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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlos Marun[edit]

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

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

References are in Portuguese and I don't read Portuguese but the page, as it stands, does not seem like the subject meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Obvious keep. This is an elected member of the Chamber of Deputies (Brazil), the lower house of that country. I'm not certain whether his current office is that of a "secretary of..." government minister level, or more of a deputy secretary of..., but even so he is clearly notable as an elected national-level politician (in a major country). He is the immediate subject of clearly reliable sources like Globo (provincial news), Globo (political news), Diario de Goias, Brasil 247, and so on and so on (36,000 Google News hits!!). Fram (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The article certainly needs improvement, but a member of the Chamber of Deputies passes WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep, he's a national level politician (congressmen and minister), easily passing WP:NPOL. Article does need some work, though. I'll see if I can do something when I have more time. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep He passes notability guidelines on multiple levels. With this many references alone, a person should not nominate unless they have a sense of what the references are. All, let me repeate that, all people who have ever been members of national legislatures are default notable. As long as we have evidence that they actually were in the legislature, we keep the article, no matter how little we have on them. I went through and rewrote the article to make it more clear that Marun is a member of the Chamber of Deputies and make it flow better in English. I strongly suspect that more could be written on his background, which we ought to have. However, an article being incomplete is reason to expand it, not delete it. He without question passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep If you can't read the references, is the best solution really to rush to articles for deletion? What is going on on this website? It is cases like this that give the entire encyclopedia a bad name, as it just appears to forward the idea that this website is being stifled by a group of westerners who summarily throw away things they don't understand. AfD submissions and submitters need to be held more accountable especially when they are in huge error such as this one. If you can't read the references then defer to someone who can. Use the talk page, use wiki projects. People need to stop using AFD as the "I don't like/understand this page" option.Egaoblai (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG, as he is the secretary of government of Brazil. —cnzx (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NPOL as a member of Brazil's Lower House, and WP:GNG with more than two independent reliable sources listed in the article, that should be the end but no the nominator states "References are in Portuguese and I don't read Portuguese" so why are you nominating this article? you could have left a message on the article, creator, and/or Portugual wikiproject talkpage with your concerns, or checked the sources using gtranslate (not recommended when translating an article from another language wiki but ok in a case like this), ggggggrrrrr!!!!!!, such an experienced editor should know better, a fish slap may be in order (btw, i'm starving and haven't received one for ages.:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NPOL/GNG/BEFORE. South Nashua (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG and NPOL. Foreign-language references are going to be necessary for most subjects not located in an English-speaking country. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep. Sources have been presented, but there is no consensus on whether they're enough to clear notability. ansh666 22:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steak Escape[edit]

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

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

This article has existed since September 1, 2006. Throughout the article's history, it would appear it has had a WP:CORPDEPTH problem. While from a simple google search for "Steak Escape" it is manifestly obvious there are many franchise outlets across the United States, and even internationally, this 1982 establishment appears not to have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. The references in this article, as it currently stands, are from the company's own website, and PR Newswire, which while a respected publisher of press releases is still a publisher of press releases. The reference I added seems anomalous in this context. This article has been nominated for speedy deletion. To my mind, I think a WP:AFD discussion would be a better alternative, given the longevity of the article and the apparent ubiquitousness of the franchise. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Gbooks shows this as a potential source, and we need to remember that for a company foudned in 1982 there are likely to be source materials that are not, and never were, online. The fact that the article was proposed for speedy by one of the editors who, from my view of AfD, is one of the strongest "companies should not have pages" proponents is not something I would consider relevant to an AfD discussion on the subject (one way or another). The bottom line here is that I believe there's just enough, bearing in mind the extremely high liklihood of additional offline sources, to squeak past WP:GNG, and the article is not promotional in nature. TLDR: Likely GNG pass and ahe encyclopedia would not be improved by a deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't done enough research to offer an opinion on notability, but did want to address this source. First, it's not a book, per-se. It looks like a bunch of issues of a trade magazine bound up for library stacks. I'm not sure, but I think it's what's now called Restaurant Business Online. So, what we've got here is a search hit, with no useful context, in a niche industry publication. That's not what we base WP:N on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete no good references currently, we don't even have the corporate-directory information such as number of locations. [3] has some of this information, but isn't acceptable as a reference. It might be a notable topic, but the article would need to be re-written with entirely new sources (which I can't find) to demonstrate that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Bushranger; a news / book search shows some promising leads. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES: "We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable". An article needs to be a sourced condition or else it would simply a still Unsourced article. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well quite, but in this case the "news" link is at the top of this AfD, for anyone to click on and take a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - I added a few sources. Some are paywalled, but with the number of locations and international scope info that can be sourced, this should pass notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I added some more coverage. The QSR article about spreading into the Middle East has more info about their master distributors and international reach. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QSR would not be independent coverage from its business trade, as WP:CORP clearly says these are unacceptable: whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. [Unacceptable sources]: press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization. We have no article on QSR Magazine and so there's not even evidence anyone has established the magazine's own article before using it as a source. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete A surprising lack of sources for a fairly large chain that has been around for decades. I looked at gBooks, and the source cited by Bushranger - one sentence in a business magazine - is about the best there is, rest are mere mentions (granted, gBooks returns different results to different users as it randomly decided which books/pages ot search.) A search of proquest news archive looks no better, several press releases even on the first page of the search, always a bad sign. The sole INDEPTH I found is a 2006 article: Here's the BEEF ; No brotherly love between chains vying to be cheesesteak king,. Unfortunately, it's from this chain's hometown newspaper, Columbus Dispatch. There isa smattering of articles in other local papers that ran when someone opened a local branch: Visalia, CA; Denver; Memphis; Charlotte, a few others, most not available in full, merely snippets, and the ones that are very routine,more like events listings. That's all I'm seeing. ON the other hand, it's a good size chain, and I am not very familiar with the usual standards for keep/delete on restaurant chains.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as the actual concern and policy basis here is WP:Not promotion and WP:Not guidebook, both basic policies, and they clearly say Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Articles are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts and this is what the article is on every level. Notability is only gauging possible article chances, but policy is guaranteed enforcement of encyclopedia values. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a source review, although on a weak level, but nevertheless, meets the criteria. Below is another paywalled source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"growing chain" is business-speak for what we would call not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment – The book source directly above was published in 1997, twenty years ago. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep WP:ORGSIG is questionable. Specifically "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The company may have been around for a long while and may have several franchisees, but there's been no impact. The weak sources compound the issue per Northamerica1000. However, TimTempleton does make a good point with two articles that discuss the actual company. Operator873^CONNECT 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - While Tim Templeton makes a persuasive argument, I don't think that the QSR article puts it over the bar of notability. In addition, while I don't find it overly promotional, I do find it as little more than a company brochure, with a list routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Selective merge, and dip the rest. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters[edit]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft. The character synopses can be moved into the mainline article if deemed appropriate, although rereading them, they appear to be or a rather poor quality. The article has been tagged with an 'excessive detail' tag for over nine years now, and the article features precisely zero citations or references. Surely it's not time to throw the article into the proverbial 'vat of dip'? RÆDWALD E|T 23:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing about this article indicates the notability of the list of characters separate from the film that spawned them. bd2412 T 02:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Unsourced and not encyclopedic in the slightest. This is not a WFRR wiki. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per all the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: most of the content is either plot summary of WP:OR ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to the film article, per WP:ATD-M. The nom acknowledges "The character synopses can be moved" but that actually requires a merge, per WP:CWW, and none of the above delete !votes make any case that deletion is a better outcome than an appropriately selective merger, or even a redirection. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, as proposed above, seems like a reasonable way to go. While I do not think there is enough notable about the characters listed here to justify a separate article, there is material here which could be added to the main film article, although I agree the lack of sources needs to be looked at. Dunarc (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - not all of this information would fit in the film's article, but much of it belongs there. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happn[edit]

