< 25 October	27 October >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tate[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a state political party chair. This is not a position that hands someone an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, but there's no evidence being shown that he passes WP:GNG at all -- three of the five references are to the websites of the state and national chapters of his own political party, which are directly-affiliated sources that cannot support notability, and both of the other two are to non-notable and unreliable blogs. There is no reliable source coverage in real media being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any evidence of notability for Tate. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill party activist, failing GNG. I favor automatic inclusion of all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, but state party chairs are routine, regularly replaced functionaries — not akin to leaders of national parties. Carrite (talk) 13:21, 1 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) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Klotz[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with WP:ROUTINE coverage of games and transactions. Gets a couple of non-routine mentions, without significant depth, for an incident where he had a seizure on the ice after fight while he was with the Philadelphia Phantoms. Did not play long enough in a well covered league to presume notability through WP:NHOCKEY and has no awards. Unlikely to make it back up to the NHOCKEY#2 level of coverage of leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players, which is what people known only for playing hockey must do to have an article on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the SNG for Hockey players. Per JPL's comment above, EVERY subject falls under the aegis of GNG and can be passed on that basis; there is no limitation to consideration under SNG parameters. Despite his misperception of that fact, we agree on this result. Carrite (talk) 13:25, 1 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) 19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy H. Kwon[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP and not evident that he meets WP:PROF. Marquardtika (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts on Google Scholar too low for WP:PROF#C1; no other notability criterion evident. Article makes no claim of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:PROF.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As DE said, the citations are too low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associate professors are rarely notable, and I'm not seeing anything that indicates this subject is an exception. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an associate professor, he seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF, being insufficiently cited to have made himself notable in his field. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the SNG for Professors. Carrite (talk) 13:26, 1 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) 19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Trust Center[edit]

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

I was set to delete this under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Unfortunately, it was a previously declined ProD, so we must discuss it first. Ancient spamticle about not notable company. Getting past the link rot, I found brief mentions in passing. Searching for news articles was not fruitful. No notabilty and content is just to close to an "about" page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V also seems to be WP:Promotion as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was significantly shorn of content in November 2009 with the comment "simplified the page as Global Trust Council wiki now up" [1]. Note that Global Trust Council survived an AfD the following month. (It now appears to be defunct.) AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The solitary reference to a publication by IKED would appear to be primary ([2], [3]). My searches are finding passing mentions, but not the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate that WP:ORGDEPTH is met. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 27 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nomination. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Crowley[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability for this author. His books attract more references than he does and the books themselves may be notable but very little speaks to his own notability. The refs are book reviews. Reads more like an advertisement - they have 4 times more volume of text than the author himself. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews are fine for demonstrating notability per WP:AUTHOR. The books are what he is notable for, not his favourite food or the name of his dog. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was back and forth on this one, but I ultimately decided not to nominate because I think the books and the coverage of them in mainstream media sources is enough. agtx 14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom appears to misunderstand notability for authors, which derives form writing notable books. Many more reviews in WP:RS exist than are on the page. Certainly article needs expansion. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- His output appears to be four books and we have no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that he wrote four books, which anyone can do, but that he wrote four books that attracted reviews in many reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Author of 4 significant books - borderline AUTHOR pass.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator that more coverage of the man himself, rather than the books, would be better, but the fact remains that coverage of his books is a kind of coverage of him, and there is just about enough there. 213.205.198.48 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment every one of the sources is a book review - publishing agents send free copies of books to papers and periodicals, often with a suitably depraved synopsis and reviewers regurgitate these in their papers. It fills column inches at little cost. I can still see nothing here where any independent reliable source does any more than review a book. There is no literary or historical discussion, little of any setting the content in any related historical context. There is no academic discussion, no wider discussion enfolding Crowley's views with others, no analysis of his interpretation and reconstruction as you would expect with a reputable and notable author of this genre. I remain convinced that this is simple adverting and nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want academic discussion then you could start with doi:10.1080/21533369.2017.1345160 and doi:10.1177/084387140902100177. That list is not exhaustive, but just the academic reviews that I could find in a couple of minutes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the reviews provided are substantive. Per common outcomes, authors of multiple books with non trivial reviews are generally kept. These are two scholarly reviews are non-trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by TonyBallioni, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD G11, CSD G12. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PHINMA Corporation[edit]

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

Perhaps borderline notable, but in its current form reads like an advert, and would have to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good day OcarinaOfTime,

Thank you for your feed back.

In regards to the format looking like an advertisement, I had no intention and I just followed the flow of subjects like the "Ayala Corporation" article. But taking your input into account, maybe I do need to edit some wording of the content so it may not seem like an advertisement.

As I have stated in the editing summary (I am not sure that it may have appeared), I am very interested writing about the founders Ramon V. Del Rosario, Sr. (1918 – September 7, 2008), Filemon C. Rodriguez, and Ernesto Ocampo Escaler, who are very important men in Philippine history (not just to that company), which most people have forgotten about.

Please give me a day or two to edit the article, as I am wrapping up some paperwork at my office.

Salamat at samuli (thanks and until then),

Lakandiwa

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Obvious WP:PROMO --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:36, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Roffi[edit]

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

Only source provided is a personal interview. Internet search turns up Facebook, Youtube, and the subject's personal website. Google news turns up a series of mentions in performances, plus a number of other hits in Italian that I could not evaluate. Subject needs non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent published sources, and a single interview does not qualify him as notable. No corresponding article on the Italian Wikipedia. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 29 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 redirect to EP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The E.P.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC also fails WP:GNG. before shows no sources that aren't press releases or unreliable. Dysklyver 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to (The EP) as a plausible search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to EP (disambiguation), which lists (The EP), The EP (Frank n Dank album), etc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 2 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} 23:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Killahz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC, limited sources which are mostly not reliable or are press releases. WP:BEFORE shows little either. Dysklyver 21:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had to take a closer look at this one. Anyone trying to advocate for keeping the article will claim there are four notable members, passing WP:NBAND for some. However, each member is not actually independently notable or covered in reliable sources, except King Gordy. The group certainly does not pass WP:GNG and did not have a charting record, another automatic for some reviewers.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no reasonable redirect target. I have no preference as to keep v. delete; there's very little here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no media significant coverage - fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Lankiveil, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pickyourtrail[edit]

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

Largely promotional. Repeating what I wrote on the Talk page to explain the speedy tag before it was removed, "The history section consists mostly of the subjective relating of externally unverifiable aspects of the founders' motivation, written in admiring terms to engage the reader and stimulate interest. The How It Works section is written to persuade the reader that this is a great place to do business. That's promotional. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is written from a neutral point of view." Also, I'm doubtful about its notability, though I could be wrong about that, but I'm considering that hand-in-hand with the promotional nature of it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete problems with the promotional tone, as raised above, but the sources are seem to be regurgitated press releases; at the bottom of one reference I noticed that they had links to similarly regurgitated press releases for other companies, and I noticed another source was duplicated twice. None the source really go into depth enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and the references to venture funding within the sources make it likely that the provided sources are part of a venture capital push ("This series captures the startup ecosystem in the state") rather than the type of source we require to meet WP:GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First off, if this isn't A7/G11, then it's definitely in the neighborhood, and close enough to have a strong opinion when A7/G11 don't keep up their lawn. As to notability, the google reference is the definition of passing mention, and let's be honest, if they were talking about a different company by the same name we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. There's other passing mentions to be had. There's also this Times of India piece, which was the most in-depth coverage I found, but it doesn't pass the cringe test. Neither do the Hindu Business Line or the New Indian Express sources, which are pretty much just different flavors of interviews with the same guy. If these aren't thinly veiled advertisements, then they're definitely in the neighborhood, and close enough to have a strong opinion when thinly veiled advertisements don't clean up after their dog. Overall, there doesn't seem to be very much with which to write an article with, that wouldn't be either so totally non-neutral it should probably be removed, or would end up being a glorified product specification of the features of their website, and so not really an encyclopedia article to begin with. GMG ^talk 10:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be totally advertising for a non notable company. --Sau226 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -WP:SOAPBOX. FITINDIA 15:40, 27 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 Keep per the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nomination. It would also appear that WP:MILL is an incorrect argument for the deletion of this article. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Table (restaurant)[edit]

