print&Share article instead of bundling it into this one? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad thanks for pointing that out. Domdeparis (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello. Erm, I have nominated the article mentioned above for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Print&Share. We are not at a stage to be able to safely assume anything. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a company that helped shaping the windows administrative software business in Belgium in the beginning years. Including electronic facturation avant la lettre. I can understand that you can't find better search results, but my first hit gives another source: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/gn015djib , http://archief.westhoek.be/ned/jewaserbij/2007/oktober/diksmuide0510/welkom.htm , ... There are also references to Africa print and Microsoft talking about Winking, if you call these non reliable sources... Both not affiliated with this I.S.V. Winking. The deletion of the Print&Share page has been discussed on why it should be kept. JuFo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is beyond providing the reliable sources for each statement. (I have no comment on whether this has actually happened or not.) The narrative of this article seems like kebob without meat; it delivers basic info that are necessary for every article about a company (analogous to a skewer of a kebob). But nothing beyond that. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The company's long history and their presence at the start of PC computing in Belgium in 1990s seem to offer sufficient significance for the article to be kept. On the other hand, poor outcome of Google test, their website's Alexa rank only at 1.5 million, and apparent shortage of online mentions raise eyebrows when talking about IT business. Mabye someone from the Belgium IT world could share their opinion? — kashmiri ^TALK 12:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the WP:ALEXA ranking is not an indicator of their notability as we are not considering the notability of a website but a company and the website that you are talking about is that of the product print&share and not the company's site which is rated at 12 million. The problem is that the print&share website makes almost no mention of winking just at the very bottom of the page where it says "Winking 2017 . Designed by Winking for Ricoh . Contact us". I looked at their website and I believe that it is only aimed at Dutch speakers as the English and French versions are very very poorly translated (very shoddy machine translations) and for a company that has been around for nearly 20 years with international products I think this is also a reason to raise eyebrows. Domdeparis (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. While the references might appear in reliable source, they are not intellectually independent. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subhi al-Badri al-Samerai[edit]

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

This largely unsourced contribution of WP:OR fails GNG. Article is sourced to a personal blog. A check of Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR finds only one other mention of subject, in two sentences in this article on the website of ETH Zurich: [5]. Edit: An image used to accompany this article, uploaded by the article's author as "own work", has been speedily deleted as a copyright violation. [6] Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You kindly found a second source for the article, and I have found four further Arabic sources, including a very good one from the website of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq. I think you will agree that the article now has ample sources to evidence notability. I have added three further sources for a total of 9 separate sources clearly establishing the subjects notability. Kuching7102 (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated a lot of pages you've created for deletion so I'm not going to go through this with each one, however, once again - simply finding any mention of a person somewhere on the web and slapping up a link to it in the article does not count as sourcing and notability is not established by volume of mentions. I'm not going to go through each of these one by one as a pattern is emerging that you're just shotgunning websites into an article once it's AfD'ed; for instancee, your Newsweek "source" doesn't even mention the subject of the article once. Your other "sources" - like Al-Rased - do not appear to be RS, which may be why they're not currently used on any of WP's 5.5 million articles except ones you've authored [7]. Drowning an article in websites to make it look well-referenced and to exhaust anyone trying to verify them is, at best, disruptive. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, if you nominate a page for deletion, you DO have to go through everything. That is the whole point of this process.

Now I pointed to the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq source, which is an eulogy for the subject, and establishes notability because this is a major organisation in Iraq, indeed it has its own Wikipedia page here.

Now, The newsweek article DOES mention the subject "One neighbor says al-Baghdadi was supervised by two prominent clerics (now deceased): Sheikh Subhi al-Saarai and Sheikh Adnan al-Ameen." Now I'll be generous and say you missed it because of their typo, but his name, Subhi al-Samarai, is there.

Further, the al-rased.net source is a fairly extensive history of Subhi al-Samarai.

As indeed is http://assalamu-alayka.tv/ar/detail/425 a biography of the subject

I have found the solid sourcing for this page you wanted, and instead of accepting it, you are trying your best to slander perfectly good sources

The newsweek article is actually vitally important, because in addition to the profile of the subject by the american academic, this is an English source that points out the subject taught Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. So he is the teacher of the leader of ISIS, and very influential upon him in his religious ideas actually, and he is not notable?! Of course Subhi al-Samarai is notable

Kuching7102 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've now gone through them all and your additions are not RS. The exception is a one-sentence mention in Newsweek. As Johnpacklambert notes in another one of the many AfDs of your articles active now, "The notion of notavbility is that a person is widely studied." [8]. A one-sentence mention does not rise to that level. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is an eulogy by the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq official website not a reliable source?

How are al-rased.net and albasrah.net, which both provide biographies of the subject, not reliable sources?

Why is http://assalamu-alayka.tv/ar/detail/425, not a reliable source, yet another biography of the subject?

These are all reliable sources covering the subject extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuching7102 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) they do not have a known process of editorial controls and gatekeeping, and, (b) they are not, themselves, referenced in other RS. You can find more information on identifying reliable sources here: WP:RELIABLE. If you need help identifying reliable sources, you can register a question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a reliable source is and there are six reliable sources covering the subject extensively given for this page and 3 trivial mentions.Kuching7102 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a FYI, I've just nominated the photo you uploaded for this article, claiming it was your own work, for speedy deletion ([9]). Chetsford (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable figure in Iraqi Salafi movement and has received wide coverage enough to establish WP:GNG. Most sources are really to be found in Arabic in Mideast Arab channels programs. Even now the article is well referenced. Plus, any article that contain sources from Newsweek and icct.nl we can not really make generalization that the article is sourced to personal blog even if some source appears new to us. In addition, deletion of image on Commons has no relationship with this AfD discussion. It's the image that is cv not the article — Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Hearts School[edit]

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

No significant coverage exists for this school. Fails WP:ORG. Just saying this is the first school for the deaf in the country is not enough to satisfy guidelines. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep -- and please note that the claim of notability is not that Humble Hearts is the first school for the deaf, but the first bilingual school for the deaf, a stretch for notability in my view. The page, unreferenced and short, nevertheless has conflicting assertions (date of establishment for example). The school is covered just fine in Deaf education in Kenya, which itself is a pluperfect copypasta mess. Rhadow (talk)
~~Weak delete~~. Notability has nothing to do with being the first of something. Instead, we determine notability by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I found this but couldn't find any additional independent coverage. I'll happily change to a keep if more coverage can be found. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider the citations I found and added to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Good job, Jack N. Stock! Pburka (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? -- Being first at something is not notable? Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier. Now, quick, tell me who the second was. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly. How notable is number two? The first college in America: Harvard. Do you know number two? Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability. Pburka (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I find enough to indicate that Humble Hearts School at least exists (or existed), and there may be more information in regional print publications that are not available online. It's hard to imagine there isn't more out there, especially considering the accidental bulldozing. A redirect to Deaf education in Kenya would help channel editors to improve the more general article, and Humble Hearts can later be split off if reliable sources are found. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe I have found enough reliable sources to suggest this school could be notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deaf education in Kenya. Logical redirect and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no redirect. The edits by Jacknstock noted above are clearly independent notability for the school. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage is present in the current article as can be seen clearly in the references section.Egaoblai (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After improvements by Jack N. Stock.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Simmons[edit]

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

She voices in anime shows, but they are mostly directly from Funimation or Seraphim/Sentai dubs, and hardly meets WP:GNG as her references are all cast announcements. There is one brief article by her school, but that's about it. No coverage by news articles. Only 5 appearances at anime conventions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of having lead roles, I don't see how she can possibly meet WP:CREATIVE criteria for inclusion, given that her lead roles consist of English voice over-dubs of the original Japanese voice actors and her talent as an actor hasn't had independent reviews. Merely having some show credits doesn't merit an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't much going on here. --Adam in MO Talk 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for someone involved in dubbing we need indepth coverage of the person in reliable sources, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. OK, consensus appears to be that the sources in the article are not sufficient to justify an article and that other sources also don't. Secondly, one or two merge targets have been proposed but there is apparently little material worth merging. By balance this is either a deleted or redirect case, but apparently there is no explicit objection to a redirect and suitable targets do exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Dixon[edit]

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

No reason to believe that this individual wasn't involved in a notable SETI program at the level of acting director. However, per WP:NOTINHERITED we need more evidence that he himself is notable. The statement that he was "one of the first people to be shown the Wow! signal" is typical of this syndrome. He clearly wasn't the inventor of Kanade–Lucas–Tomasi feature tracker (KLT) either but is he a notable implementor according to our definition of notability? I just don't see it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations to Dixon's work reported by Google Scholar is well below what would be expected by WP:PROF#1 in this field. Is there any other notability criterion that he might meet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep C-class article with multiple secondary sources ranging from 1977 to 2013, of which the "Wow! signal" is not the exclusive subject. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those independent sources in the article are mostly passing mentions. And many are published by his team. So notability is not proven. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I don't feel WP:ANYBIO is met, and while I haven't checked myself, WP:PROF#1 doesn't appear to be met either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable from the references in the article, and a number of others show up in a google search for his name. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF clearly does not meet WP:PROF#1 and also fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references only passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he may have done some academic work, for now he didn't met criteria for inclusion. And even WP:ACADEMIC acknowledges "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This is the case here. For instance; ref 1 and 2 are both used to show he merely attended a university. Refs 3,4,5 and 6 all are about the SETI program not Dixon. Ref 1 is again called in writing section twice, ref 2 one time. The remaining sections upto writing section are clearly talking of SETI programs not biographical content of certain director. WP:ACADEMIC not met. The refs in the writing section showed he published some articles in newspapers (Glasgow Daily Time, The Beaver County Times and Journal; Sun Journal). He also contributed 3 chapters to two books in 1997 and 2011. This didn't meet any criterion of WP:AUTHOR. — Ammarpad (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence as that's what he's primarily known for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. There's a lot of references but either the subject is only mentioned in passing or the reference is from his own team. He currently does not pass WP:ACADEMIC and I do not seem him passing anytime in the future at this late stage of his career. Ifnord (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and/or Wow! signal as appropriate. Dixon's main "notability" is inherited from other actually notable occurrences or he implemented someone else's work. I say merge in the interests of keeping good information and knowledge associated with the two suggested articles... but not enough for Dixon to maintain his own article. Operator873^CONNECT 21:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to not being notable, this article was created by an indef-blocked sock, and I see that many of the other articles created by this sock are tagged for suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oxford undergraduate admissions statistics[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from Oxford, and we are not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Admissions statistics may belong at other articles (University of Oxford#Admission, college pages etc.) but we do not need them in such inordinate detail. Additionally, the text is entirely non-neutral and the article has been used as a coatrack to write about the lack of diversity and institutionalised prejudice in the university (which I agree exists, but is not limited to Oxford, and WP is not here to right great wrongs). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A smidge of the content might be worth merging into University of Oxford#Admission. (Like the sentence "As epitomised by the Laura Spence Affair, the admissions policies of the University of Oxford and its constituent colleges have over the years been frequently criticized for a number of different reasons, including the overrepresentation of students educated at fee-paying private schools and the underrepresentation of students from minority ethnicity groups" and its attached references. Well, the word "frequently" might not work, but overall it does appear a legitimate point that can be supported with RS.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant content into University of Oxford#Admission. The article is clearly just an excuse to berate Oxford for its lack of diversity. Even if the article was rewritten to be entirely neutral and factual, Wikipedia is not the right place for archiving admission statistics, and so should be deleted as out of scope. BabelStone (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in part, but an article on the admission rates could probably be written, if an effort were made to find discussio nas well as numbers. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I went in with intention of cleaning up the article a bit but ended up deleting all the tables as they were 1) unsourced, and 2) presumed copyright violations. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an encyclopedic topic on its own. Neutral on the merge/redirect to University of Oxford#Admission. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic isn't encyclopedic. The article would be an amusing joke, I checked to see if that was the case but it isn't, in the article history there are reams of meaningless statistics since deleted. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accelo[edit]

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

I fail to find the in-depth independent coverage in multiple sources required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no sources beyond business-as-usual PR stuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic appears to fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Play[edit]

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

I'm not sure whether an article about this subject is needed. Most of the current article is unsourced, with all refs at the bottom citing one assertion, which means that the rest is merely original research. Since this isn't a specific thing, it doesn't do well to meeting WP:GNG, but this is where the guideline bit comes into play. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup. Notable, distinctive, annoying subject. Everybody wants to turn auto-play off :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use some more sources. Notable subject also. Cocohead781 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed that more sources are needed. A quick search found this article from India linking auto-play and net neutrality. Here's an article talking about Google's potential reaction to peoples' frustrations with autoplay.