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

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

This application fails WP:PRODUCT. The coverage is only trivial coverage rather than significant and independent coverage. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. @GeoffreyT2000: I don't have a vested interest one way or another in this article, but do you not consider a standalone article in the NYT significant coverage? --Kbabej (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - This is a stub article, but contains sufficient secondary citations to meet the notability criteria of both WP:PRODUCT and WP:STUB in my opinion. Could do with some serious expansion, but does NOT meet the standard for deletion.

• Keep - WP:STUB; good references, short article. Just needs to be expanded. Operator873^CONNECT 00:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per the comment from 99.162.153.185 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happn:

  Meets WP:CORP from coverage [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

  The app has received international coverage in publications based in Australia, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States including this review in The New York Times. The article is neutrally written:

  happn is a mobile dating application developed by FTW & Co. The application is compatible with Android, iPhone, and Windows. The app uses a feed based upon the location of users' phone, listing possible matches. In July 2014, the app had 40,000 daily users. In January 2016, happn had 10 million users.

  Cunard (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crosby Marketing Communications[edit]

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

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

Run-of-the-mill advertising company. No apparent reason why it belongs on Wikipedia. Created by a now indeffed editor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barbequeue). Bottom line, WP:NCORP failure. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Most coverage comes from one source. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete borders on G11 as unambiguous advertising. Beyond that, no indications of this meeting WP:NCORP and sources are WP:SPIP / passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Many references but they are really just routine announcements of hiring and awards. There could possibly be a case made for the original founder Ralph Crosby - and merge the copmany - but I haven't gone too far into searching other than finding this one from the Baltimore Sun. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Fails CORPDEPTH/GNG/Etc. Most of the refs violate PROMO. South Nashua (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, none of the sources cited provide insight into aspects of the company that could be notable enough for an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James T. Ryan[edit]

James T. Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable businessperson, probably a vanity bio created for hire; creator is now blocked as Factsonlyplease39 sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete. W. W. Grainger is a long-existing and important company, but I am not finding any significant coverage about Ryan to bolster a claim that he's individually notable, by virtue of his positions at the company or otherwise. I note that several substantial blocks of primary-source-based content—content setting forth his positions and a few awards he's received—have been deleted from this article, which is not the best practice when an article is being considered for AfD; nevertheless, even with this content restored, and even assuming that secondary sources exist for some of this information, the case for his notability, in the Wikipedian sense, does not appear to be strong. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete non-notable CEO. While I am sure that Grainger is a notable company, I have to say that the article on it needs to be rewritten so it is less plauged with buzz words and promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DHA Phase VIII[edit]

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

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to DHA Karachi. Störm (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or Merge: This stub (see WP:STUB) has one source, and there's no significant coverage about the topic. maybe this article could be cleaned up and added to one of the articles listed at DHA under the organizations heading. Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerdi Staelens[edit]

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

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

Delete Fails notability criteria. Most of the article concerns his association with Winging, a company he co-founded. The awards are not nationally significant. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Much of the article repeats content and references from the article about the subject's company which is also at AfD. The involvement in a company and on a business excursion do not rise above run-of-the-mill activity to indicate WP:ANYBIO notability. Nor do awards for heritage activity in the town of Koekelare (pop. 8750) appear sufficient to provide encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep he's a known business man and did important historic research about WW1 also (cfr. museum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuFo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Insufficient coverage available to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Whenever there's a link to a Linkedin page in the refs of a bio, generally that's a clear sign that it's either a GNG failure, a PROMO violation, or both. South Nashua (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nom withdraw.. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) 23:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political literacy[edit]

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

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

No sources indicating the notority or existance of the expression Holy Goo (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Has nom carried out any due diligence checks WP:BEFORE nominating this? The criterion is that sources exist, not that they are cited, or that the article is even coherent. A quick search finds plenty of sources, including Theories of Political Literacy, Literacy, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Return to Political Socialization?, Literacy Cuts Both Ways: The Politics of Non-participation among Young People. There can be no doubt that the concept exists and is in academic use. The article needs serious work, but that isn't our concern here at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As the proponent, I change my mind to Keep. In my country, the concept of political illiteracy is known, thought it is only popular here. So that confused me. I wish to cancel the nomination. Holy Goo (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. As there is consensus that Smith doesn't merit a biography, but the theft itself is notable, the nomination is wothdrawn. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Initial claim is "one of the first" bank robberies in the US. The sole source being used is a sidebar from a children's book, actually describing a burglary and calling it a robbery.