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

It's not clear to me how a WP:MILL Mumbai restaurant known for its signature boneless chicken wings has a Wikipedia article. Per WP:NOT this kind of thing should never exist here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:MILL is an essay not policy. A vague wave to WP:NOT doesn't work because we have lots of articles about restaurants; I just wrote another one myself. The one in question is notable because it's easy to find more sources such as Elle. So, there's no case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this restaurant meets WP:GNG. There are reviews in Elle, That Hungry Chef and Vogue India and plenty more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 26 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. Insufficient sourcing for a BLP. A Train^talk 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Dhanayake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no press coverage since 2009. None today. WP:BLP1E Rhadow (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER. Does not fail BLP1E because sportspeople are outside it's scope. Nominator is persistently misrepresenting guidelines and has been warned for it. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Illegitimate point of order. Putting bogus warnings on peoples' talk pages so you can later shout "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED" is poor form. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely legit warning because misrepresentation of guidelines is unacceptable. Rhadow has done this several times re more than one guideline. If Rhadow heeds the warning and does not misrepresent BLP1E and others in future, then all well and good. I suggest you refrain from both WP:Wikistalking and bullshitting. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - greetings Rhadow. How do you feel about Anachronist's suggestion of grouping first-class cricketers by club, as posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers? If you are open to grouping by club and then removing articles at whim because they get deleted for whatever reason, then it doesn't matter any more what happens to individual articles, because we've broken Wikipedia enough to WP:IGNORE based on criteria we've plucked out of the air. Otherwise it's pointless to keep doing this over and over. Bobo . 23:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - zero conversation has gone on within this AfD in the 18 hours since it was set up. I think this is because we are busy trying to set up an alternative solution to the problem of people coming along and randomly sending cricket articles for deletion. Is it fair to suggest that this AfD is postponed while the other solution is in the planning? May I suggest the same regarding MW Duminda, Rhadow? Bobo . 16:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to rush. 18 hours is nothing. I'd like time to enable me to look for sources and the like first please. Sometimes AfD take time to get going - you know that, you've been here long enough. Feel free to hide both your own comment and my response if you feel that's appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, we are too busy sorting out other issues. I'm just about to leave a comment on WT:CRIC, please let me know what you think. You know I see you as an ally, BST, please let me know if you think it's more important to instigate a conversation which sorts this problem out once and for all? I think that's the only way we will be able to solve this current problem. Bobo . 16:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, try this: Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players Rhadow (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you're willing to expand the article with complete information before someone spots it and sends it to AfD... I would have suggested setting up a completed version of List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers to avoid violation of NPOV. Which I'm more than prepared to do given time, especially given as the article is redlinked. (Sorry, my initial comment was unintentionally snipe-y. I didn't mean it that way). Bobo . 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a list to AfD because it has three items, well that's balderdash. My suggestion is to set up these team lists and fill them in as we go. When an article comes up with BLP1E, merge the text and make a redirect. A few months is fine. Nine years no. Rhadow (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. The issue is that a couple of articles have been randomly put on the list(s) of cricketers per team. Surely the most logical thing is to put all the articles on the list, and then work from there. Bluelinks can remain bluelinks, to be added and deleted on the whim of whoever wishes to do so, redlinks can become bluelinks or remain redlinks, or do both, at the whim of whoever wishes to dictate their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT guidelines to the community at large. Bobo . 19:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andhra cricketers should contain a complete list of all the cricketers who have played first-class for Andhra, sorted by surname, as well as their participating seasons, not just a couple of players' names. Bobo. 19:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo and Rhadow, I don't have a problem with the list articles mentioned here, as long as each player is verified by at least one source. Single sources such as "CricketArchive" are OK with me for the list articles. Of course, in contrast, I have a problem when only one database source is used for a biography article, as if that is sufficient to pass notability criteria for a living person or other bio. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This being true, it's sad that articles are being sent to deletion based on WP:ONESOURCE, or that ONESOURCE is being used as a supposedly valid argument, when anyone who claims to know a single thing about cricket could just as easily add a second and avoid this whole topic altogether. Once they satisfy the argument of ONESOURCE, in theory that should be fine for those who offer ONESOURCE as an argument, although after that it tends to be that people decide to delete based on inconsistent, woolly criteria and the sheer fact that an article on a player should be deleted simply because they've never heard of the player, which I'm guessing is what happens in most cases. Bobo . 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the scorecard in question as, for some reason, these scorecards on Cricinfo have not been turned into linked main articles and therefore an individual player page is impossible. But there are people around here who seem to prefer references as sources rather than external links anyway so this should satisfy them. Thank you for this suggestion, Steve, I've gone and dealt with it and now we at least know that the only reason people will decide to delete articles is because of WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT. As a sidenote, Steve, may I please genuinely thank you for being civil in your comment as this has led to the issue being sorted quietly and without incident - for a change! Bobo . 03:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scorecard (or database) is considered trivial coverage anyway, so, unfortunately, this won't shore up notability (please see this). Two databases such as this would still be trivial coverage. This is the problem I have with only sourcing with these scorecards (or databases). Two scorecards probably confirm the person exists and made a first-class appearance, but they do not establish notability. Significant coverage of some kind is needed for a biography, and if the person is living then BLP should be satisfied as well. I am glad we can have a civil dialog, as you noted. Obviously uncivil dialogs are a waste of time and energy. --Steve Quinn (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if a suitable list can be found. Unfortunately I simply can't find any additional sources to support notability, leaving us with an incomplete database entry (CricketArchive) and a scorecard on an alternative database site (CricInfo). I don't, on balance, consider that there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that more substantive sources are available - and, believe me, I've looked and made enquiries. Given, then, that we have such incomplete information about the chap I consider that removing the article is the best approach. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly if this is true then this is likely true for 90 percent of non-English non-Test cricket biographies. No article is "complete". Bobo . 06:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where you talk about a "suitable list" - it's suspicious that the anti-CRIN lot haven't decided to create these lists themselves while these debates are going on so that we can sort out this nonsense, but anyhoo - would List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers be satisfactory? The List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers was deleted on the basis of severe breach of NPOV, but lists of cricketers by team - regardless of their perceived "lack of notability" - is a logical NPOV solution. Bobo . 07:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, List if Panadura cricketers would be perfect. I thought that was the consensus. In order to create a list like that I'd need access to CricketArchive and time to do so. I don't have either right now - if that's suspicious then I do kind of wonder... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would we then include every cricketer who appeared for Panadura, just randomly-added bluelinks as per List of Andhra cricketers (a distinct violation of NPOV based only on a couple of bluelinks (here)), or just those which have been deleted in direct contradiction to the insultingly easy to follow WP:CRIN criteria (as per here)? Bobo . 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper, Dinamina, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of Dinamina for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by Dinamina and other Sinhalese publications meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. These nominations are disruptive. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting WP:RS and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the two basic notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. The only way to work to guidelines is by following simple, universally applicable notability criteria. As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided. Bobo . 14:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while WP:DONTKNOWTHEGUYSFIRSTNAME sounds like a nice rationale for deletion, it sounds a tad unwieldy for a hashtag, doesn't it? ;) Bobo . 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again per BlackJack. This deletionist rush is a drain on the community's resources and should come to a halt. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly if this deletionist rush were on any other subject, the nominations would be seen as frivolous, disruptive, and the nominators would be severely castigated. Bobo . 22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, I suggest you read WP:NEXIST and consider the facts that (a) Sinhalese coverage does exist; and (b) the Perera case proves that additional information can be found there. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by no means "all stats" - this is a blatant lie, the article consists of words as well. And in any case, if your complaint is that the *article* is not satisfactory, then you're not making any reference to any kind of policy or guideline which says the article should or shouldn't be permitted. Bobo . 15:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a suitable list of players by club. A quarter of this article is statistics bloated grotesquely into a semblance of prose, and the rest is a bizarre footnote that is not about the person at all, but unsuccessfully tries to argue that articles of this kind should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V. Hopeless. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not judged on quality, and this article does not contain "statistics", but prose. Articles are judged on whether they are suitable for Wikipedia judging by Wikipedia guidelines. Frankly if your complaint is, "article is of poor quality", why haven't you been busy improving it for the last nine years? Bobo . 15:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.

Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a BLP with such limited sourcing that even the subject's date of birth is unknown. A technical SNG pass does not guarantee an article; see WP:WHYN. Minimum sourcing should be met; BLPs deserve better than this article. Moreover, Wikipedia does not aspire to be an exhaustive directory of all cricketers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "don't know the article subject's date of birth" can possibly be used as an acceptable criterion for deletion. As for the fact that we "don't aspire" to be an "exhaustive directory" of all cricketers, this actually isn't true! Yes, we do! And that's precisely what the cricket project has been working on for the last 12 years. And precisely what we're coming up against now. "Minimum sourcing" has been met - as long as "minimum" doesn't incorporate "zero". The incompatibility and contradictory nature of the two most basic inclusion guidelines have, in my mind, conclusively proven that invoking SNG is the only true neutral way to go. And thankfully we don't work on "article quality" as an inclusion criterion, otherwise 99 percent of Wiipedia articles would be deleted... no article is "complete". Bobo . 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will benefit from some additional eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete One apparance in "first class" cricket, with one source justifying the claim, is orders of magnitude below the notability guidelines. It is also high time that sports fans stopped trying to bully people into letting them take over Wikipedia and started a specific sports-related wiki for their excessive articles on people of no lasting importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Bullying is exactly the right word for what these people are up to. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One appearance in first-class cricket is precisely what the notability guidelines require. If you wish us to include our two regular sources so as not to tally with WP:ONESOURCE, please let us know this needs to be done. Bobo . 15:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry but nothing supersedes our general notability guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if anyone can find a benefit from a poorly-sourced BLP (I take BLPs very seriously) that cannot be improved even after a WP:BEFORE search, please explain it to me because I am at a loss.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that this article is "poorly sourced" when it includes source material from four different places, including two "real-life" sources, is, frankly, dishonest and deceptive. What these endless AfDs have proven is that we need to be more vigilant as per using our two regular online sources as well as being able to find sources from elsewhere (especially in the "real world"). If you can find any better sources we can use, please suggest them, otherwise please don't claim that the article is "poorly sourced". Bobo . 15:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Bobo, there is no indication in references 1 or 4 that Dhanayake is mentioned. One would have to go to Colombo and read the 1991 copy in Sinhalese. Jack claims his friend did so. The article cited is about a match between two teams that did not include Panadura. Yes, the article remains poorly sourced -- and now misleadingly sourced. Rhadow (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an illogical argument. If every single one of us had to check every single reference on every single Wikipedia article, wouldn't that drive us insane? ;) The sources have been noted as necessary. I sympathize with this in a small way - but this is going to be true of every "real-life" source. Bobo . 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope I am permitted to note this. Looking at the delete !votes in this discussion gives us the following:

"Can't find additional sources to support notability" - issue has been sorted. Both our main sources have been quoted as well as real-life sources.
"Date of birth is unknown" - seriously?
"One appearance is magnitudes below notability guidelines" - patently false, as per WP:CRIN.
"Article is poorly sourced" - article includes two real-life sources and two internet sources, not all of which were present when the article was taken to AfD

The trouble with sending an article which categorically meets CRIN to AfD is that the "issues" get settled while an AfD debate is going on. I suggest that in the future, people bring these issues up before sending them for deletion, as most of these issues are easily sorted. Two of these issues have been seen to, one is currently inactionable based on the sources currently available, and one is false. This goes further to show why bright-line criteria are the only fair guideline. Also worth noting that biographical details on individuals such as Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) can be found in sufficient time. Bobo . 16:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to note this but you literally only listed points you think you could argue. This list you provided here is by no means exhaustive of all the concerns editors have raised. Also, I ask you to please refrain from bludgeoning another discussion. I understand your opinion -- you have made it obvious plenty of times -- but excessively commenting on an AFD is disruptive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is that the votes are based not on whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia or not based on guidelines but on mostly actionable problems. I wish these problems could be brought to the attention of editors before the article(s) in question are sent for deletion. Bobo . 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So which team did Dhanayake play for: Old Cambrians or Antonians S.C.? You don't have to go to Colombo or read Sinhalese to tell me whether the article is relevant. Rhadow (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you can't tell which team Dhanayake played for based on the text within the article? It is fairly obvious from the text that Dhanayake played for Panadura Sports Club. Bobo . 17:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Merely having links to a couple of statistical database sources and a scorecard is insufficient to claim notability. Arguments to keep the article based on WP:NEXIST should be disregarded as the guideline states: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Surely nine years is enough time for these sources to surface. Dee 03 08:02, 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. If anyone would like me to restore the article into their userspace to facilitate a selective merge to September 2016 North Korean nuclear test, please just ask. A Train^talk 07:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the September 2016 North Korean nuclear test[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it is also not a quotefarm for "quotations [that] can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context". An appropriate context is provided in the main article with a concise, encyclopedic summary. Hence, a merge is not necessary nor would it be particularly productive. There are actually several pages devoted to international reactions on individual N. Korean missle tests, each almost a carbon-copy structurally of this one. I would have listed them all here but I wanted to get the community's consensus on an individual article before making such a bold move. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with September 2016 North Korean nuclear test, international reactions are hardly mentioned on this page despite what you said and consensus is to mention the international reactions of both major countries and countries in the region of an event. Probably not all of the countries should be mentioned however, no country supported the strikes, everyone condemned them completely so therefore relatively minor countries who arn't in the region should be removed (i.e Italy, Turkey and Israel). AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the main article: "The test, conducted in defiance of the international community, prompted wide international condemnation". Is that not the gist of what the quotes say? Some major reactions by nearby countries, international organizations, and the US were mentioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with very selective merge to September 2016 North Korean nuclear test. The parent article isn't too long. Most of the reactions are repeated condemnations - we don't need a quote farm, we do perhaps need to list countries condemning or expand a bit more than what's there. China's response probably should be on the main article, and possibly Russia as well (as NK is a client state and neighbor, their response is a bit more nuanced - and of quite some significance).Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete with some merge to parent. A couple of reactions went beyond "representatives of X condemned the test", and they bear repeating. The rest is boilerplate which can be summarized in the usual sentence. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an indiscriminate amount of information; fails WP:LISTN. I don't see a need for a merge; the reactions from Russia and China, for example, are boilerplate condemnations. What's already present in the article ("The test, conducted in defiance of the international community, prompted wide international condemnation") is sufficient. Or perhaps, the sentence can be modified as: "The test, conducted in defiance of the international community, prompted wide international condemnation, including by the country's neighbours, Russia and China". That's the extent of the merge that I'd recommend.K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general opinions can be summarized as prose and merged but listing all the individual statements is useless, unencyclopedic, indiscriminate, and unnecessary. Also delete International reactions to the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test, International reactions to the 2013 North Korean nuclear test, International reactions to the 2009 North Korean nuclear test, and International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test: We get it, everybody condemns NK, blah blah blah, no one gives a shit about the exact quotation every foreign minister repeats ad nauseum. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 2 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 shoddy nomination nonwithstanding, this has turned into an actual discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Gasiorowski[edit]

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

Article needs to be wholly rewritten or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskmandi (talk • contribs) 05:17, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template by account with no other edits, and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. I haven't looked at the article itself in detail, but as no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced here, this seems like it should be a procedural speedy keep. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I see no rationale or effort given by nominator. He clearly feels the person is notable if rewriting will fix the issues. - Galatz ^Talk 17:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll advance an arguement - poorly sourced article with major BLPCRIME issues. In BEFORE not clear he is notable, most of the coverage he does have is in relation to the Helping Hands NGO he's involved with.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete. There's just no there there after all the fluff is cut. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails multiple guidelines on biographies of living people. It either is fluff, or ends up being a major accusation of fraud with little justification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn and WP:BLP concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BIG4books[edit]

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

Non-Notable, fails WP:V and also violates WP:PROMOTION. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPA promotional material, absolutely no sourcing found. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 08:40, 2 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. Despite no votes, I've decided to withdraw my nomination, as the subject could be expanded with several sources found. (non-admin closure) –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 23:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 Tónar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 16:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 26 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Altschul[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Of the 6 sources 2 are affiliated 2 do not mention her and 2 are passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing of interest. Domdeparis (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She and Kurt Loder were two of the most recognizable MTV News correspondents during the mid 90s. The timing was just on the cusp of everything being published on the Internet. Major periodicals weren't posting much content online at that point, so online sources may be difficult to find. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've added two references. One just a bit piece. Just a paragraph long. Another from the New York Times is lengthy and centered on Altschul. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that long ago you should be able to find sources that prove notability if they exist. Domdeparis (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per dismas She is a correspondent on a national news program and conducts numerous interviews of serious people (see https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=serena+altschul)Patapsco913 (talk) 23:37, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kadrolsha Ona Carole[edit]