This term absolutely warrants a definition (and is defined on Wiktionary), and because of controversy and coverage in articles (that should be referenced), it's worthy of inclusion. = paul2520 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't see a good redirect target, which was my first preference here. The article is lousy, but this is almost certainly a notable topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this could become a decent topic, but it needs some work and it needs some direction to avoid violations of WP:ESSAY/WP:OR. It might be worth revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. South Nashua (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Drobot[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. All current references are to social media. A search of Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any mentions. Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove, help fill, and add sources, fix it. This actor is a very famous actor in the CIS. DENAMAX (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://allagordienko.com/en/persona/Drobot_Mark DENAMAX (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep; plenty of sources in Ukrainian language. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there look to be enough sources in Cyrillic-script to keep this, but I can't evaluate them myself or improve the article based off them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of the regional distinctions of Spain[edit]

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

I tagged the page History of the regional distinctions of Spain as essay-like long ago, but nobody takes action, and I find it too difficult to change it into an acceptable WP page. Most of the contents are still those included by the creator back in 2011. The creator hasn't been active also since 2011. --Jotamar (talk) 16:32, 9 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Original essay / WP:SYNTH tagged since 2012. Several refs are for certain individual facts, not for the subject itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. The opportunity is here to make one good article out of two problematic ones. A shame to junk all the content here when some is cited and citations could be sought for more of it: Noyster (talk), 11:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince-Gordon[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD with the concern "Wikipedia is not an obituary provider for non-notable musicians." Having reviewed the article and the sourcing again, that is still my concern, so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: very few Google hits for either his professional name or his given name. A clear example of Wikipedia:NOTOBITUARY ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable artist and didn't meet basic WP:GNG for lack of wide coverage and neither meet specific WP:MUSICBIO. It seems just the biography from his website was paraphrased here without much input from Independent sources — Ammarpad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, During the most of his life Vince Gordon primary use his band name: The Jime - if you google that, you will find a lost of hits on Google. When he had his first blotshot at the age of 42 he had to cancel tours to Japan, Australia, UK, Italy among others. Doing he last 9 years he really became an expert on rockabillyguitars and is cited in many books. For the moment his page: Vince-Gordon is under reconstruction with timelines and other things about Vince Gordon. You can also look at gretsch-talk.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosdahl-2017 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followed Vince Gordon and his career since he made the first Rockabilly band in Denmark. He is a legend within Rockabilly and everyone in the Rockabilly environment who really cares for the genre knows about him and respects his unique work. Google The Jime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesper77 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Jesper77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
RE. per nom: Vince mostly used his band name: The Jime. He never used his given name as an artist. RE. Wide coverage: As a beginner I have to start one place, and the text is also based on interviews and other things as there is a coming website in the name of the artist. When I look at other musicians at WIKIPIDIA I can see, that I have more external sources in many situations. But what I realy thing is an issue here is, What do you do here on WIKIPIDIA, when you have such an artist, who had an exceptional knowledge on e.g. rockabilly guitars, that his knowledge and work is cited in books, among other authours, among the “old guys” in rockabilly because of his knowledge and uniq guitarplay. So here you have a person who also is quoted as an expert. If any of you know the multiartist Fred Sokolow – he had also written a lot of books – and is used as a source: he said (is also in the bio) that Vince Gordon is the next generation of rockabilly. Even on the Brian Setzer forum, other people write about Vince Gordon. And I can continue. I will not do so. I think you got my view now. I also thing you should list Vince Gordon on the rockabilly list. Thank you for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosdahl-2017 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — Rosdahl-2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you doubt the influence of Lasse Rosdahl Larsen, who have the artist name Vince Gordon, had on Rockabilly Music, look in to the foreword of Hal Leonards book called "Hal Leonard Rockabilly Guitar Method". Look after the chapter called "The Next Generation", and here is "Vince Gordon with his band The Jime" mentioned as a great player to listen to. Hal Leonard make the mistake to address Vince Gordon and The Jime as a Holland band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23Gesta (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — 23Gesta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment this debate is about the page Vince-Gordon specifically: if you wish to create a page for The Jime (band) then please go ahead - although contrary to your claim, a Google search for "the Jime" doesn't appear to give any reliable sources ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows that Vince-Gordon is notable as an individual. If someone wishes to create an article for The Jime (band) I would reccomend they submit it through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Langehaug Antonsen[edit]

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

This athlete has never competed on international senior level. In addition to what the article says, she finished 11th at the European Juniors in 1993. Won the national championship with a decent enough result, but nowhere near international competitiveness. With 14.52 metres she was probably not in the top 100 in Europe that year (this year the list cuts off at 87th with 15.17 metres. As such does not meet the general notability guideline either. Geschichte (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Off what Geschichte said, the IAAF list for 1999, the earliest year available, cut off at top 50 with 17.51. That is 3 meters off the subject's mark winning the national title - or over a 20% increase needed. Results for the 1993 World Championships, 1995 World Championships, and 1996 Summer Olympics show that the international standard for that time period was about 16-17 meters (only high 20s for # of competitors, but competitors don't always have their best throws at the major meets). Still well off the 14.52 meters she threw. No compelling reason to think she was ever in the top 60 and therefore was never elite. If never elite, then we cannot presume sources exist. So unless we actually see the sources, delete. RonSigPi (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not be sourced to mere lists. Her performance, as well demonstrated by RonSigPi is clearly below the level needed to be at a place where sources can be presumed to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitya Munshaw[edit]

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

Delete Although has released three albums, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also, article is promotional. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google doesn't throw out anything to prove notability, and three major contributors are WP:SPAs so potentially a COI ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Azerbaijan Animation Museum. There's some question about whether the redirect target itself is notable, but if that ends up getting deleted, the redirect can go along with it. For now, it seems to make sense to have the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Mammadov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG improbale claims about being the founder of Azerbaijani animation as the articles say it dates back to 1930 and he was born in 1934 Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Azerbaijan Animation Museum, which is apparently named after him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this "virtual museum" is notable itself. The page was created by the same editor that created this page. I checked out the sources and the 3 sources are identical copy pastes of a press release. As this is in essence a web site and not a museum I also checked out the WP:Alexa ranking which is at 19 million. I will also nominate this page as not being notable if I can find nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. Domdeparis (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Franklin[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian. No significant works or following. Fails WP:ENT Galatz ^Talk 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:10, 16 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am having trouble finding anything but performance announcements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Law[edit]

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

Not enough evidence of having been discussed in depth in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444 ^(talk) 14:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just added a profile article from The Guardian in the context of her play Single White Female which got a lot of coverage in Australia earlier this year. She has received one of the Queensland Literary Awards and an AWGIE Award (albeit in reasonably minor categories), and had articles about her in at least the ABC and The Guardian. This easily passes notability. Boneymau (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is not massive coverage there is definitely steady coverage by different multiple very reputable IRS over several years. Aoziwe (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has KDS4444, who nominated this article for deletion within three hours of its being created, considered how demoralising this is for a new(ish) editor? The subject of this article seems to me to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though not relevant to this discussion, I see that KDS4444 has been blocked indefinitely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree it passes GNG. Kerry (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. No objection to moving to draft here, and the article would likely be restored there by any admin upon request if this were deleted. There is no further need for this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Events[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM KDS4444 ^(talk) 14:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing much on Google search, and even if the phrase were in common usage, it would be more suited to Wiktionary ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more suitable for urban dictionary. Natureium (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Notneo it is. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll refrain from arguing for or against deletion, but do any of you think that this could be merged elsewhere, like maybe in a protest article? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the consensus is for deletion, is it possible to move this to the student's userspace so they can work on out? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a merge target right now, but am totally fine with userfying it for the time being. @Dom Kaos, Natureium, and KDS4444: any objections with me moving it, thus basically terminating the AfD? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. KDS4444 ^(talk) 02:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Natureium (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shalor (Wiki Ed), would you be fine with moving this to draft space instead of a sandbox? I ask because I'm highly doubtful this will ever be mainspace ready and once the course is over it will just sit in the sandbox unless it is MfD'd. If we send it to draft it can be G13'd six months after the course is over if there is no progress (which given my interactions with WikiEd courses in the past, I suspect is highly likely). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Shalor (Wiki Ed), fixing my ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that - I think that's a reasonable compromise. Also on a side note, I've contacted the professor for this course and asked that the students not move more work into the mainspace because there have been some NOTESSAY issues. I'm going to spend the next few hours/rest of the day looking at the rest of the work and potentially moving it back to their userspace or to the draftspace. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricomplex numbers[edit]

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

These three new article are WP:OR, see WT:WPM#Self-publication on WP? D.Lazard (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete- I agree with the nominator. This is clearly OR. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator also. The situation is exacerbated somewhat by unconstructive editing on the part of supporter(s) of these articles. But that aside, OR is a clear enough reason to clear these up. Rschwieb (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete all. As per nom.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:OR and as such failing notability as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, agree on notability failing issue as well. Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've corrected the AFD links on the two co-nominated articles. Since they were redlinked only for a few hours, there's no need to fuss with separating the noms or anything. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There are a handful of papers listed in Google scholar that cite the main reference here, but they're mostly also by combinations of the same authors, so I don't see the in-depth coverage by multiple independent groups needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Save. As the creator of these articles, I only want to mention that the article "Tricomplex numbers" and "Tetrabrot" are not my current personal research. For the article Tricomplex numbers, this a well documented subject and you may find many references, e.g. G.B. Price "An Introduction to Multicomplex numbers and functions". For the article Tetrabrot, the results come mainly from the two following research papers: "A Generalized Mandelbrot Set for Bicomplex Numbers" from D. Rochon in 2000 and "On a Bicomplex Distance Estimation for the Tetrabrot" from É. Martineau and D. Rochon in 2004. These scientific articles are not my personal research. I would appreciate that some solutions are proposed to improve the articles or some solutions that may help to save them. Best regards -Mathopo (talk) 14:45, 16 november 2017 (HAE) — Mathopo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete all – (a) lack of notability; (b) lack of merit
- The name "tricomplex numbers" seems to be more commonly used for the three-dimensional algebra over the reals (as in https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008120) than for C⊕C⊕C⊕C, which appears to be the topic of the article. All algebraic constructions over a direct sum of rings decompose, allowing each part to be analyzed in isolation, and are uninteresting mathematically. Price only briefly mentions them. Only the simplest examples of such direct sums, such as the bicomplex numbers and split-complex numbers, seem to have any notability or instructive value.
- The tricomplex multibrot set should accordingly decompose as the Cartesian product of ~~three~~four Mandelbrot sets, making it uninteresting.
- The tetrabrot article does not seem to give enough to even understand exactly what it is talking about, or why it might be interesting.
—Quondum 04:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be the direct sum of four copies, C⊕C⊕C⊕C — which is still not interesting, and so the "tricomplex multibrot set" is the Cartesian product of four Mandelbrot sets — which is, also, still not interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected in my comment above and below from three to four copies. —Quondum 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete all. I had considered nominating one or other of these myself when it appeared in the list of recently created maths articles, but did not have time to look into it. I did find a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex number, which may or may not be on the same topic. But on their own merits these do not belong on WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated that other one, but I don't remember it well enough to tell how similar they are. Reyk _YO! 11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article was apparently about an algebra isomorphic to R⊕C, and this one to C⊕C⊕C⊕C. —Quondum 12:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save ALL. Theses pages are a wonderful tool for everybody who loves fractals. Not only mathematicians, but also artists, philosophers and computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.172.51 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 45.72.172.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Save ALL. The informations on this page is relevant, accurate and can be found elsewhere in the literature: ^[1], ^[2] RaphGL (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — RaphGL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Lantoine, Gregory, Ryan P. Russell, and Thierry Dargent. "Using multicomplex variables for automatic computation of high-order derivatives." ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 38.3 (2012): 16
^ Reid, F.L. & Van Gorder, R.A. Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras (2013) 23: 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-012-0369-x

