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} 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Freville[edit]

Bob Freville (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:BIO. The sources are either personally written by article subject/company, or are not reliable, or are just directory listings. Deleted a couple of times via WP:PROD already, restored by WP:REFUND requests (which revealed the article was written by a fan to "spread the word"). Time to settle this once and for all in AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I listed when I proposed deletion, which are pretty much the same as the nominator's. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concerns with notability and promotional nature. -FASTILY 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that WP:GNG is not met, and some doubts about WP:NFOOTY as well. Note that WP:NSPORTS (of which WP:NFOOTY is a section) states, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ansh666 06:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Sayoud[edit]

Bilal Sayoud (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)

Scrapes a pass at NFOOTY but fails GNG. One substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass GNG which trumps topic specific criteria. A case of WP: TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to vote in this case, but there are some sources where is either partially the subject of the source ([1] and [2]) and where he is the main subject of the source ([3]). If you look, you'll note it's not a mere passing mention, the article is about two footballers, of which the subject here is one of the footballers in question on the article. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is nothing more than a report of a quote from the boss of the club he plays for, to the official site of the club he plays for, and to be perfectly honest when you look at it, it is neither in-depth coverage nor from secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:FOOTY and made his debut only last month on 4 October 2017 and currently plays for a fully professional league team .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 20 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNG are there to avoid speedy and prodding. In the FAQs on the NSPORT page it states "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability." My point is that one substitute appearance is unlikely to have generated any sources so even given sufficient time to search they will not be found. Domdeparis (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to resume, it is WP:TOOSOON. This may be his last appearance for a professional club; We do not create articles just because we suspect that a subject will become notable, this is an encyclopedia and not a crystal ball. if you like maybe a redirect to the club so as not to lose the history but there is no reason to leave the article as it is I believe...but I have been wrong before! Domdeparis (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A few minutes of play in a cup competition is the narrowest way to satisfy NFOOTBALL, and a review of online sources indicates there is no chance this article would pass the GNG. There is a long-standing precedent at AfD to delete articles like this (e.g., recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). We should not use WP:CRYSTAL to argue that this footballer will eventually play more minutes of professional football and have a career significant enough to have GNG-compliant sourcing. If it happens, the article can obviously be re-created. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure to pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete changed vote. I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. ansh666 05:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Thompson (footballer born 1999)[edit]

Jordan Thompson (footballer born 1999) (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)

Scrapes past NFOOTY but fails GNG. 1 substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass GNG. This is a case of WP TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't agree with the "1 sub appearance isn't enough" argument since it's no better than the guideline in being conclusory and, unlike the guideline, does not have the mandate of the community. That being said, the single appearance was in the third-tier cup competition against a U21 team. So that is not two pro teams, but a pro team against a youth team. RonSigPi (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear my comment is not that it is not enough to pass the topic specific guidelines because it would be had it been a qualifying match (which apparently it wasn't) but as per the NSPORT guidelines there has to be sufficient presumption that his appearances will have generated enough coverage for him to pass GNG and that it is likely that the sources can be found given enough time. My argument is that 1 sub performance is unlikely to have generated enough coverage to pass GNG hence my nomination. So for me it is TOOSOON. Domdeparis (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL as the EFL Trophy match against West Brom's Academy isn't a competitive match between two "fully-pro" clubs. Also, there is no indication the article could pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Redirect can be implemented after deletion if desired. ansh666 05:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bayliss[edit]

Tom Bayliss (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)

Scrapes past NFOOTY but fails GNG. 1 substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass. Topics specific guidelines do not trump GNG. looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Coventry City F.C.. Fails GNG. Very much a case of too soon. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't agree with the "1 sub appearance isn't enough" argument since it's no better than the guideline in being conclusory and, unlike the guideline, does not have the mandate of the community. That being said, the single appearance was in the third-tier cup competition against a U21 team. So that is not two pro teams, but a pro team against a youth team. RonSigPi (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about my nomination, it is not that 1 sub appearance in a qualifying match (which this one wasn't if I understand rightly) is not enough to pass the topic specific guideline, it clearly is but what i am saying is in accordance with the statement in the FAQs here Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) which state

  A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline

My reasoning is that there is no strong reason to believe that 1 substitute appearance has generated sufficient coverage. None have been provided so I believe that there is no reason to keep this article. It is WP:TOOSOON for me. When the player has opened for the 1st team in a fully pro senior match then it is possible that coverage exists over and above routine match coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't believe the single appearance in the EFL Trophy match can be viewed as satisfying NFOOTBALL per Domdeparis above (Premier League Academy teams cannot realistically be viewed as "fully-pro sides"). Moreover, even if we assume that the match is sufficient for NFOOTBALL purposes, we have a long-standing precedent at AfD to delete these kinds of articles where a footballer only has a handful of minutes of play and its clear the article cannot satisfy the GNG (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). Jogurney (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MYLAPS Sports Timing[edit]

MYLAPS Sports Timing (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 should never have been released from Articles for Creation in 2012. It's had five years to be improved, but shows no signs of significant independent reliables coverage in general news (etc) sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article is about a Dutch company and not a Danish one and this debate should therefore not be included in the Denmark-related deletion discussions but to the Netherlands-related deletion discussions.Ramblersen (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see much out there for references in the English language. Of those I do, nothing would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe if someone was able to provide something more substantial in Dutch. Otherwise, there really isn't anything that can be approved with the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is barely enough reference to meet WP:GNG. As a sport equipment company I believe much of reference to them (if they exist) should be online, but search shows nothing like WP:SIGCOV only their domain and adverts mentions kept showing up. The company exists, but is not notable.  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is barely enough reference to meet WP:GNG - so you're saying they do meet GNG, or don't? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They didn't, although some exists. "Bare" expresses not meeting threshold while acknowledging the effort to meet.  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polymera (company)[edit]

Polymera (company) (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 is not a notable company. References are routine coverage, niche publications, or non-independent sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a significant COI/paid editing issue as well, as the article creator claimed on his userpage to be "Senior Vice-President/General Manager" of Polymera. Peacock (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.Comatmebro (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The company is unlikely to get coverage outside of the normal industry publications. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and unfortunately I doubt they ever will meet it simply based on their niche. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like we don't have any specific evidence of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherissa[edit]