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

This person is known for researching paranormal activity, being a "talking head" on some DVD coverage and minor TV shows, and not a lot else. A search for sources brings back up a couple of Huffington Post pieces, one or two local news items, and that's it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable paranormal researcher and minor actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial, WP:SECONDARY support. A google search fails to show any support that would help this article meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. "References" are single line listings, press releases, and articles that fail to mention subject. Is an advertisement for the subject and fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I should note that the Huffington Post pieces are not from the "real" HuffPo, but are instead from the "Huffington Post Contributor Platform", over which HuffPo exercises minimal editorial control and so are not WP:RS. That type of article is the closest this subject gets to GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of interest may be this, sourced to IMDB and the same Huffington sources. —Paleo Neonate – 21:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have tried to find more references in reliable sources like newspapers but failed. Cameo appearences also don't count, even in the filmography of notable actors. The movie(s) also appear rather underground. I know of the Toxic Avenger, but never heard of Toxic Tutu before. It's possible that future events may increase notability and that it's simply WP:TOOSOON... —Paleo Neonate – 21:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voicing the nominator albeit i believe this article may be developed at a later time as of now it is WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 29 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 and redirect to Pop Culture Press. Deleting before establishing a redirect to the company that actually ran the label, which is an entirely logcal redirect to be established after deleting per consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture Press Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also unable to locate anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on The Black Watch (band) - this is only a brief article which does not say much other than that this record label was set up for records by this band. Vorbee (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak article. Not enough evidence from sources to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:00, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headless Owl Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found this one which meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but that is it other than general announcements associated with the release of music. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence (in my view) from sources to demonstrate significant notability for the record label. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:27, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Knights Productions[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a single sentence accompanied by a list of current and a list of former artistes associated with this record label. About the former, most of the entries on the list of current artistes are in red, suggesting that they are not notable enough to have entries in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article. A list of mostly non-notable artists. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 2 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. As noted, that something has lots of Google hits is not evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A&G Modes[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per quick google search! FertilityWizard (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi FertilityWizard: check out WP:LOTSOFGHITS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FertilityWizard is a new account whose posts consist mostly of "keep" votes in AfD discussions on baseless "#1 Google searches". sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn music distribution company; no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The iVote by Special:Contributions/FertilityWizard] should probably be discounted, as per the comment above. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Aramburo Siegert[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be promotional and significant RS coverage not found. The company where the subject is the CEO, Productora de Software, does not appear to be notable itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:55, 2 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) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Records[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article as per WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that the notability of some of the clients of the article subject does not confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not very notable. Yes they have a number of clients but WP:CORPDEPTH is still missing. Excelse (talk) 09:57, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smetz Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as a record label. No indication label has had any impact on musical culture, musical genres, or the development of notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and per 78.26 could not find anything notable about this music label.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:27, 2 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 Mike Watt. As per nom. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clenchedwrench[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH as per source searches. This could be redirected to Mike Watt. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 26 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 merge to Kohima. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Kohima[edit]

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

Greater Kohima has no official status, and coverage is insufficient to warrant its own article. Any useful info should be merged into Kohima. Batternut (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the "Populated places without legal recognition" paragraph of GEOLAND notability guideline applies (it is not mentioned in the 2011 census). If so, then the subject requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent RS, and when insufficient the more general article (eg Kohima) should include it. Batternut (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge into Kohima. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article does not have a single independent source. Insufficient notability. Dimadick (talk) 09:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Asgar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from plenty of social media and routine industry related promo type material cannot find any sufficient useful IRS to demonstrate WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable television presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 31 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 07:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Hirschberg[edit]

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

Autobiography (created by user with same name). Honestly not bad as autobios go, but still pretty positive. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well written I will say but it's created by the user of the same name which could make it unreliable. Also WP:NOTABILITY needs to be considered. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the editors above. Well written as far as autobiographies go. It seems like this article mainly focuses on his achievements, most all of which backed up by reliable sources. Wikistar411 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted by a sock of the article author. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 06:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If we delete this, Counterfeiters (2017 film) might want to go as well. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 03:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid argument for deletion. COI and positive tone should be dealt with using maintenance tags and editing, not AfD. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as self-promotion. Quis separabit? 02:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. WP:TOOSOON: not yet notable as either "screenwriter, film director, producer, musician and actor". The movie listed in the article looks to be part of the same promotional wall garden and is possibly nn itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after correspondence with an editor who made a valid point that a valid argument was made against notability. Specifically I believe User:K.e.coffman makes a policy based point, let's see what others think.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Narrowly meets GNG, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 1 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) 19:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouch Collections[edit]

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

Non-notable manufacturer of handbags, sunglasses and other sundries. A search for sources just brought back advertising copy, and not much else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete--Nil notability.What has A7 got to do with typical promotional sources?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim of significance. Rentier (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough to even have an AFD link. Darreg (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "company" only exists, but existence doesn't mean notability –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unworthy of being in main-space as article's object/subject fails notability requirement woefully and in my opinion this article should have been deleted after ten minutes of its creation.Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 2 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) 19:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Thing[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no indications of notability, fails GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I've a feeling there are Cantonese sources on this, but I'd have no idea how to find them. Article is written as promotional piece. It know that's not a reason for deletion, but there's really nothing here of use to discographer or musicologist. No idea of company history, no idea of artist development. And, of course, no independent sources with which to verify any information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few Cantonese sources turned up, but they hardly meet WP:RS. No sources available to establish the subjects notability. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Not a well-known person" is not a valid rationale for deletion. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaytoven[edit]

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

Not a well-known person. Sickjohn (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Sickjohn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won a grammy award. Passes NMUSIC. GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a bit of coverage to be found from a quick Gsearch: [4], [5], [6]. I think those sources (plus others) provide enough independent, non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 14:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concepción Chile Temple[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Available sources are primary ones from the Deseret News, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more info.), primary sources in other publications, and press releases. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why single out this one when there are 150+ standalone articles for LDS temples? There's also precedent for keeping these kinds of articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montréal Québec Temple or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Oregon Temple for examples. Shereth 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially at the time of dedication temples get significant coverage from the news media, even news media quite some distance from the temple. Beyond this, the attempts to void use of Deseret News coverage as an acceptable source would have the effect of excluding several Mormon related articles from Wikipedia. A consideration of the level of coverage that the Rome Italy Temple and Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple have gotten shows that temples are inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major endeavor, creating a temple in a country where there are 600,000 LDS members. Deseret News coverage is valid, and it is reasonable to think there is coverage in Chile. This is one Spanish-language source, biobiochile (a newspaper?) mentioning it, perhaps helpful for figuring out how to search for coverage in Spanish. Try "Chile mormon templo" without quotes, for example. --doncram 07:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And this news story seems to describe archeological issues at the site? and gives a pic of the building under construction. It is the secondo templo in the pais, after one in Santiago i think. --do ncr am 07:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as significant project, and the notability would only increase with the opening and subsequent use. I don't see a reason to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 31 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. Punting any questions about the use of any image to the file talk page and WP:FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yerusalem Wedding[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable work could be found, there seem to be no reliable indepth sources about this work. Prod was removed because the artist is notable, but notability is not inherited and the article had no sources at the time of prodding (or now) and the prod remover (admin and arbcom member!) didn't provide any either. So this article languished for another year and a half and now we need to have an AfD... Fram (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first question I have is on the name of the painting. It's unlikely to be in English ("Jerusalem" wedding), so it should probably be "Yerushalayim wedding". Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. It depends on what the painting is commonly referred to as in reliable sources, per WP:ENGLISH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my before I wasn't able to find much beyond [7] (which is also here - [8], I did add the artmarketmag source to the article (though I'm not 100% sure regarding the RSness)), lithograph sales (signed copies of this particular work are actively resold), and Wikipedia clones - searching for "Itshak Holtz"+wedding (leaving out variant Jerusalem spellings) - also added 2010 for good measure. In Hebrew wasn't able to find anything.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in the article or in a Google search that would demonstrate independent notability for the work itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs not found in a search; notability not inherited.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable painting. Note that I have taken the image used her and added it to the artist's page, which had no images of his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: The image of the painting is licensed as non-free content, and non-free use is not automatic. So, if you want to use it in the artist's article you will need to provide a non-free use rationale which clearly shows how the way the file is being used satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria. For reference, moving the image to the artist's article was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 5#Yerusalem Wedding, but it's not clear whether said use would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It was suggested by StevenJ81 that a freely licensed (if one exists) image be used instead or possibly another non-free painting if one can be found which can be better used to support sourced critical commentary about either the painting itself or how it represents Holtz's particular style. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It was a simpleminded move on my part of the only thing on this page that looked like it was useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. I tried to find something about this particular painting and how it might illustrate Holtz's style, but had no luck. Perhaps you or someone can found sources which discuss it and can be used to add content which will better incorporate the image into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not know enough about art notability to comment on the article itself. Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that this article is deleted, let me reiterate what I said elsewhere about the image file:
- The ideal choice for an image on the author page would be an image file available freely. Absent that ...
- Next best is a non-free file legitimately used here in a different article.
- After that, next best is a non-free file not used here elsewhere, but where a RS describes how the work exemplifies the artist's style.
- Only when all of the above is exhausted would it be acceptable to leave a non-free file here "just" for the purpose of illustrating the artist's style. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 27 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 Move to draft. "Shows up as the first result on a Google Search" is not a reason for keeping, and apart from that there is 100% consensus that the article should not be kept. (And incidentally, a Google Search for what? Valappottukal showing up as the first hit on a Google search for "Valappottukal" wouldn't mean much.) Two editors have supported draftification rather than deletion, nobody has opposed that suggestion, and since keeping as a draft for the time being can't do much harm, I shall do that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valappottukal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Coverage in independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Shows up as the first result on a Google Search. You should probably withdraw the nomination. FertilityWizard (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi FertilityWizard: check out WP:LOTSOFGHITS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name those independent reliable sources so they can be used in the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, would it be possible to move to the creator's draftspace so when the film does come out and receive attention it can be recreated? I know this line of thought might violate WP:CBALL but it was just an idea to put out there. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 09:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As above, WP:TOOSOON... movin to the draftspace sounds like a good idea! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 26 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. G5-ed by TonyBallioni (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dattaram B Desai[edit]