Delete all per Quondum and David Eppstein. The Lantoine et al. (2012) and Reid et al. (2013) papers mentioned above are about multicomplex numbers and do not make the case that the "tricomplex numbers" are an interesting special case, or that the "tetrabrot" is an interesting object. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The tricomplex space considered by G.B. Price and this Wiki page is isomorphic to C⊕C⊕C⊕C not C⊕C⊕C. The number of principal 3D slices of the multicomplex Mandelbrot set is then maximal in the tricomplex space with all the possible combinations of imaginary and hyperbolic units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Save ALL. I completely agree with the last comment, moreover the Tetrabrot is the special 3D slice where each sides of the set is the Mandelbrot set itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.4 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 142.169.78.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete all for violating core policy NO Original Research, content undersouced not shown to meet GNG no evidence of its importance — Ammarpad (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save. I'm a computer scientist, not sure to understand the concept of direct sum and other math stuff, but the quaternionic Mandelbrot set, the Mandelbulb and the Tetrabrot are amazing 3D Fractals. For us, they can be used in virtual reality and video games... For ex. in the Disney movie Big Hero 6, the emotional climax takes place in the middle of a wormhole, which is represented by the stylized interior of a Mandelbulb. Please don't remove this page !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.242.232 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 70.50.242.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- First, we are not talking about deleting the article Mandelbulb. Second, the above comment plagiarizes the "Uses in media" section of that article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Everything in the related Wiki articles are referred to scientific published articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Save. As a programmer, I'd like to thank the author (Mathopo) of the "Tetrabrot" and the "Tricomplex numbers" pages. The current work is indeed an excellent basis for fractal exploration. If I understand well, tricomplex numbers are a particular case of multicomplex numbers, for wich the Wikipida page is already accepted since 10 years ago. I disagree that the "Tricomplex numbers" page is unuseful and redundant, because it shows a detailed multiplication tables for tricomplex numbers, which is usefull for a non multicomplex expert. --ComputedMathArts (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- this account ComputedMathArts (talk · contribs) made their first edit to this AfD, 29 minutes after account creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammarpad (talk • contribs)

Save. Some users seem to evaluate the merit of these articles solely based on their lack of personal interest, which can never be considered as an objective argument. Moreover, the tricomplex numbers and their use in generating tridimensional fractals like the "Tetrabrot" have been studied and results have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals as Fractals (World Scientific) and the like. As mentioned above, these articles include no content which contravene WP's NOR policy.66.130.133.22 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 66.130.133.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Although it is probably obvious to any admin anyhow, I nevertheless like to point out explicitly that so far all save opinions stem from IPs or freshly created accounts. Once this AfDs is closed those freshly created accounts might need a reminder of WP policies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Considering that none of the Wikipedia rules have been violated by the author (Mathopo) of the following Wiki pages: Tetrabrot and Tricomplex numbers. Considering that Wikipedia has been informed yesterday morning about a legal procedure related to some assumptions in this public room. I propose the end of this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all, per nom. OR, failing GNG. -- Begoon 13:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure There are no useful arguments in the last comment. I support the end of the talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.239 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 142.169.78.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, thanks for turning up, but that really isn't how this works. -- Begoon 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As there are several new faces here, a few comments on the way we operate is in order. An AfD discussion such as this is intended to determine whether or not an article meets the Wikipedia guidelines and how the article should be dealt with. Any action should be determined by a consensus of the contributors to this discussion. These discussions normally take a minimum of seven days to ensure that enough various viewpoints are presented. Calls for closure by one side of a disputed discussion after just two days of being listed are quite uncalled for. Other comments, such as threatening legal action or criticizing other editors expressions are not considered to be good faith efforts to achieve consensus and actually work against it. The discussion needs to be centered on the Wikipedia guidelines and not on our personal opinions of the value of the article, so the comments that are of most value are those that reference those guidelines.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, personal interest can't motivate a decision of that importance. If we follow the logic behind the comment above, we should also delete the bicomplex wikipedia page and the multicomplex wikipedia page since these concepts are not interesting... But my goal is not not go there. Also, as it was mentioned above, those articles are based on scientific reliable ressources. Finally, if some suggestions can be made to correct the articles so we can save those articles, you are welcomed to apply your suggestion. Mathopo (talk) 20:25, 18 novembre 2017 (HAE)

No comment on what can or can't be done to save the article/s in question, but "personal interest" has precisely nothing to do with the deletion or otherwise of an article, as the comment to which you are responding makes very clear. Best practice is to respond to the concerns which are being raised, rather than your favourite strawmen instead. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save The blame is especially related to the use of Original Research (OR). However, on the page where the concept of OR is explained, we can read the following: "Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research". That is exactly what is done in the article Tricomplex numbers and so the allegation are more or less valid. As a consequence, this is the same for the other two articles Tetrabrot and Tricomplex Multibrot set. Mathopo (talk) 20:35, 18 novembre 2017 (HAE)

Please, read WP:OR further. In the section WP:PSTS, a paragraph "Policy" contains "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". In other words, an article for which no secondary source exists is considered, by Wikipedia, as original research, and therefore not acceptable. Here, this is enforced by a WP:Conflict of interest: author(s) of the Wikipedia articles are also authors of the primary sources. D.Lazard (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I just want to understand with a concrete situation. For example, if someone from around the world that write a Wikipedia article on a subject that has no secondary reference (like a book) excepted the primary sources (like the paper from the creator of the concepts or the theory), his article will be clasified, by Wikipedia, as WP:OR? Mathopo (talk) 22:25, 19 november 2017 (HAE)

Delete all A pile of OR -- and unremarkable OR at that. The legal threat makes it even sillier. E Eng 05:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick check of Mathscinet for "tricomplex" (anywhere) indicates that the commutative and associative 8-dimensonal tricomplex algebra has been studied and books/articles published which treat the subject. It is true that the algebra of tricomplex numbers is less notable and far less studied than the non-commutative non-associative 8-dimensional algebra of octonions or Cayley numbers, which plays a significant role in mathematics (particularly the theory of Jordan algebras). Writing that the subject of tricomplex numbers is WP:OR, however, is simply wrong: the subject may be dull and/or uninteresting, but it is certainly not original research. The other neologisms above, invented by researchers from the University of Quebec—puns on Mandelbrot, etc—appear in published works but have not been more widely adopted and as such are unnotable: the label WP:OR is inappropriate. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the topic that is OR. The article does have sourcing problems, which are addressed at WP:OR, and which should not be ignored. —Quondum 15:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In mathematics, WP:OR would mean that a wikipedia editor is creating mathematical content which cannot be sourced to published articles or textbooks. Of course it is preferable to have content drawn from textbooks, but many times that is not possible. Systoles of surfaces is an example of an article where a mathematician (Katzmik) has summarised his own research in an article based on published papers. There could possibly have been a conflict of interest (I don't think so), but Katzmik was not guilty of creating original research on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The editing history statistics of Tetrabrot shows a large number of edits by IPs located either in the Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres or nearby (Laval) as well as edits by Mathopo. All the research originates in exactly these localities. The nature of the editing suggests that all these contributions were made by the same user. Regardless of the merits of what has been added—it unfortunately seems unnotable—the manner of editing and the appearance of similar IPs at the AfD (one of which has been blocked) suggests that Mathopo is very closely related to one or more authors of the papers on multicomplex dynamical systems involved in this AfD. As such there seems to be a conflict of interest. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, possibly salt, and possibly refer to the board of ethics at the relevant university for the sock/meat-puppetry. This is self-promotion and publication of original research which is not otherwise notable. There is obvious quacking in many of the "Save" votes. The tri-complex articles are clearly not notable and serve only a promotional purpose; the tetrabrot article might be on something notable, but is WP:TNT worthy in its current state, and I can't easily find any reliable sources that could repair the article (both Google search and EBSCOHost have nothing useful). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

frijoles Has anyone called in the cu or done spi? Thanks L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need, this will be over soon. E Eng 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janhvi Kapoor[edit]

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

This is the duplicate page of Jahnavi Kapoor. What fails, REDIRECT or DELETE it. HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles were created within hours of each other, and this looks like the correct title. I have merged the two, including edit history, with the result at Janhvi Kapoor and I have left Jahnavi Kapoor as a redirect. Whether notability is established is something I will leave to others to decide, but if this is deleted then the redirect at Jahnavi Kapoor should also be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failes WP:NACTOR, as she not only doesn't have two significant rolls yet, her first has not even been released. Coverage is daughter-of-a-famous-person coverage, she deserves a mention in her mother's article perhaps, but doesn't have the independent notability for an article of her own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, NACTOR, TOOSOON. I don't think a ATD to her mother is a good idea beacuse she may become notable on her own accord in a few years. If we think her independent notability is later rather than sooner than I am not opposed to a Redirect so the link is blue and not encouraging new editors to try and write a BLP on her. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article has much more reliable sources in the both way like daughter of popular Indian actress and her own popularity for her upcoming film. there's no fails of any Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindwiki are you withdrawing your nomination? L3X1 (distænt write) 14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The initial nomination was actually for a different earlier version of the article, which was created a few hours after HINDWIKI created Jahnavi Kapoor. But both had unique content, so I declined a WP:A10 delete request and merged them under what appears to be the most appropriate name. Since then, other commentators have turned to examining the current Janhvi Kapoor article for notability standards. Bureaucratically it might perhaps be correct to withdraw this one and start a new discussion (I don't really know - I'm not much of a wikilawyer), but that would surely only waste time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were it withdrawn, I would just renominate for the WP:NACTOR problems that most of the others commenting have been reflecting (I had prodded the subject under its other spelling for just that reason.) So yes, it would only waste time; we should just recognize the OP's change of !vote and move along. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew nom couldn't withdraw and close it due to the outstanding delete !votes, i wasn't sure why he was turning around though. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @L3X1: I am withdrawn my nomination because article has notability per WP:Notability guidelines. Please don't open any other discussion and keep it on Wikipedia and @NatGertler: this time the article has WP:NACTOR but in future (at least 5-10 days or more to go) when film's trailer and Film will release then the user waste their time in creation of this. Please close the discussion and Sorry for wasting your time. Thanks HINDWIKI • CHAT 15:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the film comes out, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, as that calls for multiple significant roles. We don't avoid editing Wikipedia because it will have meant that someone will have wasted their time; that would leave the place a pile of junk. You can ask for the article to be draftified into your user space, so should the subject actually meet our guidelines, you will have something to work off of... but we tend to allow drafts to only hang around so long. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as you wish but I have disappoint with this decision. But this time I am satisfied with draftified it into my user space.HINDWIKI • CHAT 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not pass the notability guidelines for actors, which for people known only as actors, overcome a possibly scape by pass of GNG. Nominators can switch to thinking an article should be kept, but when others have supported deletion, they should not be able to withdraw the deletion request. Wikipedia has too many AfD procedures that make it possible to keep articles on procedural grounds, none to delete them on procedural grounds. This is the opposite of what things should be like, especially for living people in light of what our actual policy on biographies of living people is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Kanter[edit]

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

The subject doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines, as demonstrated by a Google search in English and Ukrainian. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources available to pass WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR... Could have been soft deleted. Lourdes 14:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider soft deleting, but noticed the article had been de-prodded already. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
filelakeshoe, you're right. Missed that. Thanks, Lourdes 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no prejudice against a redirect per WP:ATD, but I don't see a viable target at the moment. Maybe TOOSOON as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Escape Pod episodes[edit]