Sherissa (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 WP:RS sources WP:V verifies the general notability WP:GNG of this artist. Therefore this subject may be unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC) AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - In my opinion the sources avsilable shows that she does have a career. A Google search came up with at minimum a few more mentions of her so for me keeping the article makes sense.BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi BabbaQ (talk · contribs), which sources? Those sources should be added to the article. A source that verifies notability must treat the subject in depth beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. AadaamS (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Misleading !vote above. Showing a music career exists does not equal notability. The sources in the article are not indepth and a before search doesn't garner any WP:RS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheGracefulSlick sources are not indepth and Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mandelbaum[edit]

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

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

Seems pretty simple to me, article doesn't meet WP:BIO and is a stub with one source that can barely be considered a source in the article. Zorbo678 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His book Not Since Carrie is notable. The author might not be, but since we don't have a page on the book this is close enough. See "indispensable book" and "a holy text". Pburka (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the book is notability treshold for sure. Notable. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Most-viewed K-pop Music Videos[edit]

List Of Most-viewed K-pop Music Videos (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 GNG/NOT. Indiscriminate and vague and overly broad and non-notable list removed from PROD. I'd give it some time, but I don't think that can change regardless of how much time is put into it. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, it was already created under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos and debated.Evaders99 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Stay Lames[edit]

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

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

I have been unable to find any information about this band in independent, reliable sources. The article says that they had a hit single, but I've been unable to confirm this. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot find any sources that support the claims of radio airplay, a Billboard hit, or anything. It could be a hoax. Rogermx (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Billboard.com search reveals no mention at all of this band or the claimed charting single. The article contains no references or sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Kandel[edit]

Sushil Kandel (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:NCRIC, as they have not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. On a side note, I don't think the image is free either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NCRIC, no indication that subject has had sufficient coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:NCRICKET and I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Has only played in lower level T20 tournaments. Galobtter (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are a number of passing references to him in what appear to be half-decent and reasonable reliable sources (Kathmandu Post, Himalyan Times, Republica etc...). I suspect that these are superior to many of the sources we have for cricketers with a single first-class appearance, but they are brief mentions rather than the multiple, in depth sources that I'd want in order to be able to argue for this article to be kept. So, for now at least, I think we have to delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIN and no indication that it would meet WP:GNG on other grounds. Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He doesn't meet the notability criteria as he has not played even a single First-class or List A but only in professional T20 leagues. Abishe (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is undeclared paid promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Isaacs[edit]

Oliver Isaacs (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 is a fairly spammy biography of a fairly non-notable person. There is a suspicion that it was submitted by an undisclosed paid editor (although I do not know the details of how that was determined).

The first version of the article was a blatant copyright violation (see Talk:Oliver Isaacs for details) and could have easily been speedily deleted but since then there has been a good faith effort to clean it up. It still scores 49% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and I don't think that it is fixable without reducing the article to less than a valid stub.

So to the question of notability. This guy does get a write up in Forbes, for what that is worth, in one of their endless "Top n young x" type articles, and he does get called an "influencer", whatever that means. He has even managed to get himself described as a "genius" (presumably not in the Wile E. Coyote sense of the term) by some of the rather thin sources. I don't see enough notability to justify an article about him and certainly not a plagiarised hagiography. DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No point in stubbing this back to zero, so WP:TNT applies. BTW the undisclosed paid editor issue is now explained with the appropriate template on the article's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. The notability is all puffery and no substance. MasterB1aster (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Wikieditions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep - The page does meet WP:GNG criteria as the content is cited with reliable sources i.e Inc.com, Business Insider, The Observer, Huffpost among others. The biography is notable enough, just needs cleanup and re-writing to fullfill WP:NPOV. 39.54.19.7 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I have edited for WP:NPOV as I think there was a case to answer there, however the article fulfils WP:NOTE and WP:GNG through there being substantial write-ups beyond trivial mention in a number of high-class third-party sources, which I have added. My edits avoid the need for WP:TNT Richardaldinho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Sock edits above stricken. — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional puffery with the sources merely, as pointed out above, nothing special and quite routine. What tips this over the edge then is the concerted UPE effort to get this article kept as evidenced above and the need to enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited by User:Berean Hunter, who is not a sock. His comments should not be struck. Meets WP:GNG FWIW, I posted notice of this discussion at Article Rescue squad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is me striking through UPE meats above. I have not registered a "keep" here. :) This is an effort being put forth to promote this article aubject. The SPI case is here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Page has a lot of reliable sources, so that proves that the person is recognized and has some credibility. As a owner of a few companies I think he is notable for having a Wikipedia article. The article is nicely structured, almost entirely cleaned of copyrighted text and I think it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. --Semso98 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a TOU violation on a BLP subject matter. Notability doesn't even matter here, the content has no right to be on Wikipedia to even be assessed for notability, so I'm not going to play that game and argue against it or for it. I'll also go ahead and spell out why we typically delete UPE pieces of BLPs: UPE opens them up to blackmail and extortion (see both the Orangemoody article and LTA case). While this is not an OM claim, we almost always act in favour of deletion of BLPs in cases like this, and helping UPEs to further exploit a living person (as they probably did to !vote keep on this AfD) is contrary to simple human decency. There is no need to even assess this for any other factors. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidooly[edit]

Vidooly (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)

Small non-notable firm. The references here are almost all brief notices of funding, which is never enough to show notability; the others are essentially PR. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (edited) Wasn't expecting this after the article was sent to the draft space, re-reviewed and re-admitted to the mainspace earlier by Paul 012. A bit frustrating on my part. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References provided in the aforementioned article does not establish notability of the firm.–Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article was previously draftified due to COI concerns, but this wasn't properly noted in the edit summary. I wasn't aware of this when I reverted the draftification and moved it back to main space, but I didn't find any issues with COI nor notability anyway. IMO the coverage by Tech in Asia is more in-depth than purely routine coverage of business movements, though I don't know enough about the neutrality of the Indian sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012:--In case you missed it, all COI/PAID articles must be vetted through AFC.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric on Leave, I'm aware, thanks. That's why I noted in an edit summary that I considered the move to be a manual review. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. At best reads like ad copy or history of funding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Pseudo-notable company.Usual promotional sources.Is just a history of their fundings and acquirements.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 05:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Teichholtz[edit]