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

How does he pass WP:NPOLITICIAN? Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's chief claim to significance is having been a candidate in an election. WP:POLITICIAN says "being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I also checked for evidence of satisfying the general notability guidelines, and found none. As for the cited sources, one is an article about the political party that Dattaram B Desai belongs to, and does not mention him; another is an interview with him about his political campaign: effectively a platform for him to publicise his candidature; the other is now a dead link but it was on the web site of the party that he belongs to, and from its URL was merely a listing of him as one of their candidates. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 26 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. G5-ed by TonyBallioni (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zainulabedin Hamdulay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional paid editing.No strong sources with non-promotional non-spammy non-trivial coverage.Horrible NAC of the prev. AfD on the issue. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:14, 26 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. G5ed by Doug Weller. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar Dehghan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nil evidence about how he passes WP:NACTOR which states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films".Nothing except IMDB sources. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:13, 26 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Teslak[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player with unheralded and ephemeral career in the mid-minors. There's never been an iteration of WP:NHOCKEY the subject would pass, no evidence he meets the GNG. The creation of an editor eventually community banned from new article creation for several hundred such articles. Ravenswing 10:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one wasn't actually created by Dolovis But it still doesn't meet GNG or NSPORTS so Delete -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 2 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) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Urquhart (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unheralded and NN hockey player, fails the current iteration of NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ravenswing. Best coverage I found was this and that is not enough. Rlendog (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 2 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 Jimmy Watson (ice hockey)#Personal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Watson[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage to meet GNG. Could see redirecting to Jimmy Watson if someone wanted to mention something about Chase (and probably his brother too) on his father's page. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fringe player in the mid-minors, utterly NN. For my part, I wouldn't support a redirect; honestly, I can't imagine this as a credible search term. Ravenswing 16:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Watson (ice hockey)#Personal now that I have added that info Rlendog mentioned. This seems to be consensus in situations like these, with minor league athletes redirected to their major league relatives, either with or without an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Doolittle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Faye Lund, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinem Doğu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), where non-notable athletes were redirected to their notable relatives, as well as other redirects like Tyler Nevin, Tate Matheny, and Ryan Ripken. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 2 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) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gettinger[edit]

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

Merely selecting someone in the NHL draft does not make him notable, and I do not see any other notability claims in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 15:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Late round amateur hockey player of no particular distinction, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 05:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Likely a too soon candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is actually a closer case than many of the hockey deletion discussions we have had recently. But he clearly fails NHOCKEY and while he has some coverage the best I found was this from nhl.com, some coverage local to his junior team, of which I think this is the best, and a couple of sentences here. And I don't think that is enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:02, 31 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 speedy delete as author request (G7) (deleted by Cyp. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thozhil nedam[edit]

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

Was speedied as unnotable organization. However, the article has at least one ref to a seemingly reliable source, hence converting it to AfD. Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 26 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 redirect to Sex & Violins. Consensus is clearly in favour of removing the article, but there is no clear cut consensus on whether to redirect or to merge and to which target. The people who argued "merge" have not contested the "redirect" arguments so redirect it is, not that there is much difference in the positions and people can still copy content over if desired. As for the redirect target, I am picking the more recently proposed one but people are free to alter it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sad But True Story of Ray Mingus[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per GNG, NMUSIC. Wikipedia is not a collection of oddities, fun facts, and indiscriminate information and not a platform for promotion Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A song is not notable just because its name is long, and there is no evidence that this song is notable for any reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Rednex - Wikipedia has an article on them, and the two sentences in this article could be merged into the longer article without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Rednex - I agree with Vorbee above. /FredrikT (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sex & Violins. The album is a better target than the band, because the full title is too long (and stupid) to justify any coverage on the Rednex page. No content needs to be merged, as most of the article content is the full title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Cullen328 above that a song is not notable just because its name is long. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sex & Violins, the song's parent album, as per power~enwiki. I'm unable to find coverage to meet WP:NSONGS and there's nothing worth merging in my view. gongshow talk 07:47, 2 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. Many of the deletion arguments are rooted in WP:PROMO, and the keep arguers have made the case that the article passes that test: the article it is not sourced to press releases or first-party sources.

There is a subjective interpretation at the root of some of the delete arguments: when is an article that appears in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking actually the product of a PR campaign and not an editorial assignment or investigative whim of a journalist? Unless some sort of consistent litmus test is invented and applied to Wikipedia policy, these sorts of judgements will always be subjective ones. A Train^talk 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmdrop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous attempts to de-promotionalize were unsuccessful once, twice but then restored here and here and then de-promotionalize again only to be restored on here and here. It's not possible to improve a promotional article if it cannot be changed, especially when the last AfD cited "this shouldn't stop a cleanout of the article if editors deem it to be low quality or promotional in tone.

The guideline offered above itself goes to say: [Sources except]: routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, routine...reviews, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization .... excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases. Overdetailed advertising and if we removed even half or close to it of this article, we would have nothing but bare claims of borderline significance, not notability. WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not catalog, WP:Not promotion, WP:Not advocate and WP:SPIP all apply and here's why:

The first paragraph, "distributes foods to consumers that is sourced from local farmers and fishermen" violates WP:SPIP: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article
The second section, "meeting with local farmers at their farms to acquire prospective producers to work with the company. Foods purveyed include meats, vegetables, breads, eggs, milk and various organic foods, which are ordered online and delivered using electric vans" also violates WP:SPIP's independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence
As for the last section, an educational campaign, see WP:CORP's section here saying Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization'". SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Pinging all participants from the previous recent AfD discussion, except the nom and myself, who are already aware of this discussion. @Zppix, Steve Quinn, Jake Brockman, Ritchie333, L3X1, DGG, Onel5969, and Nomader:. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD, and the article does not have a promotional tone. Content restored in the article went through the DYK process and was a DYK entry entry on Wikipedia's Main Page (see the DYK nom page). Furthermore, neither the DYK reviewer, two other participants in the DYK discussion, nor the promoter interpreted this content as promotional. Below are some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

No One Eats Alone: Food as a Social Enterprise. Island Press. pp. 128–132.
~~The Guardian~~
The Guardian
The Independent
The Telegraph
City AM
Bristol Post
The Independent

Comment I get SwisterTwister's argument and would normally agree. An article based on WP:SPIP is a valid candidate for deletion. However I am just not entirely convinced that the sources are advertorials or product placements. Maybe they are, maybe not. Maybe the journalists write about it, because they are customers and think people should know about it. Maybe they don't like supermarkets. We just don't know. I'd take a reasonable doubt approach in favour of the defendant - so to speak. Also, if there is disagreement between editors about the tonality of an article with repeated changes, this does not make it a candidate for AfD - we'd have to AfD the article of every other politician or celebrity where changes are frequent and sometimes contentious (not implying this happens here). This is just a case for community vigilance and consensus as part of the editing process. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the articles, and consider why in a general article about the phenomena, the editors should have devoted so much space and a large illustration to this particular example, along with discussing its details. That's the basic technique of writing advertorials. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with some high profile newspapers and online media here with some kind of compliance oversight I'd assume. UK media regulation dictates that advertorials or paid contents be clearly identified. So either they break the law in this case or they are not advertorials. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are essentially advertorials and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. The sources listed are one sided, and cover only the company owner's perspective - these are testimonials, not third party coverage. Hence, based on the sources, this topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The newspaper articles are in the business section, which is intended to speak to other business people, potential investors, and farmer-clients.

These are sources with vested interest, they are not independent sources, and therefore fails WP:V. Ben Pugh, the owner-spokesman, would like nothing better than have more farmers develop agreements with his company. So, these articles are effective for attracting investment, more agreements with farmers, more competition with supermarkets, and so on. Especially, since there is or was expansion into other UK regions. Nothing Ben Pugh says is verified by journalistic investigation.

This indicates the sources are not reliable. Hence, the topic fails GNG and WP:RS. For example he claims that farmers are getting 70 per cent, but what do the farmers say about this? Ben Pugh claims the food is low quality at supermarkets while his is fresh and high quality. How about opinions from a supermarket spokes-persons? That is a common advertising strategy that we hear in TV and Radio commercials. These are unverified claims - again these are testimonials - advertising.