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

Episode list of a podcast, "referenced" only to its own self-published web presence, a user-generated discussion forum and the blogs of directly affiliated people. And even worse, nearly all of the links (the blogs are the only ones being used as actual footnotes) are just embedded directly into the table itself in violation of WP:ELNO. Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for creating directories of weblinks; the titles in an episode list, whether for a television or radio or web or podcast series, may link either internally to a Wikipedia article about the episode or nowhere at all, and not to offsite content. Bearcat (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Given Escape Pod (podcast), isn't this just the bog-standard breakout of an episode list, such as, say, List of Blake's 7 episodes to pick a random example? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode lists are still supposed to be referenced somewhere other than WP:ELNO-violating links to its own self-published content about itself. They're not "bog-standard" in all cases; they're permissible if they meet our referencing standards, but are very frequently not kept at all if they can't be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host. Ajf773 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 04:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ajf773. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments on both side are week and don't explain what the mean by their comments. If someone thinks this should be deleted still, consider sending it to AfD again in a month or so TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Information about this person should be in the article of the actual controversy of Jyllands-Posten cartoons. I have added the information to the timeline of that article, so this page is now redundant. Elektricity (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect (no, at least at this moment in time, it is not in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). Also possible to rename article to Die-Welt 2006 attack or something similar. The incident is notable (though mergeable), the WP:PERP is known only in connection to this crime - carrying it out and dying in custody.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Modified below.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the timeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#20_March Elektricity (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OP also removed information from the article prior to nomming. Specifically, the funeral of the subject, attended by over 30,000 people, meets event notability and confers notability on the subject in addition to the actual Die Welt attack. Coverage is definitely persistent and significant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:PERSISTENCE WP:SIGCOV and WP:GOLDENRULE. This article merits a space on the encylopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 08:34, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as this meets WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of this rises above general news coverage. This might be worth a general comment in an article on crazed attacks against freedom of expression, but it does not merit a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE as per continued coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect to Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#20_March per WP:BLP1E. The attendance at the funeral does not amount to encyclopedia notability. In any case, this topic is already sufficiently covered in the target article, and stand-alone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Fails GNG. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Hank Stram#Kansas City Chiefs. I've boldly instated a post-deletion redirect to the fellow who said it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculation (sports activity)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact this phrase may be used doesn't mean we need an encyclopedia article on the topic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unexplained inside joke fails GNG. Matriculate this stub into the back of a MacNeilus. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(To wit, GNG)--Jerzy•t 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Null (Pro forma recusal): I created the stub to pass the buck in light of my total lack of interest in team sports.
(A perhaps obsolete expression: "my mother must have been scared by ...", say, a lacrosse stick or a Penzoil race car; i was told that's a "birth defects due to emotional trauma" meme, which i recall from at least one cartoon when TV and i were young).
--Jerzy•t 15:03, 17 & ~~1:13, 18~~ November 2017 (UTC)
   But wait: Keep, after all; get serious about seeking reliable documentation of the football usage; and REPURPOSE the nominated page after renaming (if only to preserve the edit history pending adequate research), by renaming to Matriculation (misnomers):
   I thot i had no dog in this discussion, but Aha: indeed, here is major-league documentation for the term's as yet unmentioned but now third mode of usage: i.e., college status, the contributor's sense, & "matriculating while in college" (which is documented along with a batch of other misnomers, said to have been intentionally committed for deception and/or a few belly laughs).
   It's plausible that there may be some unconscious or unconscious folk etymology involved: if the football story is verifiable, it raises the question of possible logic that may underlie the odd usage: an adolescent's analogy between the ball rolling lackadaisically down the out-of-bounds line and a juvenile visual analog). Matriculation may well find annual discussion by coaching staff, due to the various conferences' eligibility rules, and evoking it as an intentional double entendre may be a documentable inside joke.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
recuse myself I'm a biased Chiefs fan. It is a real saying, along the lines of 65 Toss Power Trap.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overheard and unexplained usage suggests that it's not notable, and there aren't references to suggest otherwise. Not all malapropisms are notable. Even if it were notable, it would likely fall afoul of WP:DICTDEF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non notable, not in any reliable sources. Even the article didn't claim any importance or wider usage in general — Ammarpad (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely not worth having it's own article. The only thing I can think of is that it might possibly be worth a redirect to either Hank Stram or Super Bowl IV. But, it's entirely non-notable outside of that one event. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD Albums with Audio Recordings with Two the same Instruments: Two Clarinets, Two Cellos, Two Violins, Two Pianos…[edit]

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

This seems to be oddly specific, and failing our general notability criteria. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there is nothing vaguely significant about having two of the same instrument playing in the same recording. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 11:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per nomination.HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator that this is "oddly specific", and the article only mentions two such albums. Vorbee (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Instrumental duet albums or similar per Category:Instrumental duet albums.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete - or rename CD Albums with Audio Recordings with Two of the same Instruments: Two Clarinets, Two Cellos, Two Violins, Two Pianos etc. but Excluding Guitars, otherwise pretty much every rock music album ever is going to need to be added ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in this article indicates that reliable sources consider recordings with two of the same instrument to be a notable topic. If the topic were limited to recordings with exactly two of the same instrument and no other instruments, it might be a manageable (albeit still non-notable) topic, but it isn't; both sources used here ([10], [11], both showing a recording with two clarinets and a drum) indicate that two of one instrument plus at least one other instrument can be included, too. That would mean, for example, that every recording of a string quartet would be eligible for listing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the more I think about it, the more I feel that pages like this cause genuine harm to Wikipedia's reputation. It's fodder for one of those clickbait-y articles titled Twelve oddly specific Wikipedia pages you didn't know existed and makes the entire project look slightly comical ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly a WP:G11 speedy; based on the editor's history I think this is intended to promote Tale Ognenovski's work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Ní Fhearraigh[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musical artist, no releases that have charted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: neither the article nor a reference search suggests she passes either musician notability guidelines or the general notability guideline. Janet-O (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) - this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, probably meets WP:MUSIC #4. Lack of online coverage is probably due to the era she was active in and the rather niche nature of her music. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moerani Bouzige[edit]

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

Nothing special here. He played some tennis as a kid but has not attained a top three jr ranking. As a pro I see nothing listed to make him notable. No main draw appearances, no Davis Cup, The grand slam events listed were only in the jrs. Does not meet NSPORTS or Tennis Project Guidelines Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NSports. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even sure why this page was created in the first place. Barely notable. There are top 200 players that don't even classify as "notable". Keroks (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanjra[edit]

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

Article doesn't cite any sources, also I couldn't find anything from the searches that could establish the subject's notability, fails WP:GNG. This is an article from Category:Jat clans of Punjab, most of them fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

After reviewing the arguments on both sides and weighing their relevance, strengths, and how they address the arguments stated in opposition - I find that the consensus reached is to keep the article.

The central parts of the discussion by those in favor of deletion were that the article would introduce and host BLP violations, would add an unnecessary POV fork to the article subject as a whole, and that the article subject is about events that aren't notable enough or have lasting significance or significant coverage required for these events to have its own article.

The arguments in favor of keeping the article address the arguments by those in favor of deletion. The central discussion in regards to keeping it state that BLP violations apply to revisions, and not the article itself - and that any violations should be removed and shouldn't factor into whether or not the article should be deleted. They also asserted that the article passes WP:GNG, has significant coverage by numerous reliable sources, and that the significance is lasting due to the media coverage and the person's status as a United States politician. They also cited WP:SPINOFF and that the POV forking is fine here, and that other articles about BLPs that have recently been the subject of the same allegations - also have separate articles with content about the events.

Given the arguments on both sides, I find that the arguments for keeping the article address the arguments for deleting the article - and that the consensus here is to keep it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) & Nihlus 19:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations[edit]

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

Way, way too soon. There is discussion going on right now at Talk:Roy Moore about whether to split off the allegations into a separate article, and the consensus appears to be, to wait and see if it has lasting significance, which is not yet clear. (Right now it's a sensational but unproven story about one notable politician; if it turns out to affect the partisan balance in the Senate, for example, that could qualify as lasting significance.) In any case, this article is a BLP disaster, going into minute detail on the allegations, and often stating them in Wikipedia's voice. I wish we didn't have to have to wait the usual week for discussion before it can get deleted. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not an admin, please do NOT close this discussion. Due to the complexity of the debate and the strongly held points of view, this is not an appropriate discussion for WP:NAC

Strong Keep: Clearly meets WP:N. Very important and ongoing event that requires its own article.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously notable, obviously of lasting significance, huge amount of coverage, utterly not a "sensational" story, obviously not a "BLP disaster". Also I would remind MelanieN that WP:BLP applies to the women who have stepped forwards also. Artw (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly because whatever is salvageable is redundant to what’s already in the Roy Moore article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support deletion because this article is a gross WP:BLP violation due to edits like this which portray Moore’s non-violent dalliances with girls over age fifteen as potential crimes, whereas the reliable sources report that they were not crimes on account of the age of consent being 16. Moore’s behavior is still yucky IMHO, but much yuckier is Wikipedians’ attempt to exaggerate the matter by excluding extremely pertinent facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw. I'm not happy with the state of the article at present and the title is debatably a mess, but I think the topic itself is worthy of its own article and any flaws can be worked on. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep': It meets the guidelines on notability. Sabot Cat (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although it is noteworthy, right now there is overlapping content between this and the main article on Roy Moore, so it's twice as much work to maintain, and consensus should have been obtained first, given the heavy updating on the main article. However, if there is a consensus to keep, I urge that we remove nearly all discussion of this topic from the main Roy Moore article, again because of the difficulty in maintaining two overlapping articles that are heavily edited as events unfold. If another accuser emerges or new details on existing accusation emerge, we shouldn't be updating two articles with the same facts. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should overlap with that article and the special election article. The right answer is to cut the content in the Moore article and link.Casprings (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ideally we'd have a very short paragraph in the Roy Moore lede, a couple of longer paragraphs in the body and this article can go fully in depth with timelines, reactions and implications etc... it'll be a bit of a wrangle to sort out the balance but it's entirely normal and doable and solves a lot of potential problems with overwhelming the parent article. Artw (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unneccessary content fork. Wikipedia is not news and it appears a few editors here have fallen victim to a bad case of recentism. At this point, this is a BLP disaster fueled by speculation. I am baffled that lasting impact can supposedly be determined when the story is ongoing and a crystal ball hasn't been brought here for us all to see any future repercussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheGracefulSlick. It's a content fork that is dripping with BLP issues. That may change at some point. But as of now we are not there, or even really close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit I am a little confused here - didn't you spend a significant portion of last week arguing that the Roy Moore article was too crowded with negative material that was drowning out the rest. Now we have the opportunity to move out a significant and quite negative chunk of the article to a place where it can expand (which it surely will) without dwarfing the rest of the biography (which it surely would) and you are against that? Artw (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did. Volunteer Marek 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WikiNews which doesn't appear to have any content on this topic. Surely there are enough people here to jump-start coverage of this topic on that site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both? There's no issue in having info on this in both places. We do have plenty of articles of similar nature... actually make that A TON of articles of similar nature. For example Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork for now, but let's not say these are unproven allegations or something like that--they may not yet be proven in court, but that's not the same. We're NOT the NEWS, and what we have in the Moore article right now is more than enough for Wikipedia's purpose--said the lone voice crying in the desert. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are on the record account backed up by multiple witnesses. Okay, it isn't in court. That said, we need to treat this as WP:RS treat the event.Casprings (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not alone Drmies, you have ME! ❤️ Plus a few. I love emojis, BTW.😃 Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a massive political scandal that has dominated media coverage (with attention only increasing) and led to massive retractions of endorsements, including from the RNC and NRSC. There is no doubt this event is important enough to keep. Toa Nidhiki05 03:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the event is notable as seen from coverage in WP:RS. But I would be okay with merging also. Simply not everything is reflected in the main article. starship.paint ~ KO 03:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with User:RevivesDarks - the title is a disaster and should be changed, right now, even before the AfD is concluded. Drop "teenager", drop "sexual assault," drop "harassment," and above all drop "scandal", replacing it with "allegations". The way we do this kind of title can be seen at Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I agree "scandal" to "allegations" in title but will moving affect this dependent page? starship.paint ~ KO 04:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly moved the page to Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, as per the above examples. As I noted earlier at Talk:Roy Moore, it appears that sexual abuse is what is alleged [12]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the women mentioned in the article did not allege any sexual abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's questionable. Also "sex abuse scandal" seems to be what a solid majority of sources are going with. Artw (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By questionable you mean you’re not sure? It’s a good title for a POV fork though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By questionable I mean it;s fair to see the allegations as a pattern of stalking and harassment, including many things that could be considered as levels of abuse and with the physical contacts and rape attempt as their pinnacle, and that also I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to mininimisse that or pass a portion of it off as "dating" or whatever. Artw (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a POV fork, and also per Drmies and the TheGracefulSlick. Lepricavark (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roy Moore. It may be too soon for this, but I am somewhat ambivalent about it. I will admit that by all indications, more and more young girls are coming forward about Moore's predatory conduct. It would warrant it's own article if some criminal charges were expected, but this material is from a long time ago and it may be hard to either verify it, or refute it from a legal perspective. I believe the women here making the allegations and by all accounts it meets WP:V and WP:N and they are being taken by just about all the stakeholders within the GOP as credible. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki page has moved and I moved this page. starship.paint ~ KO 07:55, 16 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, either as a separate page or merged with either Roy Moore or the article on the election. I would lean towards a separate page, as the sources here are numerous. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and move to "Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations", since the allegations here range from dating teenagers and serving them alcohol to sexual assault, which are arguably not as severe as the allegations leveled against Harvey Weinstein, and more along the lines of Bill Clinton or Donald Trump's allegations articles. I'm worried this doesn't comply with WP:BLPNAME because it includes lots of the names of living people. Nevertheless, this is a useful article so the Roy Moore article doesn't get bogged down in the details of the scandal. If, for some reason, this doesn't have a lasting effect, it could always be merged back into Moore's article. ^Falling_Gravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: - each of these women revealed their identities to the press. Furthermore, it is very hard to write "this woman" or "that woman" or "another woman" given that there are so many. starship.paint ~ KO 10:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now – Let the dust settle and the story gel. After a time, we’ll know which allegations have resulted in what effects. O3000 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As long as these are "allegations" and not a specific court case or Senate proceedings (e.g. expelling him from the senate should he be elected) - this belongs in Roy Moore and/or United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 (where these allegations surfaced and play an important role) and not as a standalone article. We have an article on the campaign itself which should amply be able to cover these - as well as their political impact.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As a content fork, this makes a lot of sense, just like with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, etc. There is simply too much information here for it to be contained in the main article; it was taking up an inordinate amount of space, and splitting is how we deal with that.