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

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

Article appears to fail WP:BIO. Once all the personal life information is stripped away (including the various jobs he has filled over the years) there appears to be little to which to claim notability. A further quick search also reveals nothing particularly notable. Additionally the references, though plentiful, generally only mention Colin with the few focused on the individual failing to display any strong indications of notability. Finally the article appears to be practically an orphan (bar the one mention on a list of Harvard graduates) within Wikipedia with no unlinked mentions either. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Reuters source and Business Insider source are both in-depth from strong publishers. There is also a vast amount of other coverage in top RS sources, though not all are as truly in-depth. The individual ran billions in dollars in funds, definitely notable. Odd that the page was marked as reviewed just before this AFD came up, not from a reviewer, but an non-extended-confirmed account. Also, an article is not an orphan if it only has one wikilink--it is an orphan if it has none. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:: insufficiently notable for Wikipedia biography; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 03:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Definitely both Reuters source and Business Insider source in-depth. Other sources are good as well. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the Reuters source is a routine announcement about the subject's departure from the fund: "Partner to leave hedge fund" and provides no biographical information. The Business Insider coverage is rather trivial and superficial, as in: "Despite his love of foreign countries, the only other country he's lived in besides the U.S. is Hong Kong, where he moved while at Goldman."link. This is insufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per K.e.coffman - Was of many managing that billionaire fund. Only mere mentions. Galobtter (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Business insider publishes primarily press releases, and the Reuters items are mere notices. Nothing else reliable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Manager[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Cannot find any sources at all for this application. It might be vaporware. Rogermx (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Could honest be A1ed as the name is so generic that can't find anything on it. Galobtter (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I agree this approaches WP:A1 territory; I'm not sure how the page has existed since 2009. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:A1, and tagged as such. While one could imagine something that looks like what the article describes, I do not think this is enough to defeat A1 - for instance, it is not clear (even after some online search) if any instance of such software exists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Attia[edit]

Olivier Attia (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 sources are mostly bios and passing mentions. Article created by a blocked sockpuppet Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm unable to find references that demonstrate WP:BIO is met, plus obviously written by experienced undisclosed paid editors who've almost certainly already been blocked. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Der Panther[edit]

Der Panther (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 band, no coverage in RS anywhere I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources. Normally with a band name that gives a lot of false positives I would combine it with the band's home town, names of band members, album titles, etc. In this case, with so little info, the only one of these that seemed likely to get any results was album titles, and this still drew a blank. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as there is absolutely no coverage of them in independent sources anywhere. Lots of POV statements, lots of peacock language, and strong suspicions that this article was written by someone close to the band – if nobody knows who the members are, then how do they know which cities they come from? Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China's Four Most Handsome Men[edit]

China's Four Most Handsome Men (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)

None of the references mention this subject. This link just says "Pretty men in history", lists 5 men and doesn't mention Song Yu. Four Beauties is a well-known group in traditional Chinese culture, "four most handsome men" isn't, and I can't find any reputable reference grouping these 4 men together. (There's no zh.wiki article either.) PS: Page creator has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Timmyshin (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I note that on the Chinese wikipedia page for one of the four their is a redlink to a chinese page for this topic: zh:Special:链入页面/四大美男. So, while this page currently seems to fail WP:V, etc. I could be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That redlink was added earlier this year and also unreferenced. [4] Timmyshin (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYNTH and sock creation. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lawson[edit]

Jordan Lawson (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 biography (most likely an autobiography) is of a non-notable individual. Acting and musician roles are minor - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. The three references are a press release and two blog posts. Peacock (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should NOT be deleted for several reasons. There are many reliable and 100% accurate websites and information online about Jordan Lawson’s career and work. I for one have done my research on this person and his work. He is a pretty well known actor and musician in the LA area from what I can see online and hear from others as well. Also, all the information about his work on this page is verifiable online and I also taken the time to make sure this is accurate and correct. The only reason ANYONE would want this page (which has been on Wikipedia for years) deleted, is because they must have some sort of beef or grudge they are holding against the Actor/Musician. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be taking all their time trying to have this page deleted. Just my opinion. This page belongs on Wikipedia, is correct and the person “Jordan Lawson” it is about is a popular enough individual to be on this website as well. Thanks and god bless!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I tried erasing the “deletion” page for Jordan Lawson but this was unsuccessful at the time. Someone (most likely the person who originally made the deletion page) re-added it back on Jordan Lawson’s Page. I’ve read the comments and information about this page. Being someone who takes Wikipedia seriously, I cannot see any part of this actor and musician’s page that should be removed. All of the information on the page, as well as the individual’s known reputation verifies the accuracy of the page and leads me to believe this page should not be deleted. I agree with Roger Moore who also commented about this earlier. The person or persons who created this deletion page does not understand and/or know who the person actually is. This person is a public figure and I know who he is. Many other people that I have asked also know who Jordan Lawson is and agree with the Wikipedia page and information about him in it. Jordan Lawson is on many different websites and all of this on his page has been verified years ago. Probably before the Wikipedia page about him was even created. So it shouldn’t be deleted and is a valuable addition to this website for fans and anyone who enjoys Jordan’s work. I also am adding this last bit of info with my comment here as well. I realized that there are quite a few Wikipedia pages that mention Jordan Lawson and his work. For example, there are music pages, instrument pages, Acting pages, different city pages, schools, etc that all list him because he is notable enough to be and the 20-25 pages I’ve seen so far all seem to agree about his reputation, work, popularity, etc. That is all. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Long-winded speeches aside (both seemingly posted by the same user under different IPs, no less), the subject is completely non-notable as both a musician and an actor. There's no getting around the fact that the article was basically created as a promotional piece. Only sources cited were PR interviews that do not comply with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. Lastly, you cannot erase a deletion template under any circumstance until the issue has been resolved. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The person or persons who have taken the time to put this page up for deletion continue to attempt to erase parts of this page that have been verified and posted to the page long ago. Information about this person and the page will continue to be updated and verifiable info will continue to be added until the issue has been resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets any notability guidelines. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete More information had been added to this page previously and someone erased and/or attempted to undo changes tat had been made. This individual has reliable sources and credible work that has been listed on the page. Films, Television and stage performances, as well as several musical acts that are popular and have gained notoriety in the past. All of which was added to page months ago. Will re add again and I will add more sources that had been deleted previously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note A group of unregistered users, including 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E, are currently collaborating on a draft for an all-male band called Rocket, of which Jordan Lawson is a member. I say "all male" because an article (since deleted) on an all-female band named Rocket had been hijacked and rewritten about the male band under the same article title, mainly by anon accounts. It was reverted to the original version on November 7, and the next day the draft was created. The male band has never had a Wikipedia article due to lack of notability. Given the fervor of those herein opposing the deletion of Jordan Lawson (only anons so far), coupled with the similar promotional-sounding and poorly-sourced tone of the draft plus the timing of its creation and the edit histories of its creators, they are more than likely connected with — or actually are — the band and/or Lawson, and are openly attempting to promote both subjects on Wikipedia. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved immensely since the nomination and relist, so the concerns about WP:PLOT no longer hold true. ansh666 06:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 Years Later[edit]