The lack of independent third party sourcing shows that it fails WP:NRV, WP:ORGIND, and meets the above WP:ISNOT criteria. Also, basing the whole coverage on what Pugh says is another indicator that this topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The small blurb in the book might be OK as a source, but multiple sources are required so more than this is needed.

Another indicator that all this coverage probably came from press kits, is that they echo the same facts, without any demonstration of investigative reporting work. There is no objective evidence of notability. The tenor of the Wikipedia article doesn't matter Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I looked at the links Northamerica1000 provided. After doing so I am convinced the existing coverage is NOT made up of advertizing content masquerading as solid reporting. The idea that respect for the environment requires trying to buy food that is produced within an hour's drive of consumption is a relatively new idea. But isn't dismissing it as nonsense hype is, a failure of imagination? Contributor Steve Quinn, above, seems to be asserting that the press coverage of Farmdrop has to have been written by a conspiracy of corrupt reporters, writing straight from an advertizer's crib sheet, and tricking their poor readers into thinking they were reading an honest third party report. Occam's razor man -- didn't it occur to you that the reason all the press reports say similar things because that is the honest opinion of honest third party reporters?
Steve Quinn asks for reporters who actually interviewed the actual farmers, to confirm the firm gives them as large a cut as the firm claims. First, if, for the sake of argument, it were necessary for these farmers to have been interviewed, if this assertion were to be repeated in a wikipedia article, we would still have a completely adequate article on a notable topic, if those passages were struck.
Second, unlike the fair trade coffee meme, where distributors claimed consumers should be happy to pay a premium, because they paid the third world coffee producers a better deal than the big guys, THESE farmers all live close to these newspapers, and would, presumably scream blue murder, if the firm CLAIMED to pay them a lot more than they were actually paid.
I remind Steve Quinn he and I and all the rest of us are not journalists. Rather as per, WP:VER, we rely on journalists. VER says our coverage is based on verifiability, not truth. Even if, for the sake of argument, some of us could sniff out a conspiracy that was oblivious to ordinary newspaper readers, we still have to rely on what verifiable sources say.
I write in articles on some controversial topics. Soon after I started doing so, I found myself facing a decision. I soon found lots of instances where I found the press reporting inadequate, because it didn't agree with my personal conclusions. But, I re-read VER, and decided if I was going to comply with policy, I could either stop working on those topics, or work on them, keeping my personal conclusions to myself, while neutrally covering material written from a point of view I personally disagreed with.
I work hard to comply with VER and WP:NPOV, when I come across RS that makes assertions I personally disagree with, and I want to be ablo to rely on everybody else doing likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to resonate what has been said above about farmers being up in arms if they read incorrect information, after some digging I found this and this from a local newspaper and a farming industry news site that look at Farmdrop as additional outlet._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is the relationship of the farmers to the company has not been described in any independent reliable sources. So we still have no idea what their view is on any of this. Wikipedia does not deal in assumping that farmers are not "crying blue murder", or that they read statements in press generated by this company.

Also, the book article says the company determines the rates it will pay, and that is all we know. The sources presented above by Jake Brockman do not characterize this relationship. Small blurbs indicate dairy farmers get 20% more from Farm Drop than the supermarket. What about all the other produce farmers? There are no detailed independent reliable sources that characterize the views of the many farmers contracted to Farm Drop - in other words, unverified.

The idea of being able to buy food within an hour's drive is not a new idea. Local food movements, which involve distributing local farm products, have been around for a number of years, as an antidote to national and globalized commercial food distribution [9], [10], [11], [12]. "Failure of the imagination" is not useful when determining whether or not an topic merits inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. Editors go by the characteristics of the sources, when validating them or invalidating them as evidence of notability. None of the sources are being dismissed as "nonsense hype" because they are what they are - first person descriptions by Mr. Pugh of his business, which makes the sources biased and failing WP:NPOV. (See my other post below for further clarity) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote below I don't follow your explanation as to why you don't accept the sources we used as independent.

You write: "The idea of being able to buy food within an hour's drive is not a new idea ... have been around for a number of years, as an antidote to national and globalized commercial food distribution." You and I draw different conclusions from the existence of firms providing similar services. If the other firms are also the subject of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, they too measure up to our inclusion critera.

You write: "Editors go by the characteristics of the sources, when validating them or invalidating them as evidence of notability." And what, exactly, do you mean by "characteristics of the sources"? Infowars is the canonical example of a bad source -- it is an organization that tries to appear like a reliable news source, but that routinely published falsehoods. Even reliable sources, even the NY Times, occasionally publish falsehoods. Even some of the best RS have found they employed plagiarists, and fantasists. Even some of the best RS occasionally publish retractions or apologies, when something has fallen short of their usual standards. We don't stop regarding these sources as RS, due to occasional lapses. So, if by "characteristics of the sources", you mean sources with a long record of unreliability, like infowars, you are correct. But if you think you or I or any other contributor is authorized to put our judgment above that of professional reporters, I think you couldn't be more wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*keep meets WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. Discussion of tone should be taken to the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) OK. I fell for that. Looked at the article in The Guardian without noticing that it is marked as an advertorial. The Guardian article and all advertorial needs to be taken out of the article. If someone does that, and still sees this as passing GNG, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I did see some of the annotations, but I'm not sure this is actually paid or influenced contents. Only the first two Guardian articles seem sponsored: i) the small business section is supported by Facebook. Here the Guardian defines "supported" contents as editorially independent. ii) the section "Live Better" is funded by Unilever. The disclaimer says that contents is editorially independent unless indicated. There is no such indicator. Besides, I would argue that Unilever's product lines are directly opposed to Farmdrop. All the other reference above look like genuine editorial and I refer to the response I gave above to DGG._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that Guardian page also says " A client whose branding appears on editorial content may have a role in suggesting what kind of topics are covered, but the commissioning editor is not obliged to accept ideas from the funder"--in other words, even for "independent" content, the client selects the topic and the client suggests what specifics to cover. This in means that the Guardian would not have written the article at all unless it had been paid to do so. That in effect means that what is said is reliable, but WP notability rests on the decision of a RS to cover a topic. That decision is made by paying the newspaper, and is thus useless for notability. Its good to have such a clear statement of why these arenot usable for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – E.M.Gregory: I removed this The Guardian source from the article and struck it in my list above. The article is "supported by" Facebook. While The Guardian's content funding page states that such content is "editorially independent", it still does not seem proper for Wikipedia's purposes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, not sure... Isn't every new site sort of sponsored with banner ads? Same for the main evening news with car ads just before and after (and depending on where you are, in between). If we remove articles that are claimed to be editorially independent by news organisations that are otherwise considered "top notch" as source, where do we stop? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding this The Guardian source, The Guardian's "The Live Better Challenge" is funded by Unilever, but the article itself is not about the The Live Better Challenge. At the bottom of the article it states, "The Live Better Challenge is funded by Unilever; its focus is sustainable living. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature." However, this article is not labelled as an advertisement feature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you, Northamerica1000 for removing that Guardian "supported" content. I have just checked enough of the other sources on the page to state that page meets WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks for the ping. Based on the sources on the page, this definitely meets WP:GNG. The coverage doesn't seem to be trivial to me in the way that the guideline defines it and I think there's enough independent coverage for there to be an article here. Nomader (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a directory-like listing on a private company that's not yet encyclopedically relevant. For example, this article in the Guardian is based on an interview:

“It was absolutely a light bulb moment,” says Pugh, “In the internet era value chains with a middleman are completely inappropriate. Ten years ago fine, but not now.” Etc.

The coverage is not intellectually independent of the subject and literally tells the company's origin story. Sourcing lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely PR driven. 20 employees is strongly suggestive of WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many active Wikipedia editors share Geo Swan's perspective on writing according to sources, including me. It is not a unique perspective.

There is no evidence that I have engaged in or ever supported conspiracy theories during my eight years as an editor on Wikipedia. So, saying that I see conspiracy theories is way off base. I am assuming good faith and letting it slide this time, because maybe the assumption is that I don't know what I am talking about. However, the fact is, I do know what I am talking about.

My previous post describes a situation that is known as Churnalism. The reason for bringing this into this discussion will be apparent. This is a phenomenon that has occurred since the early years of the new millennium and is well known. Shrinking newspaper budgets; shrinking TV and radio newsroom budgets; and the commensurate slashing of newsroom staff; have caused a noticeable uptick in generating increasing percentages of the "news" that we see and read sourced from PR materials sent out by commercial businesses, with no other sources.