Regardless, he fails WP:PERP and probably WP:ONEEVENT. Non-notable person who committed a single crime (not even the first) and did nothing notable afterward. An extremely common name makes it difficult to do an extensive search. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep with possible but rename to the crime itself (per WP:BIO1E, though there is some sourcing beyond just this crime). Be wary of nominating 1831 figures... This crime has multiple book hits - [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. This one - [34] - has details beyond the robbery itself (other crimes). As does this - [35]. The census bureau in 2016 decided to reference this in a PR release - [36]. Being the "first bank robber in the US" (per some sources second, but first in NY) is apparently grounds for LASTING coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Modified !vote so that rename support is clear. As for robbery vs. burglary - I don't have a strong opinion (there are merits to both - it seems the COMMONNAME here is robbery (as well as in other cased in which large sums were stolen), but that burglary is more correct technically).Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I do think this should be renamed to - 1831 City Bank New York Robbery, the robbery itself is what is really notable (and often cited as the first bank robbery in the US (though it is arguably the 2nd)). Some sources, e.g. - America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery (which is quite in depth) specify a 2nd perpatrator (William J. Murray (wiki article of post 1946 figure - not related) of less note than Smith), and Smith's name (due to his many aliases) is also an issue - e.g. the Saturday Evening Post refers to him as James Honeyman (mentioning Smith as the alias, whereas others do the reverse).Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Then why not amend your vote from a simple keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete The passing references do not justify a stand alone article on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but consider renaming, as the event (the bank robbery) is more notable than the perpetrators. Pburka (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete- On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage. Being "first" is hardly ever enough to establish a lasting impact unless sources state otherwise. No, we just have a common criminal, granted an older one, who fails one event. Note Editors I urge you to analyze the sources listed here instead of hastily coming to a decision based on the numbers. It makes a world of difference when it is established none of them significantly cover the subject we are discussing!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I pointed out which ones were short (though beyond passing - a paragraph is not a passing mention - and relevant given nom's initial assertion (children book sidebar) that this would seem to fail V - despite numerous short refs available) - specifically these are not passing by any means: [37],America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A paragraph is often a passing mention. And this keeps getting called a "robbery", but the term is being misused. This was a burglary. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep it received national and international (London) coverage in 1831 (articles popped right up in a news archive search) and considerable SUSTAINED coverage in the two centuries since. Support move to 1831 City Bank New York Robbery. And WP:HEY I added some details from one of the longer 1831 articles, and an 1831 article form a London paper to show international coverage. I am not sure who began citing it - erroneously - as "the first" or "the first recorded" U.S. bank robbery, but quite a large number of books do give a sentence or a paragraph of details of this robbery, as do news articles going back decades. Plus the longer stories including those cited by Icewhiz and the 1831 article I added, which includes the fact that perp heisted 398 gold doubloons. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Or who erroneously started calling it a robbery, since it was not a robbery. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If reliable sources call it a robbery, it's a robbery. See WP:TRUTH. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not always. Especially when we wikilink the term "bank robbery" and the first sentence of that article is "Bank robbery is the crime of stealing money from a bank, while bank employees and customers are subjected to force, violence, or a threat of violence." This was a spare set of keys made and sneaked in at night. No employees, no customers, no violence. While they may not have had a better grasp on the term in the past, we've grown. And I can provide you with dozens of sources that say that sneaking into the bank at night is not a robbery. If we use your "if the sources says it" position, since I can find old sources that say the earth is flat, shouldn't we amend that article? I mean if the source says it's flat, it's flat. This source says it was "actually sa nocturnal burglary" [38] This source also correctly calls it a burglary [39] So can we stop pretending like the matter is so black and white? BTW, the essay TRUTH doesn't apply here. I'm not advancing a non-neutral POV, nor am I trying to give weight to a discredited theory etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Great - thanks for finding sources which call it a burglary. Update the article based on these sources. This discussion is, of course, unrelated to notability, and belongs on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It isn't completely unrelated. Part of the claim to notability was being a "first" bank robber. If there was not a robbery, rather a theft, it weakens the notability and strengthens the move to an article about the incident rather than a bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Notability isn't determined by being first. It's determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. Please see WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No kidding? Really? Do you honestly think I've been editing here for a decade and never read GNG? Since you're not citing a particular part of it and just lazily linking to it, you must think I never have. No my friend, I mentioned "first" because that was cited in a keep vote by another editor. Maybe you should go share some of your sarcasm with them. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nightshift, I do see your point The 1831 newspaper article is headlined City Bank Robber Taken and uses the term repeatedly. I am not married to using robbery rather than theft. but might it be that robbery was the usual term in 1831? And maybe take wording to the talk page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It may have been a simpler term to use in 1831. But, as I said above, the term is at odds with the wikipedia article about the subject. I also shared 2 reliable sources that correctly call it a burglary. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue with an open-mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON. Also, here: [[40]] you remove a valid source with the edit "source doesn't mention Smith" although the details given make it obvious that it describes this case. This is not a BATTLEGROUND, its a discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If the removed source was being used in an article about the event, you'd have a point. Since it's being used in a biography about a person, it should at least mention that person. We don't get to extrapolate, do we? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Gregory he is having this thing called a "discussion" with you. Heck, he even complimented you. He is not repeating the same rationale (over and over) to muddle a discussion like another editor tends to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note - it seems robbery is often used to describe bank burglaries. Might be a difference between legal English and common English. See for instance Baker Street robbery ([41]) where our own wiki article leads off with The Baker Street robbery was the burglary (as this is the term used by the sources), or [42] Bank workers had no clue about the robbery until 8:30 a.m. Monday, when they discovered the open hatch and a ladder propped against the building and called, police sources said.. Perhaps Bank robbery should be updated to reflect this (legally break ins are burglaries - in common parlance however they seem to be called robberies as well).Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Most modern sources use the correct terminology. We shouldn't try to include burglaries, cyber thefts etc just because a source used the wrong wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this respect, I'll mention that the Oxford English Dictionary, current edition, gives the primary definition of "robbery" as "The action or practice of unlawfully taking property belonging to another, esp. by force or the threat of force." Notice the "esp." in there, allowing some laxity. I don't think this is relevant to this deletion discussion, though. Zero^talk 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• We shouldn't allow a colloquial use to determine encyclopedic entries. An expert source, such at the FBI says "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."[43] That squares with most reliable sources. Just because some 100+ year old article misused a term doesn't mean we ignore the most reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Niteshift36: you are apparently not aware, but it is not permitted to edit a comment after someone has responded or the conversation has moved on. You can add material, but it has to be clearly marked as added (or struck) later. btw, are you now on board with keep?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I didn't edit my response. I inserted a comment and indented it further. Striking through it would be stupid. I'm not onboard with keeping this as a bio of Edward Smith. No. Not at all. I haven't opposed changing it to an article about the event. There's a difference and I'd hope you could see that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agreed. But as long as we're here I'll say that User:Niteshift36 is correct. And revise my comment to keep the aritcle and move to something along the lines of 1831 New York City bank heistE.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also, just fyi n re: notability, "City Bank" became Citibank, which adds a certain degree of interest to the story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Since Nom is onboard with Keep but rename, inviting ~dom Kaos~, User:Johnpacklambert, and User:TheGracefulSlick, to reconsider in light of this 2016 Saturday Evening Post article: America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery, plus several newly added sources, gold doubloons, and the fact that the "City Bank" bank robbed in 1831 was Citibank?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think there's a difference between keep but rename and thinking the event is ok for an article. If there was an article called "Gerald Ford (football player)" and asserting notability as a college football player, then you came along and said that it should be renamed "Gerald Ford (president)" because he is notable in that regard, that is "keep and rename". Writing a different article about an event isn't really "keeping" is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My apologies for misunderstanding you. I have frequently participated discussions about articles that land at AfD as bios, but are kept as "keep but rename." Pretty common articles about notable crimes. But, again, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Note that Icewhiz and I have expanded and sourced the article. A bank theft of this much money (over $50 million) would be in the headlines if it happened today. Part of the notability comes from the coverage in the newspapers in 1831 - only some of which is online. The Saturday Evening Post aritcle draws heavily on the New York Post and other period newspapers that I did not find online. They are. of course, available in the library. But I think the sourcing now passed WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - On newspapers.com, I find interesting post 1831 results for him under the name Honeyman. He was a part of a ring which included his brother-in-law William Parkinson, as well as men by the names James Miller and Dick Collard. Another infamous crime the group perpetrated was the Poughkeepsie Barge robbery (here is an existing clipping on that event, see also Thompson, George. Life and Exploits of the Noted Criminal, Bristol Bill. Research Publications, 1851.). I'm happy to add this material, but am going to hold off with my own HEY depending on others' thoughts. Namely, I'm happy with a rename of this article to the 1831 crime (I have no opinion on the question of robbery vs burglary vs whatever) with an option for me/someone to write another article about Smith or about Smith and Parkinson or the entire ring (I'm still thinking about what might be the least OR way to organize one or more articles about Smith and Parkinson and maybe others). Also, here is a google book which contains a longer, more detailed recounting of the 1831 crime and aftermath. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:Smmurphy, I'll be fascinated to see what you produce on the Noted Criminal Bill Bristol, and the rest of the gang. I do think that an article on the crime itself continues to make sense. User:Niteshift36, any thoughts on an acceptable title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: thanks @E.M.Gregory: for inviting me to reconsider. I'm going to put the kettle on and invite everyone to join me for nice cup of tea and a sit down while I read through the extensive debate that's arisen since my previous comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Sure, I'll reconsider. The information can be retained on the condition this is reconstructed for the event itself, not a biographical piece on an otherwise unnotable figure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per TheGracefulSlick's stipulation. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Proposing to close this as: keep and change title to 1831 New York City Bank Heist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• An admin or NAC closes this just like any other AFD. You don't need to propose (for the 2nd time) what consensus has already determined.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phillip Glasser[edit]