11 Years Later (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)

Entirely plot; attempted to redirect by standard method, but was reverted. No expansion has been given on the article since it was created and tagged. -- Alex^TW 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The fact that the article is "entirely plot" and has long had an ((all plot)) tag is hardly a reason for deletion. Hell, ((all plot)) isn't even a content tag – it's a style tag!

WP:ASSESS defines a start-class article as:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. [emphasis added]

Based on the standard that appears to be implied by this nomination, all stub-class articles and most start-class articles that have not been expanded in a few years should be deleted. To use such a standard would certainly be at odds with a community-wide consensus (as is reflected in guidelines such as WP:STUB). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas - The article has an excessively long plot section. The plot should be no longer than 500 words but it's around 1,000. It is weak in every area except the infobox and even that needs expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The episode received enough secondary coverage as the pilot of the revival season, and the article is appropriately tagged to encourage expansion. Articles don't need to be perfect to exist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged over a month ago and no such expansion has occurred. I see no proof in the article of enough "secondary coverage". -- Alex^TW 15:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article hasn't been expanded in the last month doesn't mean it won't be next month. The fact that tags have not been addressed is not a reason to delete the article, sorry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would be valid for deletion next month, then? And what does the article provide that no other article hasn't yet? I see a plot and one review, easily listable on the season article. -- Alex^TW 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It provides the possibility for an article that will be promoted from start class. What you're describing is very much in line with a start-class article. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is the concern, why was that not raised in the nomination? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:PLOT. Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, which this article quite clearly is. Such articles are regularly deleted at AfD or redirected. For example, check ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The West Wing redirected episode articles. All of those used to be articles, demonstrating that the Wikipedidia community supports WP:PLOT and endorses the deletion of articles like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right -- Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. But that is not a reason for deleting an article about a notable episode just because it has not yet been fully expanded. This article just needs to be expanded not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It was tagged as being almost all plot a month ago,[5] yet no attempt to reduce the size of the plot or otherwise expand the the article was made until after Alex redirected it. Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. People say articles can be fixed, but they never are. That's what happened to those 129 The West Wing episodes. An alternative to deletion is to move the article to draft space, which Alex suggested in this edit summary, but it never was. That's probably the best option at this point. The unimproved draft will probably be deleted in a few months but at least there is a bit of hope there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, we don't delete articles just because they are subpar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is not just sub-par, it consists almost entirely of a plot and WP:PLOT, which is policy, says such articles shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're just going to ignore secondary coverage or critical reception and just focus on the plot tag, then I give up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The secondary coverage doesn't seem to cover much. Since the AfD tag was added, references added to the article are pretty trivial. Four were added to support the claim that the episode is the first episode of the ninth season, something that really didn't need references. Another two were added to support a claim regarding viewers, which are already mentioned in the episode list article. The entire "Ratings and reception" is sadly lacking. At best this article is a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak keep favoring redirect I'm not convinced that this article has the potential to be improved within a reasonable timeframe. While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject, no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article. As it stands, the plot section dominates the article, the reception section is literally bare bones, and nothing is mentioned of the episode's development and production. --haha169 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject" -- thanks for voting to keep the article, then this is an argument for keeping the article. Again, we don't delete articles about notable topics just because "no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did not vote to keep it, do not twist other editor's words to suit your own agenda. That is unacceptable and will make your position here even less acceptable than it currently is. And given the evidence given by the other editor's here, we certainly do delete unimproved articles - it is actually a common practice. -- Alex^TW 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I struck out my comment and noted the editor's admission that the topic is notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an interest in this article and its subject, so why don't you start drafting something in your sandbox or the draft space instead of arguing at AfD? Even if it ends up deleted or redirected, if you can present a solid article at any time in the future, no one will object re-creating this article. But as it stands now, this article has not established notability, and potentially notable is not acceptable for an article to remain in the mainspace. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Alex, Aussie and haha. If there is notability to the episode as Another Believer feels, then I say make this article a redirect, and start crafting the article in the draft space. An all plot article should not be sitting around waiting to be expanded, because as Aussie said, Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, redirecting makes more sense than deleting, since the redirect would still serve a purpose by directing readers to the season article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Except you reverted me when I redirected the article, which prompted this AFD. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlexTheWhovian: Right, because I think the subject of the article is notable. I'm not advocating for redirecting, I'm just agreeing that redirecting is more appropriate than actually deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then create the article in the draft space and prove that it is notable. And I did redirect it, but you forced my hand to nominate it for deletion. If you believed it more appropriate, you would have gone for that option, created a valid article, then moved it back to the main space. -- Alex^TW 02:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Better to start a draft where production info and a proper reception section can be worked on. - Brojam (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as 95% of the article is a summary of a creative work. The creative work's existence is cited four times, it's viewership twice, and two magazines' opinions are cited once each. 321 bytes of reliably-cited prose does not a notable article make. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to reviewing/closing admin: Just for the record, and then I'll move on because I'm not going to fight hard for a television episode, editors are not using one of these reasons for deleting an article to support their comments. In fact, one even said the subject is notable. Just because an article has issues or tags does not mean it should be deleted. Somewhat ironically, the IP editor commenting throughout this discussion is the one making the most sense. Thanks, and happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the reasons listed at WP:DEL#REASON, I see contributors referencing reasons 8 and 14. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. No one has flat out said the article's subject is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it could be notable. It just isn't in its current state. That's why you're being suggested to create the article in the draft space. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Claiming that editors haven't used Wikipedia:Deletion policy is disingenuous. Editors have addressed the notability problems; I specifically addressed the problem with the way that references have been used to support trivial points. Alternatives to deletion, specifically WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-I have also been addressed. On the keep side, all we've seen is WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is an argument to avoid. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now the article is not just made of a plot summary. I just wrote a bigger reception section :) Lady Junky (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger reception article does not an article make. The extended plot summary still almost solely comprises the whole article, and any reception could be included in the season article. Look for other episode articles for example - there needs to be production information, real-world content, cast, release information, etc. -- Alex^TW 00:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not like these pages, do you? ^^' We have so many episode articles with less than that, and no one seems to have a problem with it ^^ I really don't see what's the problem here. Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link these articles for me and I'll nominate them for you! What can I say except you're welcome? -- Alex^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there appears to be plenty of third-party, reliable sources discussing this episode in particular. I am not sure about the discussion of the current state of the article or whether or not users have improved it in a timely manner. The discussion should focus on whether or not this has received enough independent coverage to support notability, and I believe that it has (I can see quite a bit of coverage after looking through just Google News). Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have changed and added stuff to the article since the beginning of this discussion ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--so improve it. obviously a notable episode. BTW I am all in favor of deleting almost every individual episode of every TV show, but this one made waves. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the draftspace is for. -- Alex^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second Alex. The onus is on the editor(s) who wish to keep the article to improve it to satisfy notability requirements. As of yet, the article still gives undue weight to the plot section and lacks any discussion of the production side of things (conception, development, casting, and release) that is necessary for any TV episode article. The reception section has been improved significantly, but it still lacks any sort of general synthesis (such as, "many critics lauded the episode for xxx") and is merely a list of quotations. Of course, an article doesn't need to be fully complete to avoid deletion, but I am not satisfied the current state is enough. I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so. --haha169 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion should focus entirely on notability. I respectfully disagree with the following statement: "I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so.". The idea of improving the article is a separate issue that I do not feel is directly relevant in an AfD context. When looking through the WP:GNG (General notability guideline), it is all about proving this idea "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". I have always seen notability/significant coverage as the primary argument to whether an article or a list should be kept/merged/redirected/deleted. So I would pivot your statement to say that the onus for support voters should be in pointing out sources that prove this idea of "significant coverage". As someone who does articles on topics related to television series, this is not how I personally go about things. I do personally it differently than whoever created this particular article (I always build up the article to a certain point in my sandbox before moving things over to the main page) so I can understand the sentiments felt by the delete votes and the votes to move this into a draft space. My only concern is that is more dealing with personal preference rather than directly going back to Wikipedia policy. I am not personally tied to this particular subject matter, but I just wanted to fully explain my vote in the context of this ongoing conversation, and I will leave it up to future reviewers and the closer to figure it out either way. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You make some excellent points and after reading your arguments I am inclined to switch my position on this issue. The article is in a much different state than when I originally cast my vote. I still personally believe this article needs to be moved to draftspace for very significant improvements, but I'll withdraw my delete vote because I think this article does at the very least meet WP:GNG. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment. I think that it is important to have an open discussion while still respecting and understanding one another's opinions. The article has improved since it was put up for the AfD. I agree that more improvements can and should be made in the future, and I would highly encourage whoever made this article to pause and do some work in a draft space when making a new article to adequately avoid notability concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect to Will & Grace (season 9). Zero secondary source material, WP:NOTPLOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Zero secondary source material" claim is inaccurate as there are secondary sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please properly source this WP:BLP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maolidy[edit]