As for lasting impact, we can only crystal ball it at this point, but I see two possible outcomes: he wins the election or he doesn't. If he doesn't (either by withdrawing or losing the vote), it will be because of these accusations – he was a shoo-in before all of this. And if he does win in spite of this, these accusations will almost certainly hang over him and his party, unless the Senate refuses to seat him or something else similarly drastic happens. In either situation, I don't see how we get away from this having lasting impact.

But beyond that, the information in this article is relevant to Roy Moore, and I think everyone agrees that these allegations are notable and belong in the encyclopedia. (I will concede that others think this article goes into too much detail.) The question is whether it needs to be a stand-alone article. As such, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. And for a stand-alone article, I think this clearly meets the basic requirement of WP:EVENT: it has received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.

Finally, I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for: a thorough and neutral accounting of what has been reported in reliable sources. If someone wants to know what's going on with all these accusations against Roy Moore, they shouldn't need to read through dozens of reports from different newspapers but rather should be able to turn to one source for an in-depth and neutral accounting, and that is exactly what an encyclopedia ought to do. -- irn (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this news story is too important and is affecting the outcome of the election. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 09:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a highly significant controversy, which is not only about the man, but about whole GOP Party and elections (titles like "The GOP’s Roy Moore nightmare just got worse. It could infect the battle for the Senate."). Also, the number of cases is too large. One needs a separate subpage to cover them. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fix, lock down until we figure out whether or not to merge this back in or not. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:BLP festival of problems. Much as I loathe the man, and highly suspect the allegations to be well-founded, we can wait until the matter is settled before we make a big deal out of it. At any rate the level of detail is newspaper-level, not encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep better to keep the section in the BLP brief. zzz (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, definitely receiving a lot of RS coverage, but still not in the level of significance of Clinton or Trump for it to warrant its own article. I'd say keep for now, but I suggest bringing it to AfD again after Moore is (most likely) elected. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much evidence against these accusers. See @ThomasWictor on twitter. Obvious fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsmith9 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also saying "someone on twitter said so" is... well, silly. Volunteer Marek 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Everything pertinent should fit in Roy Moore and United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017, I really don't see why the material needs to be regurgitated into a third article.LM2000 (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This man is not yet a notable politician to warrant having a separate article on this apart from his article and the election. He might become a notable politician if elected but he is not yet Bill Clinton or Donald Trump both of whom have served as President of the United States. If he is elected, we could return to it again. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This man is not yet a notable politician" - he most certainly is a notable politician and was one even before this scandal. Volunteer Marek 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Meets Wiki standards, it is too large to contain within main article, but has lots of information and references, the sex scandal is not only tied to moore but our entire historical series of events happening right now, which is reshaping some landscape in politics and other areas. Falazar (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Irn. Agree w/ him that that's what an encylopaedia is for. There are so many allegations, similar to that of harvey weinstein. Considering how much coverage there has been of it, it doesn't make sense to only have ~4 paragraphs at-most that can be exist in Roy Moore. Even if a lot of the content is removed as being too detailed - some of which I see has already happened - there still is enough for a separate article. Not sure why people think if the person isn't U.S. President level fame they can't have a separate article on allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The allegations are clearly noteworthy, and have had noteworthy consequences, irrespective of the outcome of the election. As reflected in the international media coverage, and reactions by many US senators, governors, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, among others, they have also reached a noteworthiness that transcends that of Roy Moore himself. Porridge (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The Talk:Roy Moore doesn't discuss the existence of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations. The only alternative to "keep" which is reasonable, is to merge with Roy Moore. Perhaps, but later then. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a no brainer. Easily meets criteria for notability. Just like Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Volunteer Marek 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have got coverage but these are still only allegations, so I a getting a strong BLP violation vibe from this. Even if they are true, hoew often do we have a separate article on this kind of thing?Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I echo what Falazar said, very relevant. Volvlogia (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - To soon, unless something comes out it is just a big old BLP vio at this time. PackMecEng (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"unless something comes out" - uh... like, what exactly? "Something"s have come out. Plenty of them. It's ... strange, to pretend there's nothing here. Volunteer Marek 06:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am not sure what you mean about me pretending there's nothing here? There certainly is, just not enough for a POV fork yet. "Something"s is not enough for it's own article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a POV fork. What is it a POV fork of? The Roy Moore article? It's the same info, just in more detail. As it should be. There's no POV difference between the two. Is Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations a POV fork of Harvey Weinstein? Volunteer Marek 07:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate content fork for now, with the possibility to merge later. agtx 23:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This scandal is, as others have noted above, highly relevant and noteworthy. I think we can reasonably consider merging, down the road, once things have settled down a bit, we have a clearer picture of what we're dealing with.CarlsonC (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong, sustained coverage in reliable sources. When an event sparks discussions of things that have not happened in 150 years, e.g. the possibility that the Senate could be likely to expel him if elected, that pretty much cements it as an event of historical importance. TheValeyard (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Heavy press coverage, including in-depth articles discussing many parts of the situation. Very significant in 2017 American electoral history, and foreseeably, something that will have historic impact on US politics in general. The strategy outlined in the deletion nomination above seems to inevitably encourage not discussing this at all in Wikipedia (well, until after the election), so is not, in my opinion, a valuable option. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - easily meets notability standards due to great deal of coverage; BLP based deletion requests reek strongly of politics. 128.223.223.136 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is probably ready for early closure as Keep based on the consensus of the editors. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Per Drmies and the TheGracefulSlick. Not only are these unproven allegations against a WP:BLP subject, but this article either disregards or violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:LASTING, and WP:RECENTISM. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the violations?

WP:LASTING: This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.

Also I really don't see any crystal balling - and sourced and attributed predictions by experts are fine. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because they're unproven doesn't mean they aren't important - aren't worth to be covered. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This topic has received a massive amount of coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable topic. Plus, it should keep the biography of Roy Moore from becoming all about these allegations. Also, even if it isn't true (even though it is probably true), there is enough coverage, and probably lasting significance, to keep this article. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very lengthy article with 50 citations. I'd hardly say that it'd be a great idea to merge what is a very notable topic in American politics with a large article with another even larger article about a notable American politician. I'm assuming the only reason this article was created in the first place was to relieve the Roy Moore article of an exhaustive topic, so that it can be neatly summarised on the article as a single section, while the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations article goes into greater detail. No point attempting to merge again; the topic will overgrow the Roy Moore article again and will be split off again because of how extensive and notable the topic is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · ) 14:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POVFORK, and the chances of keeping it from becoming an attack page are slim to none. It may prove more beneficial to our readers to create List of sexual abuse allegations against public figures which will grow as more come forward such as Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Clinton (relived), Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby and the list goes on. We may even need to create 2 lists; one for political public figures and another for celebrities. The allegations that result in legal judgements or convictions can be spun-off. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a POV fork and not a content fork? -- irn (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the lede - they're politicizing the allegations of sexual misconduct. I seriously doubt the man behaved that way thinking it would advance or hinder his political career. While the allegations surfaced at the time he was leading against his opponent, to make politics the focus makes it POV. Think about how our female readers see it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a POV fork. You're complaining about the POV of the article, which is something to be discussed on the article's talk page. A POV fork is when a new article is deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view. That's not the case here. The same point of view is reflected on the main Roy Moore article, just in less detail. Exactly as it should be with a content fork. -- irn (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see that as not the case here? Your explanation actually supports my position. How can you not see that? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing his point. The same "POV" (actually neutral text based on reliable sources - you're mistaking your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for POV) is present on both the main Roy Moore article and this one. So it cannot be a POV fork. For it to be a POV fork it would have to say something completely different than the main article. It doesn't. Please actually read and learn the relevant policies before citing them. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally wish that we would not have these types of detail-laden articles per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSCANDAL, but since this is the norm that has been embraced by the Wikipedia community for years, it would be very strange to delete this article. The subject has been covered internationally for ten days with no signs of diminishing. It's obviously notable, and it's too complex to adequately cover in Roy Moore. - Mr X 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be general consensus that the story is not "sensational", so I see no reason why it should be deleted. Not just a news story, but an ongoing issue with wider reaching consequences._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No reason for this to be deleted. Well-sourced, significant allegations; there are similar articles for similar offences by other public figures. Recommended close, due to the strong consensus for keep. Davey2116 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment = Since I got involved in this article, it has troubled me greatly. As you can see by reading the comments above, some treat all nine of Roy Moore's accusers as sexual assault victims. Yet, if you read the RS, with the exception of the three women who are charging sexual abuse, all the others have claimed that his behavior never went beyond dating and kissing. And all of those six were of the age of consent. The overall tone of the article is very negative rather than neutral. I have argued repeatedly that the tone should be changed by putting the charges in the mouths of RS rather than directly stating that Moore is this or that or did this or that. My arguments are constantly met with "it's RS", which strikes me as a copout to avoid the hard work of remaining neutral. However, I don't see that deleting the article will do any good. The same people will move over to the Roy Moore article and continue the same behavior. I think what is needed is someone with the authority to review the article, make decisions about BLP and NPOV and make them stick. Txantimedia (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Even if the allegations were all proven to be false tomorrow, this would still be a notable topic. Thus, there is no rational argument for deletion. It seems like the main problem is the sub-optimal title, which is a reason to change the title, not delete the content, or force people to plow through Moore's entire biography just to find out more about his inclinations to pedarasty. I thought Wikipedia was not censored. Was I wrong?Eternal return of the same (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly wrong about charging Moore with pederasty. I will assume, in good faith, you don't know the definition of pederasty. What Moore is guilty of, if he's guilty of anything, is Ephebophilia not Pederasty and possibly sexual assault. Asd so far, none of the charges have been proven, so it's a bit premature to judge him. But your comment points to the problem with this issue in both pages. There is a lot of heat and not much light going on, and we really need an experienced admin to resolve the issue. Txantimedia (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete WP:RECENTISM revisit in 6 months? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:RECENTISM After reading the definition, this article perfectly fits the definition and should be deleted. I agree with Aunva6. Revisit after the heat has died down. Txantimedia (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations should be deleted too? And of course the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 article too, since that's also "recent". More to the point, by now this isn't even "recent" and the overwhelming amount of coverage clearly justifies this article (note also that WP:RECENTISM is NOT actually Wikipedia policy). Volunteer Marek 07:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RECENTISM. I'm not being a smart aleck. When I read it, I immediately thought that it was a perfect description of the article. Txantimedia (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has absolutely dominated the news for the last month. It clearly meets WP:GNG, and the level of detail provided in this article cannot be provided at Roy Moore. Many delete rationales cite this as a fork that duplicates material, but see WP:Summary style. We do fork massive sections into individual articles when they become impossible to maintain in the main article without omitting encyclopedic content. Some duplication is encouraged. WP:POVFORK does not apply, as this article thoroughly covers the pro-Moore reactions and point-of-view. We have substantial precedent for articles such as this when the political scandal is large enough, which this one undoubtedly is. See Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (including the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I double-checked with the pending closer if I was ok to voice my opinion here despite the pending close. Oshwah was fine with it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete There are 2 women that called it sexual abuse. This article is a WP:COATRACK for accusations unrelated to sexual abuse. For example, this initial WaPo piece makes it clear that there was no sexual contact with 3 of the 4 that came forward. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact. and Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman (14 y/o at the time), who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. Creepy dating but not sexual abuse as this COATRACK article implies. I believe there are 2 accusations that would be deemed sexual abuse and they can be handled in the Roy Moore biography. --DHeyward (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered together on the majority, if not all, sources - of which there are thousands now. The article in no way meets the description of a COATRACK. Artw (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a POVFORK, it is routine practice for sections of articles which become too long to be split out into sub-articles, and this is not considered forking. Similar pages have been created for a number of allegations against influential people. The topic has gained a huge amount of media attention and it is distinctly possible that it will continue to do so for some time to come, so it's far too premature to argue that this must be deleted for recentism. BLP issues can be dealt with through editing and I don't think that Wikipedia should shy away from covering this type of topic for BLP reasons. The question of whether this should be a standalone article or a section of the main article is debatable, but either way the content is not going to be deleted. Hut 8.5 18:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Vish[edit]