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

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

Delete Those sources do mention Phillip Glasser but they don't discuss his other films, only An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and Kickin' It Old Skool. Those sources also don't seem that reliable. There is also not enough evidence that he was an actor from 1986 to 2002 and became a producer since 2007. Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. Evil Idiot 09:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep has had prominent roles in notable productions particularly the main role of Fievel in the American Tail film series and 26 episodes of Hang Time so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: voicing the protagonist in the most successful parts of the American Tail franchise seems pretty significant per WP:NACTOR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hubhopper (app)[edit]

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

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

Notability for corporations WP:NCORP not sufficiently demonstrated. References provided are a combination of press-releases, advertorials or routine corporate announcements. Lacking independent editorial to establish notability. Looking at the references in detail: (1) PR-piece, (2), advertorial article as evidenced by language like "Anand says", "he adds", "Anand explains", "Anand believes", (3) PR-piece, (4) mention in passing with 'what else is news in app store', (5)-(7) routine corporate announcements (funding), (8) possibly editorial, (9) actually says at the end in bold "Sponsored Content", (10) extremely short basic description, (11) brief mention amongst other apps that launched (page 25 in case anyone is looking), (12)-(13) possible PR piece. The footnote states the text was not edited by Business Standard and taken from a "feed", (14) Syndicated ANI agency piece. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KEEP: I agree that some of the references can be PR but can't be considered all of them are just a PR-pieces. The company is covered by mainstream media houses in India. Also, Hubhopper received the Problem Solver of the year 2017 award from The Indus Entrepreneurs and it is one of the World's top 50 social apps. Indeed it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hence, I tend to keep.--RamKaran Parjapati (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be good to have credible evidence for this, though. By what measure is Hubhopper a "top 50 social app"? Having been the most downloaded app in a certain category in a certain month or two does not meet WP:PERSISTENCE criteria. We'd be looking for some evidence in independent, reliable editorial that supports this statement. If there is evidence of the award from a primary source (i.e. from the award presenter) that may help. So far I have only found the same worded coverage that seems to stem from this agency piece without further editorial coverage. Critically, there is no editorial coverage of Hubhopper in The Time of India, The Hindu, the Economic Times or the Business Standard as shown here, here, here and here. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable organization. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete for now. Although it could change, there is no coverage in major Indian news sources. cnzx (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pin-Ups on Tour[edit]

Pin-Ups on Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article with trivial references. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Promotional? Maybe, but it can easily be toned down. A simple google search brings up a couple dozen articles and news coverage of this event. And it's not just local coverage of it coming to town, there is also national coverage such as this Fox News article. I also think nominating a page for AfD just eight minutes after it is moved to mainspace is a tad bit overzealous. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:GNG; coverage is local and routine notices. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete not nearly enough coverage for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swapnil Mahaling[edit]

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

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

No sources support any of these claims and I can find no coverage. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Have added credible sources for filmography --Dsp25 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The source you're calling "credible" is mere YouTube link, it can be regarded as spam. It has since been removed as very non credible –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete non notable director lacking indepentent coverage to meet WP:GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mygdonia A.C.[edit]

Mygdonia A.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as already has enough reliable sources including press in the references and links list to pass WP:GNG also claim of producing many national level players Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. It has references to reliable sources, and the achievements of its athlets on both national and Balkan levels are well documented in the Grek press (the Greek article is more detailed on this point). ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr Hamburger[edit]

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

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

A small Polish fast food chain, I am not impressed by references. [44] is one of the best, and it is still half interview/half rewritten PR. [45] is again a rewritten PR, and everythong else is worse. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP, see also WP:CORPSPAM and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, before writing the article I surveyed some other restaurant chain articles to see whether it is worthy to write about it. I realise it is a relatively small chain in comparison to international chains, however it does feature prominently around shopping malls. More importantly, between 2015-16 the chain saw profits increase by 43% suggesting future expansion. I found a few other sources which I'll aim to entwine within the article: Onet Biznes, Mambiznes (although its from 2009 it features quite a good number of data concerning set-up and locality); I though this one was quite good, an interview between the franchise manager on the status of the company. Here's one from Rzeczpospolita although Mr Hamburger is being discussed in relation to other Polish chains popping up around Poland. Here's a relatively good one concerning emerging competition with the Scandinavian restaurant chain Max. Tell me what you think. I might get back into making castle and road articles instead (I never had luck with businesses).

Arbustum (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me review the new sources:

[46] business statistics not conveying notability

[47] - very minor publisher (minor internet portal [48] that has very low readability). The 3 paragraphs about the company seem to be based on an interview with one of the company managers. Overall, poor reliability and not helping with notability

[49] - same issues - minor portal, interview, the only plus is this is focused on the company.

[50] RP is a major, reliable newspaper, but it dedicates just few sentences to this company, and they seem to be based on an interview/quote with a manager, too

[51] Brief coverage, seems to be based on press relese

Sorry, I don't think your new sources help here. Please read WP:CORPSPAM and try to write about less spammy topics, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It could be a spamburger (lolz) chain of importance in the future, but right now, it doesn’t seem notable. Dysklyver 13:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Unlike Piotr, I think there's just enough - bearing in mind this is from Eastern Europe - to squeak past the bar of notability here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an Eastern European myself (through we call ourselves Central Europeans, btw) I don't think we should get a lighter pass at notability. Polish sources should be subject to the same scrutiny as others, and I couldn't find anything reliable/in depth here. This is just Eastern/Central European spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Keep I think that there's enough there -- especially considering this Reuters news wire. cnzx (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How this reprinted press release of twitter length with 'business as usual' content adds anything here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I looked at it again, and "Procner-Sport Lukasz Procner" seems to be some random franchise owner. You're right, I don't know why this is in a Reuters news wire -- I changed my mind. cnzx (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Admittedly, searching for sources is tough. Hamburger a very common surname (so common that searches on "Mr Hamburger" - with any keyword I can think of - get hits like this one: " the manager of a fast food restaurant who just happened to wander in, and the guy was incredible! So we used him again on ' I Was Your Man', which is from the .... Back to Mr. Hamburger. One night I get a phone call from one of my old guitar players in ...", that was a gNews search on "Mr Hamburger" + Poland + restaurant. And then there is a well-known restaurant in Huntsville, Alabama by the name of Mr. Hamburger. Nevertheless, I did search and cannot find notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaguar XJR sportscars[edit]

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

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

PROD was reverted without improvement. No independent reliable sources for ten years. Fails WP:V. No references, no article. This original research was a lot of work. But it's not fit for an encyclopedia. Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Topic ban Yet again (see contribs) we see Rhadow (talk · contribs) bulk-prodding articles without even the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE.