Maolidy (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)

Unable to verify the info for this page. The external link provided is for a different individual and with only a single name provided a search is not possible. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fairly easy to verify this person, and passes WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament. I have corrected the link. Greenman (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can be verified as existing and as a member of a national legislature, therefor meeting WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Tadatomo[edit]

Honda Tadatomo (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)

Since 2006, this article has existed without any reference. A PROD was reverted by an editor who asserted that there must be a Japanese language reference, but did not provide one. I understand WP:NODEADLINE. This is looking like NEVER. Fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• potential merge to Battle of Tennōji given that most GBook hits are to single page mentions of his part in the battle. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The following source nearly everything in the stub - [6] [7][8] [9][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. He also played a role in the Siege of Osaka as well as contact with Europeans - Rodrigo de Vivero, 1st Count of Valle de Orizaba. Japanese sources are surely more in depth than this brief search (the Japanese wiki version certainly is longer and with some sources - [16]).Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Battle of Tennōji or Honda Tadakatsu; otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:V, NPOV, and NOR per Icewhiz and ja:本多忠朝. I'm not sure how large a 100,000 koku fief is - it seems likely that these numbers were embellished and his fief couldn't really pay a tax of enough rice to feed 100,000 people for a year - but looking at the relative sizes, such a fief seems to equate to an important political figure, suggesting he passes WP:NPOL. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have already added a Japanese reference to the article from Kotobank, the reference book aggregation site run by the Asahi Shinbun, one of Japan's largest newspapers. There are also a good number of other Japanese references online, such as [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc., though since this is medieval history, not everything is online. The Japanese wiki article seems well-referenced, particularly citing Chiba history books. Michitaro (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obvious keep given the importance of this historical figure in Japan. Deleting this would be a travesty similar to people on jp.wiki agreeing to delete someone relevant like Ulysses S. Grant because they can't read US history books. (I would find a better comparison, but the US hadn’t been invented during this time period so I compromised, a better comparison would probably be a European general of that period. my point is that we should be reasonably lenient to figures from other cultures which we have limited knowledge of.) Additionally, historical figures are almost always considered notable if there are at least some sources mentioning them, which is now the case. Dysklyver 10:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on recreating this on Wiktionary. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Member of technical staff[edit]

Member of technical staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not finding significant coverage of this term itself, just mentions of people who are such staff members and passing mentions, such as in this source. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - essentially a neologism or definition of a title. No substance, no real sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary a redirect to Bell Labs isn't quite appropriate, as the term has expanded from its initial use there . The article is a dictdef of a job title, and will almost certainly stay as one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic law in Constantinople[edit]

Islamic law in Constantinople (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)

WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY article on a dubious topic: the author somehow conflates Byzantine history between 1204 and 1453 and the Ottoman era, the Byzantine society with Shari'a law and Mehmed II's treatment of the patriarchate, etc. The topic of the article is rather unclear, and its structure doesn't make clear what arguments the author advances. Constantine ✍ 12:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It hardly has anything to do with the topic described in the page name, and as was pointed out on its talk page when created it reads like an essay, and one with the distorted frame of reference pointed out by the nom. The majority of the article isn't even about shari'a, but rather is about pre-conquestt Byzantine bureaucracy, while the final section on actual post-conquest shari'a (supposedly the topic) seems almost an afterthought, with generalities about shari'a that seem to represent synthesis and parts reading like personal opinion/essay, a tone that has been in the article from the start. While there may be a place on Wikipedia to discuss the implementation of Islamic law on the newly-conquered citizenry of Constantinople, this isn't it, and misses the mark to such a degree that it appears to be a case for WP:TNT. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Agricolae. An article with this title could be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This content could possibly be useful at an article with a different title. I'd support some more complicated solution (such as WP:HEY or draftify if someone wanted to take on the project) if someone were willing to enact it, but as it is, this is not encyclopedic content under this title and it has been tagged long enough that no fix is likely. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify content is important and subject is also notable. But right now it reads like an essay. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete possibly userify to give the creator an opportunity to resolve its issues. The article is trying to deal with two separate subjects. (1) Byzantium was a weak state between 1204 and 1453. There is an opportunity to explain to what extent (if any) there were Muslims (e.g. merchants) in Constantinople before 1453 and to what extent they were allowed to live under their own laws. (2) the Islamisation of the city after 1453 is a separate topic: the question is then the extent to which Christians were permitted to live under their own laws and (perhaps) to what extent Roman law still applied in commerce. Each of these might be capable of making a worthwhile article, perhaps with an intervening section on how Sharia law was applied in and just after 1453. The present article just will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are valid concerns about the level of sourcing, but enough think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG to prevent deletion. Note that promotional concerns can be fixed through editing instead of deletion. ansh666 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shake's Frozen Custard[edit]

Shake's Frozen Custard (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 had no independent reliable citations since 2006, when a SPA wrote the article. A PROD was reverted in 2015, with no improvement to the article, but a claim that references supporting GNG exist. Once an article is challenged, it is up to the proponent to demonstrate that the article meets the requirement. Why should a single-location ice cream stand merit an article in an encyclopedia without references, besides WP:ILIKEIT? Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is a role account as endorsed by Sheffield.gov.uk --KalamazooGuy (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This new account KalamazooGuy (talk · contribs) made several edits to many AfDs and is currently blocked  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:KalamazooGuy has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable business. The original of this article could just as well have been speedied, and while it's toned down now, I still don't see evidence of it being a suitable topic. DMacks (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete didn't satisfy any criterion of WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources the editor is just removing the prod for the sake of it but completely unable to demonstrate it indeed deserve an article. — Ammarpad (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom should review WP:BEFORE: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." The existence of sources to satisfy GNG was pointed out on the talk page, so why are we here? New links since those links have died: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Toohool (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hope the closing Admin will consider something here critically. The above comment by Toohool is both deceptive and half-clever gaming of the system. In the surface, one will see 6 different websites (sources) but in reality they're one inaccessible website replicated six times. This can be verified by anybody either via opening them in six windows (like I did) or analyzing them through source code. I don't know why he think this trick can work at AfD. And this only further shows the article is unsourced and failed all criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. When it was prodded in 2015 Toohool deprodded it and posted the same website: "info web.news bank.com" on the talkpage. He replicated the website 6 times also. Now he just copied them from the talkpage. I write this whith much constraint, but the trick is really unbecoming. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I just tried the links in 3 different browsers and they all work. Those are links to 6 different news articles at NewsBank. NewsBank is a site that archives stories from many newspapers and other reliable sources. If they're not working for you for some reason, you can also probably access NewsBank through your local library and do the search yourself. Also, consider AGF before you go slinging accusations at people. Toohool (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: I am sorry if you think I didn't assume good faith on you. But before I wrote that I had gone to the first revision of the page all through. I tried each link at least two times and confirmed they lead to the same website. I, today after The Bushranger's post on my talkpage, asked two different people and they all confirm that it is the same website. Now the argument of of "Archive website" is a different thing, as I didn't say it is not archiving website, and it didn't allow unregistered people to see that, neither does it allow registration, which I could've done. I don't question your source because it is reg-only, or something like that, but sincerely since the page archive newspapers why don't sources the papers directly? These papers sources has been on the talkpage since 2015 (and the article unsourced since 2006) you've access to the site why should you leave it that way and say the source is in talkpage? If you have improved the article more than you depend its keeping, I don't think it can even come in this place now, but the only source you posted at talk are not accessible to willing editors, If I want now reference the article how can I do that with source I can't access and the article remained since 2006 with single self source. Now if this discussion is closed as kept, and you post these link at the talkpage again like you did here 2 years ago, please is that the way the article will continue existing? Do you think this is the right thing to do in the sprit of building Wikipedia? I am more of inclusionist on Wikipedia, as I believe many deleted pages could be useful, but I have searched for source on this article is no evidence this meat any of the points highlighted at WP:GNG and I still believe it should be deleted because Verifiability (in this case very little, not asserted since 2006) is not guarantee for inclusion on Wikipedia. It really exists and have website, but that's also invalid criterion for inclusion  — Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had tried the first talkpage link both from a site that appears to have Newsbank access and one that connects via a proxy (and through that appears to have access). In both case, I got: "Log in for complete access to this resource. There was an issue while searching for the article you requested... please contact customer service." Without at actual cites to the actual newspapers or exactly what search to do myself (note, "I found lots of search hits" itself isn't a WP:RS or WP:GNG claim), I can't figure out there to go further at that site, so I have no basis to change my !vote. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the new links here in the AfD seem to work. Checking... DMacks (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's barely enough here to pass, but there's enough. Newsbank is, as noted, a newspaper-article-archiving service; just like Archive.org and Newspapers.com, it is not "just one site multiple times". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--The links are to different news-pieces by diff. authors, published on diff. mediums Newsbank is an archive of diff. news-pieces and obviously the domain-name will be same. but they don't satify GNG.Typical corp-promo news.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Based on the sources provided by Toohool. Although I would love to see someone improve the page by adding the references in and cleaning up the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A few more sources found on Newspapers.com: [30] [31] [32] [33] Toohool (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article reads like an advertisement, and WP:PROMOTION could well apply to this article. Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets GNG, although on a weaker level. I have copy edited the article to address concerns with promo tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The 6 references cited above are every single one of them promotional stories in local newspapers--such accounts are indiscriminate coverage,any not truly independent. There's nothing else substantial . DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. I'm not an expert on the various R from templates. If somebody wants to add R from misnomer, that's fine with me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior Metropolitan Region[edit]