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

Being a movie music producer and composing background music scores don't satisfy WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a total lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror site. Nor are we supposed to be sourcing articles to twitter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Huge WP:COI problems, among others. Any redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 12:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan design[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced and CoI by creator. Likely no more than a POV-fork. Kleuske (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five sources have been added to increase objectivity making this in line with WP:GNG

Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One editor, Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods, created the page vegan design without use of sources, and edited veganism here with information defining/promoting vegan design according to only her interpretation. Given that Unicorn Goods is a "vegan design" company and the editor is the founder/owner (WP user name is part of company name), this is clear conflict of interest and promotional, a violation of Wikipedia policy per WP:PROMO. The editor's additional sources are themselves promotional and WP:PEA. Further discussion here. --Zefr (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: It is possible for COI editors to write objectively. As the article stands now, it isn't promotional, and doesn't seem to bear any connection to the author's employer except by subject area. What we need to determine is whether the subject is notable. At the moment, given the sources currently in the article, maybe, but I'm on the fence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist: let's be clear about a few things concerning COI on this topic. 1) the article was created by a user who created a username identifying her employer, Unicorn Goods, a vegan design company; 2) the same user has attempted, and failed by your own response, to create an article about Unicorn Goods, here; 3) in earlier edits here, the user includes references which center around PETA, a soapbox organization promoting veganism, therefore revealing WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP. Reviewing WP:COI, there are numerous areas of concern, not least of which how misleading this article would be if we were not contesting it based on objectivity and propriety. --Zefr (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And all of those points have exactly zero relevance to the basic question to be answered in an AFD discussion: Is the topic notable? I think it might be, as there are valid references (which you have repeatedly removed) covering the topic. Coverage of a PETA event by a reliable source like the Los Angeles Times is still coverage by a reliable source. You haven't yet offered any reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy why the topic isn't notable. COI isn't valid grounds to delete, particularly if the article isn't promotional (which it isn't). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disputed the quality of references here and here, with edit explanations that they contain blog, soapbox and/or commercially promotional content. As for notability, edits were made to this section of the Veganism article to accommodate content on vegan personal items. The article name, "Vegan design", is rare or absent from secondary sources, and appears to be a novel term the article creator wishes to use as unique for her own company's marketing, contested here. --Zefr (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The editor is transparent about connection to a vegan design company, in line with WP:UN. This entry is written concisely and objectively, is cited, and is not in violation of WP:GNG, WP:PROMO or WP:PEA. The editor has no connection to the cited sources. Editor is not referenced in the entry or referred to, nor is any company or organization with connection to the editor.--Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WP:DICTDEF of a non-notable neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources about the term have been added. - Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: It's only a dictionary definition because the bulk of the article gets blanked by one editor every time it is expanded. There are some possibly decent references cited in the longer versions found in the article history. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Veganism#Personal_items. At best this is a neologism and certainly too soon. A sentence or two to the effect that fashion and other products are being designed with vegan philosophies in mind should suffice at this stage. If and when "vegan design" becomes a real thing, a separate article might be appropriate, but not now. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Derek Andrews that a minor edit can be made to Veganism, so I added to the content here. In reviewing the several references offered in one edit yesterday, nearly all references were promotional, and the term "vegan design" was not used. I sense the creator of this article is trying to establish a business advantage and marketing term through this page. The COI revealed on her Talk page should disqualify further edits until the COI is resolved as it applies to the article, "Vegan design". --Zefr (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to draft space for further improvement. Draft space is the proper venue for COI authors anyway, and the author here has a COI regarding this subject. The continual blanking of the author's good-faith attempts to add reliable sources is getting nowhere. There seems to be a WP:OWN problem on multiple sides. It isn't suitable for main space in its current 2-sentence form, and the blanked parts contain potentially useful wikilinks and references. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best move to draft space. It doesn't help that User:Zefr is deleting the article as fast as it is being created. However, I'm not convinced the term isn't a neologism and too premature to support a Wikipedia article. There are non-animal products being developed and created, but this can be covered in Veganism. Sionk (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vegannism. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems there is a reasonable consensus not to retain the article as is, but are we going to draftify, delete, or merge & redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or move to draft space. The sourcing is inadequate, in part because soruces are problematic. The first, appears to be an promoted material, because of the odd byline, it is in the LATimes, but the byline is to Women's Wear Daily and it is promoting an event sponsored by PETA]]. The second is to an activist organization. Searches on "Vegan design" lead to blogs and activist organization. Sourcing is just not up to prime time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of military veterans in British politics[edit]

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

Strikes me as hard to maintain and not that informative for the reader. Does someone like Lord Carrington really belong in the same list as veterans of the Iraq War, for example? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In American politics, there's enough coverage of "veterans running for office" that a page like this would be notable. I don't know if British politics has similar coverage. I feel that a category would be easier to maintain in this case, but AfD isn't a good place for List v. Category debates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Does someone like Lord Carrington really belong in the same list as veterans of the Iraq War, for example?" I'm a bit puzzled by this question. What do you mean? They're all military/combat veterans. Is it the mixing of wars you don't like or do you think one is more worthy than the other? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is neither hard to maintain nor uninformative. I can't see any other reason put forward for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful list with defined criteria which will never become unduly long or hard to maintain. Can't see how it violates policy. Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete The only way this is being kept manageable is by limiting it to current politicians, which then turns it into a maintenance project. In other words, it's being kept from being indiscriminate by drawing an arbitrary line. A more general article discussing the relationship of military service to British politics would actually be useful. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary connection. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary cross-categorisation, failing WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary listing criterium, WP:IINFO. Also, I understand that prior to modern times most British politicians had some sort of military background. Sandstein 12:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kahala Brands#Brands. The 50* IP's efforts are appreciated, but there isn't quite enough to demonstrate enough potential notability to run this for another week. That said, I've taken the found references and merged them into the target article's line on the subject. If anybody would like for this to be restored to their userspace to work on and find additional refs for, please ping me and I'll fix it up for you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Steak[edit]

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

Typical business and the typical press releases and notices, a redirect here is reasonable but can also be dealt with by both deletion and redirect, given the promotionalism. The first source is literally a business listing and the second is their own website. An immediate search here shows there's no actual substantial coverage as needed for a relevant article and there's in fact extremely vague claims of significance. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kahala_Brands#Brands where the subject is mentioned, as an alternative to deletion. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. A plausible search term, but not independently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no content here, and there is seems to be nothing to be found except notices. As the trade name is the deliberate use of a common phrase for advertising purposes, I'm not even sure about the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before a decision is made to kill this article, please take a look at my rather meager attempt of adding content to this article that is not solely based upon material from the company's PR department. There are some fragmentary material in the Cincinnati newspapers about the company before it was acquired by Kahana. I believed that this article has more potential than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarku Japan and there should be an attempt to save the article before a decision is made for deletion. -- 50.195.200.161 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As author has stated that they are working on this article in their sandbox, and there is no objection to deletion, I have deleted it under Speedy G7 PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Theory of Race Relations[edit]

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

Page is currently a list with no content Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense article consisting only of formatting, redlinks and blue links. Creator's user page says "This user is a student editor in UCSD/HIGR_210_Socialism_in_China_(2017_Fall)" so possibly this should be in a sandbox or something rather than mainspace. Might be a candidate for speedy deletion G2? Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like this is something that the student is in the process of expanding and they've saved a copy of this to their sandbox. I'll talk with the student about creating drafts in the mainspace along with other concerns. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author request [13][14] and lack of content (beyond section headings) and sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no content to judge. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OneDome[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:CORPDEPTH; references are to trade press sources and are run-of-the-mill product reviews and funding announcements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think The Times and Telegraph would be good sources to cite. In addition to these here are some other sources in which OneDome has been mentioned; Startacus^[1], The Negotiator^[2], Manchester Evening News ^[3], Disruption Hub^[4], Property Industry Eye,^[5]and Superb Crew. ^[6]

Perhaps most interesting; Huffington Post ^[7]

I hope this helps and would be more than happy to rewrite and add these sources to the article if the community feels this addition would suffice. KentVorland (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "OneDome set to connect consumers to the property market with just one click". Startacus. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "Interview: the Knight Frank executive who went 'proptech'". TheNegotiator. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "Proptech startup launches in Greater Manchester". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "Hybrid Property Technology – Disrupting the Business for the Better". Disruption. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "Agent Provocateur: A lot of noise about proptech – but it can be simple, affordable and genuinely useful". Property Industry Eye. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "OneDome Raises $4M Series A Funding To Improve The Property Transaction Process". Superb Crew. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "The Future Of Technology May Be Collaboration, Not Disruption". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-03.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More mentions in the news for OneDome:

- Dartford Living [15]

- Kent Online [16] KentVorland (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism for a nn startup of 45 ppl; does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is WP:SPIP or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Because of substantial sourcing and OR problems. Can be userfied (though not by me) for further improvement. Sandstein 12:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish etiquette[edit]