This is broadly a list article. There are a dozen Jaguar XJR models linked from here, (see Jaguar XJR-17) which each demonstrate their sourced notability and thus that of the list. It's not enough to meet GA, but it's certainly enough to stop BEFORE and a PROD or AfD.

As to "reverted without improvement", then I'm not sure how much improvement Rhadow was expecting in seven minutes?

This is one of a continual stream of deletions from Rhadow, who does nothing else other than these. I for one am tired of them, the incessant list of badly checked PRODs from an editor [sic] who expects others to fix articles (in 7 minutes), yet does nothing to assist in that process themselves. As we all know, it is so much easier to bulk prod article than to work on their improvement and 'bot-like tagging or deletion like this is not a way to encourage any improvement. Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator. Wikipedia is not a directory of vehicle models. For encyclopedic purposes, I suggest someone creates Jaguar in motorsports and creates a proper encyclopedic entry there which details the teams history and achievements in motorsports complete with results tables, instead of having a plain lists of the models the made for racing. Also, I would like to suggest that we comment on the content here and not on the contributor's motives.Tvx1 17:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's no comment on 'motives', but on the fact the nomination is, in two words, spectacularly bad. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This article has for ten years been tagged for references. It is original research, and good research at that. However, none of it is verifiable, not for ten years. The cars in the list are not much better. I clicked through the links at Jaguar XJR sportscars#IMSA GTP. Four of seven wikilinks redirected back to the same article. Jaguar XJR-9 has two external links and no inline citations. Jaguar XJR-12 has no references. Jaguar XJR-14 has one reference, about a driver. Our reader should be able to rely on the assertion in these articles. Rhadow (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I had written a lengthy comment, citing four books with multiple pages on the subject, but have lost it due to a crash. I'll try to find the sources again. page 197-204, page 177-202, page 17-24, and there was a fourth one I don't immediately find now (plus many more shorter mentions). Theses car won the 24 of Le Mans, the World Championship, many famous races. 7 of the 15 models have their own article, making a list even more necessary to show the overall history. These are not some random cars, but some of the most important cars in racing history (or at least one of the major lines of cars in that history). Problems with the current article are real, but not a reason for deletion. A clearly notable topic, both individually and as a whole, so perfect for a list article. Fram (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. I was expecting a bulleted list, but instead what I found was a well-written list article that just needs cleanup. And AfD is not for cleanup. The fact the article has not been significantly improved in ten (or any) years is not a valid rationale for deletion (in fact, the nominator's statement is remarkably similar to one of the examples given at that section of ATA). The nominator also demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:V in claiming that this fails it; the topic is clearly demonstrated to exist. A lack of references in the article is not a failure of V; in fact, having no references would not be a failure of V. With the singular exception of BLPs, articles are not required to be referenced in order to prove existence or notability, the references must simply exist. Now having them in the article is in fact a very good thing, but not having them when they do, in fact, exist is also not a valid rationale for deletion. And finally, had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, they would have firmly established extensive coverage in reliable sources that clearly demonstrates notability - the fact that the search result page's link to Google Books is usually hidden behind a dropdown menu is not an excuse for failing to check it. In short, what we have here is an article that needs TLC by somebody knowledgeable in the subject, not deletion, and the nominator deserves at least a ((minnow)) for failing WP:BEFORE and providing a near-perfect Exhibit A of an ATA example nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Fram and The Bushranger. The nominator has repeatedly in the past weeks made a series of AFD/PROD nominations on topics which are clearly notable if one even spends one minute looking at sources on Google Books, Scholar (WP:BEFORE) and failed to carry out cleanup themselves, or consider alternatives to deletion.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Producer Washington[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician. Coverage amounts to inclusion on the HiPipo website, which appears to be little more than a social media database of any entertainment personality active in Uganda, and nomination (but not winning) the PAM Award (an award of unknown notability). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom: no significant coverage as either "Producer Washington" or "David Ebangit Washington", and the few hits I could find fall far from being Reliable Sources. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Girls Football Academy[edit]

Central Girls Football Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Youth team without sufficient showing of notability. Result of now indef blocked user's promotion of the team, and supported by a network of his sockpuppets, all indef blocked as well. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep in light of the national cup games. (!vote updated 06:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)) So the team did qualify for the second tier of Scottish Womens' Football next season, [52], [53] and has gotten some coverage for some national youth championships in the UK. [54] I'm not sure if this will be enough to justify an article, but many other clubs in the Tier 3 league they were in seem to have articles, and most in the new Tier 1/2 system adopted in 2016 seem to have articles. So for now, I would at least oppose deletion in favour of draftifying the article until the new season. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep – Despite the name, the academy doesn't just operate in youth football, they have an adult first team that has just been promoted to the second tier of the Scottish Women's Premier League and also participates in the Scottish Women's Cup, which gives a presumption of notability under WikiProject Football guidelines (WP:FOOTYN). I believe the additional material and citations added to the article since the deletion nomination demonstrate its notability much clearer than was previously the case. Jellyman (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I was just about to vote delete because I don't think the refs are sufficient, however I will hang on because I'd be interested to know what nfooty says about the second tier of scottish womens premier league, why did you presume notability? Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The project considers clubs who have played in the national cup competition and / or national leagues to be notable. This applies to women's football just as much as men's. Jellyman (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment In the spirit of fairness and neutrality, I have to advise that I identified a new user WP:CANVASSing selected editors' talk pages. Of the three targeted, one has determinedly posted above. As required by WP:BITE, I politely messaged the new user's Talk page, which was blanked within 10 minutes. I left it a few hours, but a suspicious IP deletion of the new user's !vote has occurred on another AfD I have !Voted on. Considering the socking history of this article, possible CU needed here, El Cid.-Semperito (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep or Draft agree with Patar knight (talk · contribs). Can someone clarify why this user was indefinitely blocked? Hmlarson (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sockpuppetry, as pointed out by nominator (they have been editing from at least eight different accounts. One of those was the one that canvassed you). Number 57 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep They've played in the national cup so pass WP:FOOTYN. Number 57 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Further comment Another point-of-order, the main character promoted in the lead - Ian Dibdin - is a Director of "Central Football Academy Limited", and the club website shows his other company "Happy Feet" as sponsor, for those of you who may wish to consider if WP is being used to promote a commercial venture(?).-Semperito (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seeing as Happy Feet aren't mentioned in the article, I don't believe this is the case. Number 57 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I meant that the Central Girls Football Academy should be evaluated as potentially a commercial organisation, particularly where those who have written the article are directly connected, instead of unconnected neutral editors without CoI/POV.-Semperito (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Many commercial organisations have articles, nothing wrong with that. I agree that having advertising-oriented content is bad, but I don't think this article contains anything like that. Jellyman (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • "Many commercial organisations have articles", yes, theoretically written by non-involved neutral editors using reliable sources, not repeated socks producing CoI content. The likelihood here considering the past is that it will continue with cruft.-Semperito (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Surely the decision to keep or delete the article can only be based on whether we decide if the topic is notable or not? Would you seriously advocate deleting articles on notable subjects as a solution to questionable editing practices? Jellyman (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - has played in a nation so competition, passes WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - played at a sufficient level (National cup). GiantSnowman 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a clear consensus that, based on the currently available sources, the subject is not notable. However, per Kges1901's request I've userfied the page to User:Kges1901/Norman L. Paxton, to give him the chance to wait for his interlibrary loans. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norman L. Paxton[edit]