This is why we are seeing article after article, pertaining to Farmdrop, sourced only by Mr. Pugh (a co-owner) for so-called "facts". They are not independent assessments of the topic. This means that each one of these articles is as the nom has noted: various sections of the WP:ISNOT policy are applicable, and WP:SPIP also applies. So does the inability to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. It has nothing to do with honest reporters' opinions, which would not be acceptable as reliable sources anyway. As opinions, they are not demonstrating objective criteria to assess this topic.

And so, all of the above discount the possibility of verification. So yeah, "verifiability not truth" (as was noted) is the Wikipedia norm, and these sources fail WP:V for the above reasons. Other Wikipedia editors are aware of this "churnalism" phenomenon. I suppose an article on "Churnalism" is one piece of evidence of this. There is also the issue of Video news releases. There are also other editors in this discussion who are aware of this phenomenon. So, possible attempts at gaslighting (if that is what is happening) by claiming an editor sees conspiracy theories is not a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Steve Quinn, thanks for linking my name. I am curious about your interpretation of VER. Perhaps I could understand it if you tried to explain it in more detail?

You wrote: "This is why we are seeing article after article, pertaining to Farmdrop, sourced only by Mr. Pugh (a co-owner) for so-called "facts". They are not independent assessments of the topic." And I had previously written: "...if, for the sake of argument, it were necessary for these farmers to have been interviewed ... we would still have a completely adequate article on a notable topic, if those passages were struck." -- Even if your doubts about Pugh were policy compliant, they would not be grounds for deletion.

So, if, for the sake of argument, Pugh had been lying to the various reporters, as to the cut the farmers received, why is that relevant to us wikipedia contributors? We are not journalists. We are not detectives. Aren't your personal doubts about Mr Pugh's claims, well, sorry, completely irrelevant? If you got us to go along with your personal doubts, wouldn't we all be violating original research? Aren't you, basically, asking the rest of us to let your doubts over-ride the professional judgement of multiple professional reporters?

Those reporters DO attribute the information about the cut Pugh said he gave farmers to Pugh. That is just the caution and professionalism of good experienced reporters. Each of those reporters could have decided "I am an experienced reporter. My interview with Pugh makes me think I have to take more time, and verify from actual farmers he pays them the cut he claims." Why didn't they do that? You seem to be suggesting they just weren't smart enough to have those doubts, while you have such an acute sense of who is a liar that you can detect lies merely through reading newspaper articles.

Here is an alternate explanation you seem to be overlooking is that these reporters each weighed the possibility that Pugh was lying, and each independently concluded interviewing a couple of farmers would be a big fat waste of time.

I also not sure I understand your interpretation of independence, of WP:SPIP. Don't we consider our reliable sources reliable because we trust the professional scientists who write in science journals, the professional historians who write in history journals, and the professional reporters and their editors who control what is published in newspapers to be able to exercise professional judgment? Aren't we supposed to trust that, through their experience, and training, they can evaluate unreliable biased primary sources, and reach reasonable, independent conclusions? Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking evidence of the farmers' experience from the sources, if those had been there in the first place, would exactly be grounds for article deletion based on WP:PROMO, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND. The majority of farmers and their experience has not been included in the sources. But that is not even the point, it is just an example to provide contrast. Any outside persons who can give perspective on FarmDrop operations and business relations, which has been reliably published, would demonstrate the Wikipedia article has been constructed from a balanced and neutral view per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But these are not there. Hence the sources fail WP:NPOV and, hence, WP:V.

Notability requires verification (per WP:NRV) by significant coverage in sources intellectually independent of each other, independent of the topic - is also why the sources fail WP:V. I never said Pugh was lying. I never said anyone was or is lying. As a source that is not independent of the topic, Mr. Pugh is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards. This is not my invention. It has nothing to do with me. It doesn't even mean I have doubts about what he is saying. I would appreciate it if you stop trying to make this personal, as in my personal doubts and so on. Also, you have managed to invert the meaning of original research. I am not asking anyone to do anything. Where do you see me asking a question of other editors to do accept anything? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read the article on "Churnalism" and maybe some of the sources. Also, Video news releases and some of those sources could provide invaluable insight. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, I already read the Churnalism article. Sorry, I regard it as a complete waste of time. Because you made such a big deal about it I went back and read it a second time.

Pugh is not reliable source? Sure, anything Pugh WROTE would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. But we are not relying on what Pugh wrote, to establish Farmdrop's notability. What you don't seem to understand is that when reliable, experienced reporters interview someone, we trust that honest reliable reporters will apply their experience and good judgement to what that they read, to what they are told. What they write are what we consider a WP:SECONDARY source.

Even if, for the sake of argument, someone fooled some honest, reliable reporters to write something that you or I somehow KNEW wasn't true, that would be irrelevant. What the authoritative source wrote is verifiable. That is all policy requires.

The Churnalism article is not policy. It is not a wikipedia guideline. It is not even a wikipedia essay.

The Churnalism article is about a meme that reliable sources have written about. It is verifiable that reliable sources have written about this meme. That makes Churnalism notable enough to merit an article here.

Yes, I understand you seem to have chosen to place strong faith in the Churnalism meme. You are absolutely free to believe it, as strongly as you wish, in your personal life. And I am free to regard it as something with just a tiny grain of truth, surrounded by a lot of wild exaggeration. Could you please stop pointing to it, in wikipedia discussion fora, as if it were a wikipedia policy or guideline? Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, Pugh is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. He is not independent of the topic, and his sole opinion is considered unreliable as a source. Being quoted touting his product (his business) is considered to be a primary source - closely associated with the topic. That has nothing to do with the reporters. These so called articles have the value of a company announcement because he is the only source (primary source).

Also, it is a common theme in business sections to quote the CEO, owner, or company spokesperson as the only source in an article. Many of these look like secondary sources because they are in a newspaper, but they are not. Churnalism is not a meme, sorry. It is a topic and a phenomenon. And it is churnalism that describes the ongoing crisis in newsrooms across the land. I never claimed it was a policy or guideline, just a fact of life in our modern media.

Its purpose here, in this AfD, is to bring evidence into the discussion, to prove the actual value or character of the sources. Then the actual character of the sources demonstrates the topic's failure to meet notability criteria. So And, I am not seeing evidence that reporters have provided a balanced and neutral view and no such evidence (in reliable sources) has been presented. The proof is in the pudding - the sources are all one sided primary sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, could you please read more carefully. I already agreed with you that Pugh, himself, was a PRIMARY source, and his written comments do not establish notability.

I pointed out to you that there is no WP:CHURNALISM policy, there is no WP:CHURNALISM guideline. After I left my last comment here I noted, on your talk page, that an MfD decided WP:CHURNALISM should be userified. So, I repeat, could you PLEASE stop putting forward this churnalism meme as if it were an actual wikipedia policy?

Pugh's comments do not establish Farmdrop's notability. Farmdrop's notability was established when reliable sources wrote about it. I don't care if one of the sources the reporters used were interviews with Pugh, or Farmdrop documents from Pugh, because we trust experienced reporters to exercise the judgement to make sure a tricky CEO doesn't trick them into publishing a whitewash.

You write: "it is a common theme in business sections to quote the CEO, owner, or company spokesperson as the only source in an article."

Really? Churnalism is a Fringe idea. The churnalism article may cite a couple of RS that make this assertion. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. This is simply not a widely accepted idea, either here, or in the real world. Isn't that why the MfD chose to userify WP:CHURNALISM?

You seem to be asserting that when a newspaper article only quotes one source, we know the reporter did no other research than to interview that source. We don't know that. There are lots of kinds of research that don't show. How much research should a responsible reporter do, for a story like this? Should a newspaper's business reporter walk over to their newspaper's food critic's desk, and ask them to confirm Pugh's assertions are credible? Would that be enough research?

Here is a thought experiment for you. Cast your mind back to the 1991 Gulf War. After Iraq invaded Kuwait a coalition spent almost a year amassing overwhelming firepower on Iraq's borders, prior to the big counter-attack. During this build-up period Iraq used its fleet of SCUD short-range ballistic missiles to attack Israel. SCUD attacks on Israel were reported on by every news agency. And those news reports described how US Patriot air-defense missiles were extremely successful at shooting the SCUDs down.

Personally, I was skeptical. In 1985 I had been one of hundreds of Canadian who had written to a Parliamentary committee that had gone across Canada seeking input on whether Canada should become a partner in the USA's Strategic Defense Initiative, Ronald Reagan's fry-in-the-sky ballistic missile defense system. I'd researched this issue, and understood what a difficult project this was, and how primitive current efforts were. I found a greater than 90 percent success rate extremely hard to swallow.

However, if the wikipedia had been around, in 1991, and I had worked on the SCUD versus Patriot skirmishes, I think policy would have required me to keep my doubts to myself, and rely solely on the coverage in reliable source.