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

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It largely consists of an editor's extrapolation from the practices among one Jewish community to "Jewish etiquette". Large amounts of original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since addressed the issue that you mentioned, renaming the article to "Yemenite Jewish etiquette," instead of the more general title of "Jewish etiquette." As for the "essay-like" style, I am correcting that too, so that it does not read like an essay.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz Malik, is there anything usable here that would make a viable article? The concept seems worthy of an article at first glance. Irondome (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Jewish etiquette (דרך ארץ, derech eretz) is definitely notable, and some of what's in this article might be suitable for a section of an article that was based on general sources on that subject. As written, however, most of this article is almost a sociological study of etiquette among the Jewish community in Yemen that's extrapolated, as if what was true about the Yemenite Jews in one period is true of all Jews in all lands throughout history. That may or may not be the case—I'm skeptical, but I don't claim to be an expert in the history of Jewish manners—but books about the history of Jewish etiquette would be appropriate sources, not almost exclusively books about Yemenite Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz, shalom. I think the article makes it very clear in the beginning that Jews were exiled and that etiquette has changed from country to country. With that said, the author of the work that I cited in the lead paragraph alleges that Yemenite Jewish customs of etiquette were once pervasive among all Jewish communities, which view is also supported by the Minor Tractate "Derech Eretz" and whose list of mannerisms of Jews (when that work was first compiled) mirrors those of Yemenite Jews. It is no secret that the Jews of Yemen are held to have preserved the ancient-most traditions in Israel.Davidbena (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought this editor to WP:ANI for overindulgence in WP:OR, a ban was in the making but for some strange reason it did not get decided/applied. My view is that this editor overindulges in WP:PRIMARY religious sources, sometimes he quotes WP:SECONDARY sources, mostly in Hebrew, which I don't read and I cannot check if they verify the added information, as pointed by others at Talk:Intelligent design he cannot be trusted to render the view of the secondary sources he does quote, engaging instead in WP:SYNTH and WP:Editorializing. I guess WP:TNT would apply. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu, The standard procedure for bringing down foreign language sources is to comply to any request for an English translation of the original source. I will be happy to do this if anyone should ask for a direct English translation of sources provided.Davidbena (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the backstory here Tgeorgescu. I would agree that WP:TNT may be an option here. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have in fact sympathy for him, but despite my sympathy I have to note that he learned nothing from the WP:ANI ban proposal, or from his many rejected AFC submissions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if I misunderstood the WP:ANI ban proposal. I never knew that we were prohibited from suggesting amendments to the article Intelligent Design (see last discussion on Talk-Page there), which, unfortunately, incensed a lot of my co-editors against me. No offense intended.Davidbena (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable and there are good sources (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. ETIQUETTE), keep, WP:KEEP. --185.13.106.107 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Your efforts are worthy, your persistence is admirable, it is just that Wikipedia is not the venue for such articles. See WP:NOTESSAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say this work infringes upon WP:NOTESSAY, may God forbid, when the vast majority of the sources quoted here, except where otherwise stated, have been drawn from Yosef Qafih's seminal work, "Jewish Life in Sana (Halichot Teman)", and where he devotes an entire chapter (pp. 260–263) to the topic of "Common Blessings and Etiquette"? Furthermore, as for the Hebrew language preserved by Yemenite Jewry, Israeli linguist Hanoch Yelon, in Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects (issue 3) (1931), has already noted how the Yemenite Jewish modes of speech are a common heritage of all of Israel, the Jewish nation of old. In the cases that I have specifically mentioned in this article, I have cited reliable sources that state explicitly that such language as noted in the article was used in the form of good manners and etiquette.Davidbena (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. "Hebrew language has some words" non sequitur "this is the etiquette of most Jews". Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment As a goy working for an Orthodox Jew, I really have to wonder whether there is a common Jewish etiquette which cuts across the various communities in different countries. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current situation is a bit of a mess. Derekh eretz already exists as a disambiguation page with links to four articles. Torah im Derech Eretz, in particular, has a lenghty editing history that suggests it was initially conceived and developed as an article about at least some aspects of the concept, including etiquette. The current lead of that article seems to focus the article more narrowly on the views of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch but the content of the article is broader than that. The topic discussion as a whole could stand to see some rationalization and reorganization but exactly what that should look like would require discussion. As it currently stands, I agree with the majority here that the current Jewish etiquette article smacks of WP:OR and, under that title, at least, is misfocused, and it's not clear a separate article solely on the topic of "Jewish etiquette", in the limited sense of social courtesy, can stand up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. The page is completely misnamed; this is a case study of Yemenite Jewish customs, certainly not "derech eretz" or the mistranslated "Jewish etiquette". Anything that's not OR or SYNTH could be summarized under Yemenite Jews, where the page creator is already active. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think with minor changes per style (so as not to read like an essay), the title of the article should be changed to "Yemenite Jewish etiquette"? I could agree to that.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "etiquette"! Yemenite Jewish customs, maybe. (Some of your sources specify Ancient Yemenite Jewish customs–we can't assume that any modern-day Yemenite Jews follow these customs.) But reading more closely, you have a lot of SYNTH here that must be removed before making a Yemen-specific article. SYNTH means that you're familiar with some customs so you wrote them up for an article and then went looking for sources to back them up. The article is cobbled together rather than flows naturally. Most of the "Table etiquette" section isn't Yemen-specific. The third paragraph under "Personal hygiene and conduct in the toilet" is only quoting the Rambam and the Gemara, showing that this custom isn't unique to Yemen and, without Yemenite sources, might not have even been practiced there. I think you should stick to your Yemen-specific sources for your research and paraphrase what they say to make a new article. Ideally, every sentence should be cited to a source (that will help cut down on the essay-like tone). And please get rid of all those references to "derech eretz" and Derekh Eretz Rabbah, which is a product of original research–trying to make connections between two disparate subjects. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoninah, The word "customs" is far too broad of a term, and would incorporate far more than what I am willing to undertake. The whole point here is to mention "etiquette," just as there are articles on Japanese etiquette, etc. The vast majority of sources deal specifically with etiquette. Since the original idea was to show "Jewish etiquette" it explains my citation as a source of "Tractate Derech Eretz" and of Rambam, many of which mannerisms recorded there mirror those of Yemenite Jews. To show that there are similar areas of etiquette, is this an infringement of WP:OR? After all, Yemenites belong to the family of Jews and have actually followed to the letter many of the same codes of etiquette. Am I only allowed to mention Yemenite Jewish sources, without referencing the Talmud, let's say with a sign of direction "cf." (compare)? Since we say in Hebrew, "No man sees his own disabilities" (אין אדם רואה נגעי עצמו), do you think that you could help me remove those places in the article which you said appears to be from WP:SYNTH? Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already begun to make the necessary changes in this article to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. Much work still needs to be done. I am working on the assumption that I will be allowed to change the name of this article to the more appropriate title of "Yemenite Jewish etiquette," and to make it conform strictly to Yemenite Jewish mannerisms and codes of etiquette. To that end, I will make a new sub-section entitled "Tractate Derech Eretz" in which I will amass all the references cited in that tractate and which are not directly connected, per se, to Yemenite Jewish custom, although they might be. In this manner, I will avoid what appears to be an infringement of WP:SYNTH. All that I ask here is patience from my fellow co-editors.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: This morning, I began to incorporate the changes in the article, which User:Yoninah and I agreed upon in the article's Talk-Page (new title, rewrite of lead paragraph, adding a sub-section entitled "Background"). I still have more to do, but I'll have to wait till this afternoon to resume the work. Meanwhile, editors here should feel free to add or subtract whatever they may feel would be beneficial to our readers. I am in the process of collecting other references.Davidbena (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has been moved, which I believe is not allowed during an AFD discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator (e.g. User:Avraham) please tell us whether or not we are permitted to change a title of an article during an AFD discussion? The change of title was done in accordance with what is being discussed in the ongoing discussion.Davidbena (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't forbidden, but it may lead to confusion. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern: Many of the issues which prompted this WP:AFD on 9 November 2017 have since been addressed and corrected. I appeal to those adjudicating over the worthiness of Wikipedia articles to consider keeping this valuable and informative article, as it fits the notability requirement of articles. Meanwhile, I shall continue to improve the style of the article, as time permits.Davidbena (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. This is not an encyclopedia article, sourced to anthropology books and describing actual Yemeni etiquette. It is more of an instruction manual and in that spirit is actually sourced to things like the Talmud and other very, very old texts that can only be sources for content about behavior at the times they were written. (people may find explanations or justifications for current behavior in such books, but a source would be needed for that). This is instruction not anthropological description. Doesn't belong in WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not surprise me that you would vote this way, since you and I have a history of "contentious" communication. This is not an instruction manual, but rather a description of etiquette, just as it exists in EVERY article on etiquette, Check for yourself.Davidbena (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a breach of etiquette to attack another person this way. :) But also irrelevant in AfD. Just take as an example the section on Yemenite_Jewish_etiquette#The_Evil_eye. Lovely writing but unsourced, actually. The "sources" there are to Rashi (irrelevant to support content discussing contemporary behavior/beliefs) and something described as "Journal Teima, [...]". Looking at the 77 sources, about half of them are to the Talmud, Rashi, something called Aleph-Be, United Torath Avoth: Bnei-Barak, dictionaries, etc. Ref 55 is an unsourced essay all of it own. There is no sense of time here either. Are all of these customs in 2017? ISBN 965-235-011-7 is the kind of source to be using but that is from 1983, an entire generation ago. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The article reads like a cross between a dictionary entry and an essay with an elaborate bibliography, not an encyclopedic article. It also appears to be independently researched. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issues initially raised have been satisfactorily addressed.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Davidbena, User:Jytdog makes some good points which cannot be ignored. In addition to the Evil Eye section, Yemenite Jewish etiquette#Yemenite Jewish mannerisms only has one citation, to a Gemara, and Yemenite Jewish etiquette#Terms of endearment and the second paragraph under Yemenite Jewish etiquette#Common respect for parents, teachers and elders are mostly unsourced. Regarding the argument about WP:NOTMANUAL, this does look like an expanded version of a presentation like Etiquette in the Middle East. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the first paragraph under Yemenite Jewish etiquette#Common respect for parents, teachers and elders is sourced, namely, Shelomo Dov Goitein, The Yemenites – History, Communal Organization, Spiritual Life (Selected Studies), editor: Menahem Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem 1983, p. 259. The second paragraph was taken from the journal named, but I must find again the year, issue and page number. As for this article, please try comparing the sources cited in "Yemenite Jewish etiquette" with the sources cited in Etiquette in Japan.Davidbena (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the sources for the Middle East article are a joke. But please try to keep the sifrei kodesh out of everything except the Background section. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoninah, the way that I have dealt with the issue of referring to "sifrei kodesh" is to merely cite "Compare" (cf.), without saying specifically that the practice dates back to the older source.Davidbena (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best thing here would be to draftify this and then put it through AfC after davidbena dramatically revises it? davidbena if you would agree to that, we can simply withdraw the AfD and you can fix this in peace, if User:Malik Shabazz agrees.... Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If Davidbena is willing to move the article to draftspace, I'll withdraw the AfD nomination. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - great, thanks. Davidbena, let us know. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you, indeed, raised a good point that there "is no sense of time" in the article, which I will do my best to incorporate the matter into this article at your request. To briefly answer, though, older Yemenite Jews still practice this etiquette, and it is taught in Yemenite Jewish seminaries and "Talmud Torah" throughout the country. So, yes, the etiquette is still applicable in 2017, except where otherwise the article notes that the practice has become obsolete. As for the secondary sources used, none are "very, very old texts" as you alleged, but have been written and published in our generation. Since I am doing my very best to satisfactorily address all the issues that you have raised here, and since there is some merit in keeping this article in "main space," while the minor idiosyncrasies that do exist do not justify its deletion, I would be against putting it in draftspace until an AfC be made on it. I am willing to let the judges of AFD judge the merits of this article, for good or for bad, and if worse comes to worse, I can only say that I tried my best to do what I humbly saw as right to do. BTW: One of the sources cited by me, namely, "Aleph-Be," is published and distributed by a Yemenite "Talmud Torah" in Bnei Barak, and has therein a specific chart on etiquette.Davidbena (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are hearing the issue with putting things into time.

You need sources to state in the page, that older Yemeni Jews still follow this.