Norman L. Paxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Aside from WP:NOTMEMORIAL, per sources the highest rank held seems to be Lieutenant, which doesn't qualify under WP:NSOLDIER, and the highest award appears to have been the Navy Cross, which only qualifies under NSOLDIER if it is awarded multiple times. Their documented participation seems to be isolated to a single attack in 1944, which doesn't itself seem to have been part of a larger notable battle. Most/all coverage seems to be obits or directly related to the Navy Cross citation, and so the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. GMG^talk 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is incorrect. Norman Paxton's highest rank is Captain and awards are Navy Cross and Distinguished Flying Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevaclevah (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete SOLDIER fail on wartime awards and much later peacetime rank. Sources in article do not satisfy GNG (possibly V problems on some post war details sources to his obit). BEFORE does not bringup much.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete He did make captain (navy) but that still doesn't qualify him under WP:SOLDIER; his obit mentions him working at TWA but with no details.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG because there is SIGCOV in Knott and DANAS as one of the prominent pilots of his squadron. Not covered by WP:NOTMEMORIAL because he has other notable events other than death as seen from above sources. Kges1901 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm... Well Knott isn't available online, and there's not really any clue as to what that coverage is, because it doesn't seem to actually be used to support any of the content in the article. Even so, the blurb from the book itself pretty much comes right out and says it was at least the only source available at the time covering the unit. At the same time, it seems to be about the unit, and not about the individual, so it's not clear how much of the content can be expected to be about the subject.

The DANAS source is just a restatement of the Navy Cross citation, and in some ways is actually less detailed. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but I'm just not sure this rises to the level of GNG. GMG^talk 03:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the snippet view of Knott on Google Books Preview, there are three pages that mention him, potentially scope for at least a paragraph. I thought that my local library had the book, but it turned out that they'd withdrawn it a few months ago, so I put in an interlibrary loan request for it; it should arrive in about a month. When it arrives I plan to expand the article based on the contents in the book. I mentioned DANAS because it isn't a primary source. Kges1901 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like userfying is probably a good middle ground here. I'm still not totally convinced it can stand on it's own two feet in mainspace, but I've got no problem giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong if you're motivated enough to start throwing down inter library loans. GMG^talk 18:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be fine with userfying for this. Kges1901 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - searching newspapers.com, I don't find much significant not already in the article. Paxton was a leader in a local funeral society and was occasionally mentioned in that capacity. I am skeptical what might be available on Knott and am indifferent between delete and userfy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep -- I think he did enough to cross the threshold of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and coverage is in passing and routine. There's only one incoming link which confirms that the subject has not accomplished anything worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. Which makes it pretty much a memorial page. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Paxton deserves our admiration, and he has mine. He fought in a noble cause and lived a worthy life. However, sorucing fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, I concur with E.M.Gregory that he deserves our respect, but I do not think he passes WP:GNG, and he just misses passing WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inclement weather ahead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stimulation[edit]

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

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

PROD was reverted without improvement. All original research since 2004. This seems to be a coatrack article, with not a shred of academic support (reliable sources inline). OED provides three definitions, of which this article addresses only the third without disambiguation. Reversion of a PROD sweeps the article back into the backlog without any improvement. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Topic ban (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar XJR sportscars)

This is just a mechanistic stream of PRODs, then immediate AfDs, of any and all articles that Rhadow (talk · contribs) sees as unsourced. Regardless of BEFORE, regardless of the significance of the topic. And of course, they don't actually edit content themselves.

This is not a useful way to work to build the project. WP:COMPETENT editors have already recognised this. If this editor cannot, the they should not be bulk tagging articles for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep. There is no evidence that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, in which case they would have seen that this is an abundantly notable topic. bd2412 T 02:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep Article is unsourced and based on original research, with a random image thrown in that has no connection to the topic. In dire need of cleanup. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment, not sure why nominator and others state that this article is unsourced (or "with not a shred of academic support"), the following reference (or it could be further reading?) has been at the bottom of the article since december 2015 (i have just placed it into a "References" section): D.A.Booth, O.Sharpe, R.P.J.Freeman, M.T. Conner (2011) Insight into sight, touch, taste and smell by multiple discrminations from norm. Seeing and Perceiving 24, 485-511,639, Seeing and Perceiving (now called Multisensory Research) is an academic journal, see here, that said agree that article needs cleanup, in itself not a reason for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Snow keep. Needs to be cleaned up or turned into a disambiguation page as Jarble suggested on the talk page, but this is a core encyclopaedic topic that clearly needs to exist in some form or other. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Joe Roe. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: The article itself is not great, but would make sense as a disambiguation page.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progressive Education Network Pakistan[edit]

Progressive Education Network Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Like many non-profits, PEN tends to hyperbole. On its web site, it says it operates 219 schools. If that were true, the article would be a speedy Keep. I suspect instead that the SPA-written article is a fund-raising promotion. Rhadow (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - For whatever it's worth: Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, Harvard Business Review GMG^talk 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The Pakistan Today source was already in the article; I've used the other two found by GreenMeansGo and a government report that was also already in the article and rewritten it to be less fluffy and promotional. It's received ongoing coverage in an area where relatively little press coverage is online, and I too am hampered by only being able to search in the Latin alphabet. I didn't find anything else except a blog mention, but I believe what we have is enough to satisfy the GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Yngvadottir. I happen to agree with his logic who is an experienced Wikipedia editor for over 9 years. I took a look at the article and I want to correct the above impression that it operates 219 schools. The article's 'lead section' says that it's a non-profit organization that seeks to improve public education in Pakistan by adopting schools. Its main focus is on primary schools. I feel people should be given a chance to improve the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dewan Mushtaq Group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dewan Salman Fibre[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Dewan Mushtaq Group. Pburka (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to Dewan Mushtaq Group. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amar Audio[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage. Störm (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The article's claim of being the largest music company in Punjab seems to be unsubstantiated. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. HINDWIKI • CHAT 03:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom.
• Delete heavy claim of significance but unsourced. I can't find any reference to support that in my search, and if that lead cannot be sourced from online sources that's even more problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a consensus that, if Chariton was not notable before, additional coverage since the last AfD is sufficient to make him so. – Joe (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordan Chariton[edit]