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

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

Doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). The 2011 census lists Gwalior Urban Region which is just Gwalior+Morar. Most of this article is copied from Gwalior. Batternut (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment there is no development authority for this region as other metros have (eg Kolkata, Mumbai), and no official stats for this area. See also Template:Gwalior Metropolitan Region. Batternut (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong opinions here, but the name "metropolitan region" doesn't appear to be a misnomer, it's for example here alongside "urban agglomeration". I don't know if this generally merits a standalone article (likely at a different title), but with the present state of the article and the large duplication with Gwalior, I think it's best to redirect it to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. – Uanfala 11:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "metropolitan region" link above - although census2011.co.in mentions "metropolitan region" the census itself only counted and spoke of urban agglomerations (UAs), eg see the Gwalior district census handbook. Googling finds no gov.in mention of either "Gwalior Metropolitan region" or "Gwalior Metropolitan area". Batternut (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comments Content fork applies, re duplication between it and Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. The only reliable information specific to the metro area is the population (fictitious in the metro article, correct in Gwalior). Batternut (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about redirecting to Gwalior then? I think this is fairly straightforward, and the only question is whether the redirect should be marked up as ((R from misnomer)) or not. – Uanfala 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd support (as proposer) a redirect Gwalior. I don't think I'd bother about tagging as a misnomer (but might be persuaded). Batternut (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs as per above. No opinion on the redirect template tags. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs sounds reasonable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the sources present and found, there isn't the chance of a hailstone in Hades of this being deleted. Therefore, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm going ahead and closing this. Please remember to add those sources to the article. Rassin' frassin' kids these days with their esports, why in MY day- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 League of Legends World Championship[edit]

2017 League of Legends World Championship (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)

Two drafts of this article was created and twice failed WP:GNG. The conditions are not improved. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really understand. You are a significant contributor to the article. Why are you nominating it for deletion?

  Here are some articles: Kotaku, PCGamer, GameSpot, IGN, and the list goes on. Here are some more. This seems an obvious keep. Maplestrip, you might be interested in cleaning this one. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for tagging me. League of Legends isn't a scene I usually write articles for, but this does look like an obvious keep. ~Mable (chat) 13:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Sort of confused about the nom, but I 100% say keep User:Zorbo678 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously meets GNG. The previous year's article (2016 League of Legends World Championship), which I contributed a lot of content to, is a GA, and this year's event is no less prominent. In fact, it probably has more coverage because its additional play in stage, and from Chinese news sources, since it was hosted there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Clearly meets GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise, speedy keep, plenty of reliable sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AltNews.in[edit]

AltNews.in (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)

Should be fully rewritten, as the majority of the article is a problem for NPOV. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article was in fairly bad shape, but pruning it down to a fairly neutral stub was not difficult: I have now done so. The coverage is fairly substantive, even just in the sources already in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the General Notability guideline and WP:WEB guideline the website was founded on 9 February 2017 and is still at the beginning stage.The newspaper articles do not give substantial coverage of the website .Only Just briefly dwell upon the website About 8 news stories of the website are mentioned but nothing about the website and it does not meet CORP guild line.122.164.253.141 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This IP has zero edits outside this discussion

• Keep BBC is a reliable source as well as The Telegraph. Times of India is main RS for any article that is related to India.--Biografer (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If an article fails WP:NPOV, it should be rewritten or edited, not completely deleted. Pointing out flaws in a national government and having that get international coverage is WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, this Altnews.in website was literally featured in a GQ article a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthebest (talk • contribs)
• The website is not notable. BBC and Telegraph(Calcutta) comments about the India ministry mocked for 'appropriating' Spain border and "Border lights illuminate a Moroccan mockery" NOT ABOUT AltNews.in.IT HAS WRITTEN ONLY 40 ARTICLES SINCE 9 FEB 2017 and Exposés by Altnews have occasionally received coverage in the mainstream media Occasional coverage does not pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB and all coverage is about the story not about the website. It does not get advertisement it is an amateur website. It is just over 6 MONTH OLD WEBSITE 122.174.141.71 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The same above IP

• • We don't look at how old the site is, we look at its notability. If it have substantial coverage, we accept it. That's how Wikipedia works. And putting everything bold or in caps wont get you far in this discussion, since it looks like like you are yelling at your fellow Wikipedians.--Biografer (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we look at it's notability. That's what the user of the IP is saying, that it's not notable. I no longer think it should be deleted. The sources that mention it do so as to look at the website's uniqueness in it's way of writing, which is essentially showcasing people believing fake news and other related articles. They do only have 60 thousand Facebook followers, but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. It should have a page, but the page should be rewritten entirely to make it seem like it's more like a news outlet and less like a group crusading against the evil fake news, which is what it sounds like now. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IP is actually saying both things: 1. Its not notable and 2. Its only six months old (in caps). The second of which, would be better if he hadn't mentioned it, since it caused confusion (on my part at least). As for 60,000 Facebook followers: That is not how we establish notability. but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. - That is exactly what notability is. BBC, The Times of India, CNN, The New York Times, all of them are good sources. I would be careful with HuffPost since its mostly daily newspaper which might contain some gossips, so use it sparingly. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adotchar, have you read the new version of the page? It's substantially different from the one you nominated for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears to have significant coverage. Deleting the article won't solve its neutrality issues, editing the article and working with other users will.VR _talk 11:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for contradictory nomination statement and below reason. The nominator want the article to be rewritten not deleted. He can easily do this or tag it for someone to do. AfD is for article to be deleted not ask for rewriting. Second, this article fairly meet the points of WP:NWEB by being directly subject of discussion in nworld renown media organization like BBC, The Telegraph and Times of India A careful WP:BEFORE whould've prevented this misnomination, almost all (if not all) the sources used are reputable and notable sources and they are not only mentioning the article merely as I have gone through entire contents 6 of them and skimmed the rest. This is very rare combination of source you can find in any AfD. To the nominator, nextime if want article to be rewritten please just tag it with copyedit, AfD is meant only for deletion not 'rewriting' discussion  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally nominated it to be deleted. After a few days, I no longer thought it should be, though it was already nominated and the discussion had started. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Adotchar: that means you no longer want go ahead with deletion discussion?  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have closed it, but AFD guidelines say that you only can if everyone says keep, and you're the nominator. Everyone except the IP thinks the page should be kept. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's clear consensus according to policies and guidelines and you withdraw the nomination since. One IP who never edit outside this AfD and have no strong rationale cannot overturn this consensus.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons provided by User:Biografer and above by User:Ammarpad. The current version since correction by User:Vanamonde93 seems vertical with WP guidelines.Jionakeli (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DC Solar[edit]