In general the page is way too much coming out of your mind and experience, with refs thrown in behind that. This is not OK, and therefore this page is very, very likely to be deleted per TNT as it is fundamentally flawed. I guess that is the road we are going down. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you said about providing a source that the "older Yemeni Jews still follow this," those who know the community, know that this is the case, just like saying that the Lakota Indians of North and South Dakota, most of them no longer dwell in Tipis, but in regular box houses. There is no infringement on WP:OR when the subject matter is WP:SKYBLUE, even if it had not been supported by a source. Besides, this source: Yehuda Ratzaby, Dictionary of the Hebrew Language used by Yemenite Jews (אוצר לשון הקדש שלבני תימן), Tel-Aviv 1978, Preface (p. ט"ז) [Hebrew], says explicitly that the "writing etiquette" is practised to this very day! As a former seminary student in Jerusalem, I was also taught the same Yemenite Jewish etiquette, and have seen it practised between Yemenites themselves. Had I written an article in which I tried to prove a certain scientific point of view, using my own inferences, and one that could easily be disproven, that would be tantamount to WP:OR. Here, the obvious is the obvious, to those who know the community. Moreover, it is taught in the curriculum of the Yemenite "Talmud Torah" in Bnei Barak, as shown by its published text book.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you write there is demonstrating that this is an essay reflecting your personal knowledge, which means it doesn't belong in WP. A source from 1978 that says "to this very day" is relevant as of 1978 and not a day beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article reflects an "essay-like style," it is my own short-coming. If you see places that sound like as essay, please feel free to change the style. We are permitted here to work on the article while undergoing this review. I will also continue to improve the style, so that it sounds more "encyclopedic."Davidbena (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skymind[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR-driven and / or WP:SPIP. The talk page includes a list of sources, but they are passing mentions, quotes from the company executives, or PR driven. The company raised $3M in funding and has 10-50(?) employees, strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While K.e.coffman cites the tone of the page and claims no RS coverage was found, K.e.coffman did not flag the article for notability, tone or source citation before proposing deletion, when in fact all of these can be improved by editing the article.

No attempt was made by K.e.coffman to salvage a viable article, not even by alerting others who read the article that improvements should be made. Instead it was immediately nominated for deletion.

Simply because Skymind appears obscure to K.e.coffman doesn't mean its page should be deleted. In fact, in the field of artificial intelligence, the company is well known.

In addition, significant RS coverage does exist, some of it included on the article page and some of it yet to be included.

For example, the AI software written by Skymind, Deeplearning4j, has been cited 411 times in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=deeplearning4j&btnG=

This shows Skymind has had a significant or demonstrable effect on technology and research in an important field.

The Wikipedia page lists articles that have mentioned Skymind which have appeared in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, WIRED, Forbes and Buzzfeed, as well as tech publications such as TechCrunch, VentureBeat and others. Some of those articles simply quote Skymind executives. Others, such as this profile in the tech magazine WIRED, below, are exclusively devoted to describing the company and its significance.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/skymind-deep-learning/

the company has attracted the notice of multiple, independent, reliable sources over several years

--Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply.

while not all RS have been cited in the Wikipedia article, those sources have been published

--Skymind comes up over 940 times in Google News

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS713US713&biw=1092&bih=573&tbm=nws&ei=3ygEWtPhFcaN0gKen4SYAw&q=skymind+ai&oq=skymind+ai&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5524.6461.0.6680.3.3.0.0.0.0.133.335.1j2.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.n3CexKRWElo

These are more than routine communiques or announcements. Many of them are devoted to the company and its technology. Most are neither press releases, material substantially based on press releases nor self-published material (the PR-driven announcements by other companies about Skymind are the minority).

The media coverage is national and international. Gartner Consulting named Skymind a Cool Vendor in 2017. CB Insights, a well known tech news publication, named Skymind to its list of the top 100 companies working in AI. TechCrunch named Skymind as one of the top seven startup to come out of Y Combinator's Winter 2016 demo day.

Skymind has been noticed by people outside the organization, and they have seen fit to tell their readers about it, and to give it awards.

Taken together, the media coverage of Skymind, and the wide citation of its technology by researchers, meet the criteria of notability and depth of coverage.

Some claims that K.e.coffman makes factually incorrect, and contradict both the page and external sources. For example, the company has raised double the funds cited, or $6.3 million, not 3 million, as cited on the article's talk page.

As pointed out on the talk page, software companies are not like traditional manufacturers. They don't rely on headcount to attain significance. Google had 20 employees in 1999. Valve, one of the most important gaming companies in America, has a mere 360 employees.

Skymind has 24 employees according to LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/3793671/

Like.liberation 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

The concerns with WP:CORPDEPTH are mitigated by the strong presence of Skymind outside of journalistic publication, and has been cited multiple times by financial analysts.

- Goldman Sachs has cited Skymind in a key industry report http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/artificial-intelligence.html - Skymind is listed alongside Microsoft, NVIDIA, Google, and IBM in this financial analyst report as a key player https://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/227641/deep-learning-market-key-players-active-networks-are-google-ibm-microsoft-skymind-baidu-hewlett-packard-enterprise-sensory-inc-intel-general-vision-inc-nvidia-corp-#.WgTCYLaZNE4 - Capgemini has cited Skymind in their own A.I. industry report https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/dti-ai-report_final1.pdf

Additionally, large/significant companies who do meet this criteria are found alongside Skymind in materials published by them.

- See page 2 of a joint paper between Skymind, Huawei, and Softbank http://www.gtigroup.org/d/file/Resources/rep/2017-06-23/d2235d29625e7811f57d73fad279af7a.pdf

Acglab (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) acglab 13:15, 9 November 2017 (PST)[reply]

Possible COI Note The above user created the Justin Long article, then returned after a two year break to post the above. Justin Long is now the Head of Business Development at Skymind.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Justin Long article does not, to me, appear to meet the criteria for notability. Thoughts? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG e.g. 1, 2, 3.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC

1 is a funding announcement based on company's words, 2 is a guide (WP:Not guide) and 3 is yet another announcement based on company's words. Your link to WP:GNG says we need significant independent coverage independent of the subject therefore a repaste somewhere is still within grounds of being primary. Trampton (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus, a press release issued by a company and published verbatim by The Times could still meet the criteria you posted of "in-depth coverage in reliable sources" but would still fail the criteria for establishing notability since the article must also be intellectually independent. None of the three references mentioned by you above, although published by reliable sources, are intellectually independent. The wired.com article relies exclusively on information and quotations provided by Gibson and therefore fails as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. The techcrunch article is an announcement of funding raised and relies on information provided by the company and/or the investors and does not contain and independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The final reference relies exclusively on an interview with Nicholson and fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on WP:Not advocate alone, the offered sources above have a clear disclosure of being lifted from company press releases or notices, this is not in accordance of significant independent sources. Trampton (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails the criteria for establishing notability, references are not intellectually independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Article also fails WP:SPIP and is promotional in tone and in nature. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Together With Me The Series[edit]

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

non-notable television series. Couldn't find any reliable sources XFhumu^Talk 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a bit of news coverage in Thai,[17] e.g. in Kom Chad Luek[18] and Krungthep Turakij.[19] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NoCopyrightSounds[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)).

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

Non-notable record label. A Google search brings up a lack of significant coverage to satisfy both WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination Cocohead781 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmanpreet Singh Bal[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a athlete that fails to prove notability as per WP:GNG. The sources are far from being in-depth secondary coverage. Has not played for his country's senior team. A vanity page full of peacock terms. Domdeparis (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I’m redirecting the Draft version at this one so it can be deleted at the same time based on one discussion. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to this, he has appeared in games for the Punjab Warriors, which, as a member of Hockey India League, appears to be a top-level competition and thus satifying notability requirements. In addition, playing for the India men's national field hockey team may also count towards notability requirements. That said this isn't my area of expertise, and the article is so poor it may be a WP:TNT candidate. (I would like to request a relisting, either way, as this AfD was not deletion-sorted before now and thus many of the people who do know about this sort of thing may have been unaware of it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable field hockey player. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. Please see above regarding his status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no topic specific guidelines for hockey players. So it is WP:ANYBIO that counts I believe. From what I can gather from the sources this player has represented India in an U21s cup the Sultan of Johor Cup (the original piped link went to an other competition). I checked out the links again and he is not in the India senior mens probables squad here, None of the sources attest to him having played 39 times for India. All of the links in the info box are piped links to other competitions. Of the sources there are only the match reports and the list of players sold that mention his name. He was a substitute player in the match reports and played an average of 7 minutes in each of the 3 matches.Domdeparis (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relistings, the arguments for 'keep' are more convincing than those for 'delete', particularly the fact that the CBE is, by consensus, considered an automatic pass of ANYBIO #1. Whether or not it should be, as argued by DGG, may or may not be so, but that is not a discussion that is in-venue at AfD. We must consider the articles by our existing policies, guidelines, and established consensuses. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Tacon[edit]

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

I do not see how the position is notable , noro do I see tthat any of the sources offers independent coverage. A CBE by itself has never been held to confer notability , as it's a routine award for senior bureaucrats. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi DGG, are you able to direct us non-veteran:)) editors to the discussion(s)/consensus about a cbe not contributing to notability?, my understanding is that there is only about 300(?) conferred each year so its not really that common, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My error: CBE and above are generally considered notable, MBE and OBE are not..-- [20] This may need revison, considering that the UK does not presently regard it as a "high award" [21], and a UK official statement at[22] "This is awarded for having a prominent but lesser role at national level, or a leading role at regional level" and I see that the UK does not presently regard it as a "high award" [23].

But in regard to thisindividual, the reported accomplishments do not show notability independent of the award, so I suggest that even if we maintain the general rule, it might be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in reliable sources: BBC [24], Retail Week [25], [26]. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. BBC, while looking impressive, is just an interview. The position of Groceries Code Adjudicator is not sufficiently significant to presume the officeholder would be notable. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the BBC is an interview and is therefore not intellectually independent for the purposes of establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which we have always held to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. I really don't think that inclusion or not in arbitrary lists of 'high awards' is relevant. Wikipedia consensus is that recipients of these awards are notable, and rightly so. It is, for instance, the level of award given to very prominent actors and musicians who may fall slightly below the level required for a knighthood/damehood. Before appointment to her present post, Tacon spent twelve years as managing director of Co-operative Farms. She is now a senior civil servant. She holds the CBE. She has an entry in Who's Who. Yet claims here appear to be that she is less notable than a footballer who has played a single professional match or a one-hit wonder pop singer, who would both get articles without question! The 'logic' of Wikipedia editors astounds me sometimes... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lillian Axe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoschizophrenia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The article does not indicate why the album is notable. The only reference isn't actually a review - just a track list. I searched for additional sources but couldn't find any. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lillian Axe. Nothing found that would indicate sufficient notability, but no reason not to retain as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kosick[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has never even been all-conference, much less meeting any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. In addition, coverage of him all seems to be routine sports reporting. I don't see anything to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Huntzicker[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am unable to find a reference, but this previously was listed for AfD and a decision was made to retain the article. Although I don't think the argument is a slam dunk, I think the subject has sufficient coverage to be notable and that the article has encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: When was this article ever previously listed for AfD? I don't believe it was. Joeykai (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just recall cleaning up the article when it was in bad shape and thought that it was under AFD. I also looked for an AFD reference and did not find one. So maybe my recollection is faulty or perhaps the article name changed? I don't have any personal connection to the subject or to the University of Michigan or to ice hockey (I see ice as a concussion waiting to happen). My 2¢ is that the subject has enough coverage and the article has enough encyclopedic interest to warrant keeping under GNG if not the latest revision of NHOCKEY, but I understand arguments to the contrary.--Rpclod (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this was previously listed as a keep in a past AfD, WP:NHOCKEY has gone through quite a drastic change. Mostly, it made the presumption standards higher. Since we cannot see it, even under WP:GF, I don't think the previous AfD carries much weight. The sources for GNG just aren't there. RonSigPi (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that allow for it to meet GNG. And it doesn't meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet anything at WP:NHOCKEY and coverage consists of routine sports reporting, the local paper, and/or U. of Michigan websites--nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Cornhuskers men's lacrosse[edit]

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

Men's club lacrosse team. Not notable. No verifiable independent significant coverage found. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete club teams are rarely notable. For the rare exceptions we would need more than the websites of the university the team is a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious lack of notability. No significant coverage. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Berke[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable film-maker who has done some work, but has scant coverage, not sufficient for WP:NCREATIVE inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched Google news and Google books, zero hits. A general Google search brings up pretty much just the wiki page and IMDB. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dubious notability. -FASTILY 23:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanpiece. The first ref - at IMDB - is a mini-bio, written by a Judith Berke.-Semperito (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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