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

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

This article was deleted after AfD on 30 April 2017.[55] The page was re-created on 26 June 2017 with no reason given. Just as in the first AfD, the individual is still not notable (unless recent allegations have made him so, which seems unlikely), and the article is just unreferenced junk. Bueller 007 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Keep - not because Chariton is not notable. He probably is. Politico says, "a prominent face of the YouTube-native program and a rising star in the left-wing media sphere. There simply aren't any reliable independent sources given to support a BLP. I added the infobox, when I saw how scant the references are. Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The firing has now been reported by reliable sources (such as Politico), and I have added them to the article. Of course, he was already notable before the firing. Thus, I see no reason why the article should be deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The initial reason for deletion was a lack of sufficient coverage by reliable sources; this has changed and notability is not temporary. Likewise, the recent event surrounding allegations of misconduct by the subject are not actually the only thing that Chariton is known for, meaning this can't qualify as a one-event article where a person is being presented as nothing more than a belligerent in a single event. The increased coverage of the subject also means that it would no longer make sense for information regarding Jordan Chariton to be a side note of the article on The Young Turks. This article's continued existence is now in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability, which was the original reason for deletion and the re-nomination. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete a non-notable low level journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment With regard to policy, what constitutes "low level?" The subject passes every bullet point of WP:GNG. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Since you can't produce any substantive reason for deletion, I can't help but believe that you want this page deleted only because the subject opposes your own political viewpoints. Davey2116 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually, I'm surprised that someone who has previously purposefully vandalized articles under AfD consideration can still !vote on AfD discussions. As User:Trackinfo attests here, User:Johnpacklambert has done this many times in the past, leading to deletion of content that he never bothered to try to improve before !voting. Davey2116 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• With the amount of times John Pack Lambert has performed bad faith edits to vandalize an article he seeks to delete, such as replacing the bullet point "money out of politics" with "end of free speech" and replacing an entire well-sourced paragraph with "seeking to destroy free speech" just as Bueller is trying to effectively delete the article during the nomination to delete the article, I'm genuinely surprised that they aren't blocked from editing because this is clearly POV-charged vandalism. Articles should be nominated for deletion out of a genuine concern that they go against our policies and out of a belief that removing them would make Wikipedia a more collegian and objective encyclopedia. There are policy reasons to delete even notable articles, but all they've provided is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the aforementioned incident I obviously made a mistake not to pursue action against JPL. I thought long and hard about the protracted fight ahead and just didn't want to have to go through it. It still does not diminish JPL's total lack of credibility. His serial thoughtless delete votes are one of the worst things about wikipedia. Closers should observe the same editor voting delete on an entire day's *fD nominations and discredit all of them, but they don't. The malicious editing is nothing less than vandalism. And, apparently he has taught the wrong lesson to other deletionists; apparently they now feel emboldened to damage an article first, then nominate it for deletion. Why not drive a car into a wall then tell us its damaged? Watch for this technique to happen more often and it is more dangerous when used in the hands of POV oriented editors. Thank you Davey2116, I didn't think anybody else was paying attention. Trackinfo (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agreed. I understand your reasoning in not wanting to pursue action against JPL; it's unfair that, to fix this problem, editors like you who actually contribute to improving Wikipedia have to sacrifice time and effort to deal with those who don't. What you said during that incident about his one "strong delete" !vote having undue sway over the discussion is very accurate as well. I had thought at first that what happened in that AfD discussion was a fluke, just plain bad luck, so I didn't notice anything awry until you pointed out that he had done this numerous times beforehand, and now I'm seeing it happen again myself. I hope that, now that we're noticing these deletionists' methods, they will be dealt with soon. The act of nominating an article for deletion or !voting in the discussion without first attempting to improve the article violates the deletion guidelines, and these users' tendency to do precisely this on articles that they disagree with simply goes one step further in disregarding the rules that ensure a collaborative environment. Davey2116 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment To the AfD nominator, purposefully sabotaging the article[56] and reducing it to a total of ten poorly sourced sentences is not how you get more delete !votes. I say this not as an attack but as a plea for consistency and respect for policy: the author of underdeveloped non-notable articles should not contest the deletion of a two-sentence stub while nominating the deletion of more notable articles for the same reason. If the cited problem with the article is that it is "unreferenced junk" you cannot in good faith start eliminating the sources that we had. 22:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Completely agreed. The nominator's actions are a violation of both policy and, if the improvement of Wikipedia is in fact the shared goal, common sense. Davey2116 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep- Well before the sexual allegations, Chariton had already achieved notoriety as a reporter. I added sources that go outside of the TYT bubble. His sudden firing brought further notoriety, albeit negative. Even the Daily Caller from clearly the opposite political perspective covered his firing and related controversy.Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep-Chariton has notoriety based on his being a contributor for MSM news organizations and TYT, his firing and the articles covering the controversy further the notoriety. The controversy of his firing also is notorious in relation to the firing or resignations of other men who have been accused of similar acts. Davidpdx (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Chariton was a very popular, esteemed part of the TYT Network for a long time. He rose to special prominence in 2016 for his coverage of Standing Rock water protest and DNC/Podesta email leaks. At the very least, I think the allegations against him have been newsworthy enough to justify this article. At the very least, there ought to be a TYT Politics page. But I think Jordan, as the main face of TYT Politics for a substantial period of time, is notable enough for his own page.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete As per the AfD only a few months ago. The article was reinstated against policy after the community weighed in; the article should remain deleted lest we just ignore standard practice and embrace anarchy at WP. Sexual assault allegations are the subject's biggest claim to fame according to mainstream sources (heading a Young Turks sub-channel that isn't notable enough for its own page, that isn't mentioned in RS, doesn't meet notability requirements currently, just as it failed to in April). If the allegations become noteworthy enough, a new page dedicated to that story should be created. But a non notable, unekployed journalist is not encyclopedia material. petrarchan47คุก 06:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Petrarchan47. He wasn't notable a few months ago and not much has changed, except he now has sexual assault allegations levied against him. Most of the sources are primary, others just aren't reliable. I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to The Young Turks, as we recently did with his TYT counterpart John Iadarola.LM2000 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did CNBC, Observer, Salon, RealClearPolitics, TheWrap, The Intercept, Heavy.com, Daily Caller, New York Times all become unreliable? Or just for this "me too" delete vote?Trackinfo (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, Chariton is clearly notable enough for you two to come running here to cast delete !votes without even attempting to improve the article. Davey2116 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CNBC, Salon, AdWeek, TYT, Medium and The Wrap are primary sources. He either worked for them (and the source is about his employment) or actually wrote the articles we use in his own article. He's not even mentioned in the NYT piece, that's about the wider Weinstein effect and was published a month before his allegations surfaced. There's some reliable coverage of his reporting on Standing Rock, Flint and the DNC, but that wasn't enough to push him past the GNG bar a few months ago. Since his notability as a reporter is dubious, we're left with half the article detailing assault allegations. WP:NOTNEWS is an issue, but there are BLP concerns as well, especially since we rely so heavily on unreliable sources like The Daily Haze and The Daily Caller. Davey2116 needs to assume good faith, I regularly edit TYT articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In response both to both of LM2000's posts: While he was employed at eight media outlets (nine if truth against the machine counts), we've got over twenty sources, many of which came from outlets that Chariton was never employed at nor had connections to. This demonstrates that we've got not only primary but secondary sources. I don't view the article being half about the allegations as particularly problematic as the real problem would be if it was a WP:SINGLEEVENT violation, whereas we've got as much information on the course of his career as we do the termination of it. You are right that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but after rereading the actual text of WP:NOTNEWS, I'm questioning which bullet point you're actually referring to because there doesn't seem to be any violation of said policy, leaving no policies cited by your counterargument for deletion. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that you've provided a compelling case for deletion yet. We have reliable, verifiable, secondary, independent, presumed sources. That's everything detailed in WP:GNG, if you believe the subject is still below the "GNG bar" I request some elaboration on why. You've listed the policies but when actually reading the text of these policies there doesn't seem to be an issue, so I can't say you've actually invoked any policy guidelines that make this article problematic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Last response, there's no need for a rockfight on an AfD that will likely be kept anyway. Is Chariton a notable reporter? No, we decided that not long ago and he hasn't done any significant reporting since to change that. Does Chariton have "enduring notability" for being accused of sexual misconduct? It was in the news recently (second bullet), but I don't think so. I understand and respect where you're all coming from, but I'm staying at delete keeping BLP concerns in mind. We have to take great care when creating articles about figures with dubious notability after they appear in a news story for a few days. The bullet points of his career remain at the main The Young Turks article, so I still think a redirect is the best option. Cheers.LM2000 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In response to the comment regarding the second bullet of WP:NOTNEWS, it says nothing about being in the news recently but rather what follows: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This means that news reports on routine day-to-day things such as a game of sports or the lives of celebrities fail to meet our guidelines for inclusions. The fact that this article's subject was recently covered in the news doesn't go against that in any way. As for the WP:BLP concerns brought up during this discussion, the three criteria for articles on living persons are as follows: 1) verifiability 2) neutrality 3) avoidance of original research. I've yet to see any elaboration on how this article does not meet those criteria as we've already shown that we have both primary and secondary sources for verification, we haven't given undue weight to any particular perspective, and there's certainly no original research. Several policies have been cited throughout this discussion, but these citations were incomplete as thus far there has been no effort to mention the ways in which the article's text and the policies' text were incompatible and when reading these policies it doesn't take long to find that the article passes all of them. I do respect where you're coming from and I believe that you are acting out of good faith, but I don't believe you've offered a good case for deleting the article and redirecting it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of people associated with World War I[edit]