DC Solar (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)

Promotionally written article with claim for notability through WP:INHERITORG as NASCAR sponsor. However, little by way of independent media coverage about the company as such, therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Internet searches bring up results relating to Nascar sponsorship and items reading like press-released/details from press packs. The article also contains unsourced information and details from a completely unrelated company, which I will remove. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mostly promotional article, no evidence of it passing WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G5 delete. Speedied. m.o.p 16:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanSocial[edit]

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

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

An advertisement, made by a promotional disruptive sock,[34] who belongs to a sockfarm of over 1000 socks. Article lacks notability and has been proded by Power~enwiki for being too promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the best it can be do is be recommended by The Sun then that's not saying much. The technique of creating a redirect, waiting for it to pass by the early NPPers, and then expanding it, sounds like the sort of underhand tactics a sockfarm would resort to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Richards (director)[edit]

Julian Richards (director) (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 has been tagged as being unsourced for over two years: it remains a résumé with a list of films which his company made, all but two of which lack their own Wikipedia pages ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He has a reasonably substantial track record as a director of notable works. Online sources that discuss him directly include [35] (Wales on Sunday, 2001, calling him "one of our hottest talents"); [36] (South Wales Echo, 2009, with some discussion of his efforts in the underfed Welsh film industry); and smaller mentions at sources like [37][38][39]. Not the strongest set of sources but I think enough to let the article survive. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus a 2008 nomination for BAFTA's Cymru Award, which is Wales' highest film honour, I'd say he's notable, when we combine the coverage we can find and the more significant awards/noms listed at IMDb. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Very little discussion, so best to treat this similar to a WP:PROD.  Sandstein  12:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrophy-specific training[edit]

Hypertrophy-specific training (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:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, maybe I find references to this, but it's not clear how much of this is just the men's self-improvement echo chamber. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Love Records[edit]

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

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

The only sources are self-published. A Google search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Narky Blert (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, also the notability of the artists on the label is questionable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: One or two of the bluelinked artists on the label look at first sight as if they might pass WP:GNG. If their notability is in doubt, they need individual discussion, and they should not be drawn into this discussion. Of course, neither artists nor label can WP:INHERIT notability from each other (I have WP:WG in mind). Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I wasn't suggesting that they be discussed here, and I pretty much agree with you on that point. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ansh666 06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winters Brothers[edit]

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

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

The article does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. This appears to me to be an unremarkable waste and recycling company. Notability hinges on the four articles in Newstimes, which in my assessment mostly feature the company talking about itself and appear to be the work of a PR company and would fail WP:ORGIND. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, I agree. The notability hinges on the Newstimes articles but they don't meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I recently expanded on the article to discuss the significant railroad operations in the Connecticut and New York regions. This article describes a notable company in the Connecticut and Long Island regions, being the largest waste management company in these markets. For example, all of Waste Management's operations in Connecticut and New York (excluding NYC) are contracted through Winters Brothers. I disagree that the references cited fail Wikipedia's credibility standards, as the news articles were created by independent news sources and all company profiles and information about the company listed on Wikipedia are from third-party sources. There are several links to other pages on Wikipedia, including TWO railroad lines that the company operates with under contract. This article is also not a stub, and provides plenty of information as to the history of the company, and how it holds some of the largest waste management assets in the Northeast Untied States. I would not have taken the time to write this article if I did not feel this company had a significant economic impact on this region of the country, where most waste services are privatized. These are the reasons why I find this article to be significant, and I hope you take the time to review the recent changes I have made and hopefully reconsider. Rather than campaigning to delete these articles of mid-sized companies in the Northeast US, please help me to expand upon them. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
  • Comment The test for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability is not solely whether an article was created by an independent news source but the article must also be "intellectually" independent. Similarly, for the purposes of establishing notability, content published by third party sources must also be intellectually independent. Therefore references that rely almost exclusively on content prepared and/or published by the company or their officers is not considered intellectually independent and therefore these references do not assist in establishing the notability of this company. Of the references provided, none meet the criteria and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
    • This newstimes article relies exclusively on an interview with Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
    • This newstime article from June 2011 also relies exclusively on information provided by the company, their employees and Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
    • The bloomberg profile is provided by the company, as are all profiles published by Bloomberg. It is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a run-of-the-mill company description and fails WP:ORGIND as it is provided by the company.
    • This newstime article from March 2011 is largely based on a company announcement and quotations and/or an interview with company officers, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This newstime article from July 2011 is largely based on a news conference held by Mr. Winters, contains no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
    • This winterbros reference and this one are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for independence for the purposes of establishing notability.
    • This libn.com article on "trash trains" relies on quotations from Will Flower, a company officer, for information on Winters Bros and is therefore not intellectually independent and does not contain independent opinion or analysis in relation to Winters Bros, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • The reference from thereflectedpast.com and the hrrc.com reference make no mention of the Winter Bros.
    • This prnewswire reference is a company announcement, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
    • this waste360.com reference is based on a news release (as is stated at the end of the second paragraph) and is largely based on a company press release and fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This reference from pehub.com is based on a press release from an investor, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • In my opinion and based on the points I've raised above, none of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and it is a small part of the overall test to check that the articles were published by organisations independent of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Still lacks any reliable independent references to establish notability, as detailed above.. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In this case, I think the sources are in fact sufficient to show notability. and the importance of the company sufficient that this is what would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]