List of people associated with World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After working on this list, it occurred to me that it's way too indiscriminate, especially with such a vague criterion, failing WP:SALAT. Even broken down by country, there have got to be unmanageable numbers of entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- Here is my personal standard: No published list inclusion criteria, no list. I might write an essay. Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Category:People of World War I, which is meant to be a nearly indiscriminate parent category for anyone associated with the First World War. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. While I disagree with Rhadow in that the inclusion criteria here is pretty clear - this list, if fully populated by notable people only, would be huge. It is much better served by a category - and guess what? there are cats for this - as may be seen when navigating Category:World War I by country, e.g. Category:Australian military personnel of World War I and Category:British military personnel of World War I. Or navigated Category:People of World War I.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and or redirect to Category:People of World War I per Patar knight's suggestion. This list is way too vague on who actually qualifies as a notable person who is associated with World War I. I think the People of World War I category covers this topic better and without the notability restriction. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This is such a broad criteria (and arguably vague - for example does someone who was a child at the time, but lost a parent or sibling due to the conflict count as person associated with World War One?) , that it could end up thousands of names and it is difficult to see what use it would be. I concur that categories are a better way to help people search for individuals involved in the Great War. Dunarc (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment I would have imagined there would be a lot more entries on the list. It's actually not that long right now.Egaoblai (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. List concept is far too broad and borders on WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete because it is simply too broad. Lepricavark (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• Delete. This could be a reasonable List of lists, but the current scope is unmanageably broad. Pburka (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete How many million would it take to complete this list? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Even restricted to notable people, this is unmanageable. Category:People of World War I should suffice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete It's almost impossible to maintain. There are two men missing from the U.S. section who had been awarded the MoH for the Indian Wars (admittedly for Battle of Wounded Knee).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - for lists of lists we have things like: Category:World War I-related lists and Lists of World War I topics. For individuals, we have the category already mentioned. I don't think it makes sense to redirect to the category. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- This is potentially a list almost without limit. What we have in it so far is probably the personal selection of one or more editors, but there will be dozens of articles on generals, holders of gallantry medals, air aces, inventors, civil servants, every serving politician in the Parliaments of all combatants, medical personnel of the armed forces, ... Where do we end? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear, and reviews of an author's work are as substantial a reference as any other for determining the notability of that author. bd2412 T 12:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lene Auestad[edit]

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

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

One newspaper article, a few reviews of her books and links to several of her books and articles are not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Famous_dog (c) 10:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tentative Keep Multiple positive reviews in scholarly journals of multiple books suggests a pass per WP:AUTHOR. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] I say "tentative" because some (not all) of these reviews are for volumes she edited, rather than books she wrote herself — still examples of her work being noted and approved of, but arguably less significant than reviews of single-author works. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR, multiple books with multiple published reviews. However, the article text looks heavily promotional and possibly copied from elsewhere; I've trimmed some definite copyvio from the books section but the rest could probably also use attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I can find a bunch of news / journal sources to use, though they're all in Norwegian. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep -- meets WP:AUTHOR with sufficient reviews to pass the bar of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment If you appropriately limit Google search, it turns up very few, mainly local news items that mention her directly. I really don't think that this author meets the notability bar. Having your academic book reviewed in an academic journal within your academic field of research is entirely normal for academics. If Lene Auestad meets this criteria, we need to write an extra 100,000 articles on academics. On a related note, I think that the WP:AUTHOR guidelines are so open to interpretation as to be useless. Famous_dog (c) 09:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment -- authors and academics are notable for their works so the reviews are relevant. I don't see a point in stating that Having your academic book reviewed in an academic journal within your academic field of research is entirely normal for academics. 3rd party reviews is how the notability of authors is determined. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The basic notability guideline states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:AUTHOR is aimed at "creative professionals" and doesn't apply here. WP:PROF does apply. Please tell me which of these criteria this particular researcher meets. I can't see any. Famous_dog (c) 06:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]