After the war a respected Professor of Engineering at MIT, named Ted Postol, published a detailed analysis of what had really gone on. His conclusions? First, by analyzing Israeli TV recordings of the tracks of the incoming SCUDs, he found that rather than successfully intercepting and disabling over 90 percent of the SCUDs they had countered less than five percent. The Patriot air-defense system was designed to automatically detect and counter incoming enemy jets. It was not designed to be left running continuously for days or weeks at a time.

Those of us who took a serious computer science course had that course spend some time on "numerical analysis", where we would have learned that there were certain kinds of predictable numerical errors that creep into computer programs, without regard to whether they use integer calculations or floating point calculations. There are complicated techniques to partially counter those numerical errors. But, since the Patriot computers weren't supposed to run for days or weeks at a time, the programmers hadn't compensated for a cumulative drift. The result was that a Patriot computer that had been running too long would explode Patriot interceptors to a location too far off the trajectory of the incoming SCUD to have even a slim chance of damaging it.

So, why were the SCUDs failing? They failed because Iraq's rocket scientists had been terrified of Saddam Hussein. He was happy when the USSR gave him a fleet of SCUD missiles. Disappointed when he learned they lacked the range to hit the targets in Israel he really wanted to hit. So he ordered Iraqi rocket scientists to figure out a way to extend the missiles' range. In order to add more rocket fuel they reduced the size of the explosive payload, in the nose. Iraqi rocket scientists either didn't realize, or were afraid to tell Saddam, that while adding rocket fuel would enable the missile to the Israeli target, it had the unintended consequence of making it aerodynamically unstable when it re-entered the atmosphere. Because they Lacked the weight in the nose of Soviet rocket scientists' initial design the missiles did not zip to the target pointy end first. They tumbled, and spun, and were ripped apart, before they hit the ground.

Prior to the deceitful boasts about Patriot success being publicly debunked by an RS policy would have required us to only cover the reports of their success.

So how does this relate to your claims that Pugh's comments do not establish notability? The press releases from the Patriot's manufacturer would not establish the notability of the Patriot system, just as a press release from Pugh would not establish Farmdrop's notability. But when ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all reported the Patriot's were an enormous success, if their reportings main named sourceq, or only named source, was the Patriot manufacturer, their reporting would have established Patriot's notability, if it hadn't already been established.

Complying with the central point in WP:VER requires us to ignore our private doubts about the reliability of our reliable sources.

Further, I think that, generally speaking, if a reporter is a specialist in a particular field, then it isn't necessarily a problem if they publish an article based on a single source, because all their previous work in that field, all their previous research, meant that they were already capable of bringing a nuanced and informed judgement to the new source. There is a legal scholar named Lyle Denniston, who is the most significant contributor to a website called Scotusblog. Some uninformed contributors try to excise places were Denniston has been used as a reference, because the site where his opinions were published is "just a blog". In spite of its name it is not what we meant when we generally prohibited using blogs as RS. Denniston is widely respected that journalists who regularly report on legal matters routinely defer to his opinion, quote new opinions from Denniston as news. Denniston routinely reports on the implications of new developments in significant cases that are based on a single new source, like that a significant case is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently came across a similar advertisement with all those signs except this article is older than the other one and about a larger company; I agree that our policies, even years ago, were always clear any promotion is unacceptable, it's only now that we've enforced it stronger, like we should. I'm not persuaded by the Keep votes which aren't showing any consideration to our policies on that or how it should be given a pass. What I saw 10 years ago, was a lot worse, we had a mindset of what an encyclopedia article should include, and now is the time to act better on it. Churnalism is indeed what the sources say, and our article on that subject speaks about it and, like with WP:Notability, it's the source's weight that counts, not name. I also agree the article is still as promotional as before, all that was removed was something here and there. DYK has never been relevant in any AfD I've seen to where it superseded policy, all it means is that DYK nominates anything a willing person wants to approve and it's a thin straw against what the community should actually impose regarding our articles. It's smart that we reconsider anything from before since they were not dealt with like they should've and, an advertisement in whatever form is an excellent step. A comment above says "professional reporters and their editors who control what is published in newspapers to be able to exercise professional judgment" but this isn't actually how the news media works, they also consider their own business perspective of it, which is public relations and press releases. Trampton (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have repeatedly revisited this article over the last few days and revisited the sources and I am now convinced that this is advertising, but clever advertising. The lack of critical content, the constant references to "Ben Pugh said...." has a strong connotation that all, or almost all the references are based on Press releases, probably personalised press releases adapted to its intended audience, but not independent sources. If he is that good at promoting his image, then no doubt the company will thrive and perhaps it will then become notable. At present it is an advertising piece that is to early in the company's life to be notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geo Swan, WP:TL;DR regarding that last post. In any case, I never said Churnalism is a policy or guideline. Even after explicitly noting that in my last post, it seems you want to falsely attribute this claim to me. False attributions, of which there are now a number, fall under WP:NPA. Also, please quote the passage where I said Churnalism is a policy or guideline. You are the one who brought it up. Sorry, churnalism is not a fringe idea. Do you have any reliable sources that says Churnalism is a fringe idea?

I notice you are trying to conflate the essay WP:Churnalism with the mainstream phenomenon and mainspace article Churnalism. The essay might be fringe, or more likely a minority view per WP:NPOV, but that is not the same as the main space article entitled Churnalism. Wikipedia doesn't deal in hypotheticals, it deals in what published reliable sources say, and you are welcome to post them here. All my comments are anchored in Wikipedia policy and elucidated by guidelines GNG, WP:CORP, and so on. Also, I think Geo Swan is trying to discourage other ivotes by extending the above thread with extensive off-topic digressions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first thing I was thinking about seeing the article was: yes, an article about "boerderijdrop" (Liquorice in the shape of farm-animals and -buildings). It was a disappointment to see that it is a good-willing rather recently started delivery-service with plans to grow. I have no problems with a new company wanting to grow but I do have a problem with companies using Wikipedia as advertising channel. The conventional (non-internet) system of farm-to-home supply is - in the Netherlands - at least 25 years old. So, not even the idea is novel. And this article is clearly an attempt to grow its market. To my opinion, it is clever designed and worded SPAM. The Banner talk 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article still feels promotional. The coverage presumably only exists because of a well-run PR campaign, but there's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. With £7 million in funding, it could plausibly meet a numeric test. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki However, how is this resolving the clear view on how the sources are clear promotionalism by the company's behalf and part, and how they're not independent; this is in fact what WP:GNG says; must have significant independent coverage, and....[not] press releases or notices". Also, as the policy cited above, WP:Not promotion is exactly why "still feels promotional" is a definite policy basis for deleting. As WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:GNG itself actually say, articles must be indeed guaranteed and must not be excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not notable to have an article, not that they may be on assertion alone. W:SPIP:

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter

If our own notability statements are clear on what is still considered promotion or for promotion, we can't make exceptions because the company seems important, as importance is not relevant here. The comment "presumably only exists because of a well-run PR campaign" is exactly why we must WP:NOT ADVOCATE (basic policy) their own publicity.SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources at the article, this AFD, and available on-line indicate notability. Tone, if that is an issue, is addressed through editing, not deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on balance, I think it proba bly is notale; but I also thing the article promotional in intent, and I think that outweighs it. It is not a clear-cut decision what do do with an article intended as advertising that can be fixed. Our guidelines inherited from past years when we were less concerned about promotionalism are inconsistent. WP"NOT is basic, bit we have in the past accepted anything that could be fixed, and I athink we need to change that. It tends to be difficult here to change the letter of guidelines without unforeseen consequence, and in therefore better to adjust the interpretation. That's the basis for the deletion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I created this article, and I'm not in the business of promoting this company. The article is not "intended as advertising" or to be promotional whatsoever, and it does not have a promotional tone. My intention was to create an article about a notable company based upon what reliable sources state about it, which I did. Sorry, but the !vote above inaccurately misrepresents my intentions in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mr. North America. I want to let you know what I thought when I read DGG's contribution. I didn't think he was personally attributing a promotional intent to you. His post came across as if the article on its own merits came across as promotional and as advertising without any intent by any editor. And he may not have even been saying the tone of the article is promotional. I agree that the tone of the article is not promotional. However, maybe you can agree, even without promotional wording, a Wikipedia article can, in theory, seem to be intended as advertising. And I reiterate - I am pretty sure he wasn't saying that you personally intended for this to be other than you intended - which is coverage of a topic according to guidelines and policies - even though there is disagreement between editors. Not necessary to reply if you are not inclined. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read the article 3 days ago and read it again now, and I don't see any genuine rebuttal in response to our policy's enforcement on this and policy is priority here. Same goes for 10 years ago, if like mentioned, we had been smarter. Even now, when I read it one last time, a random source or two were taken off, but it's still spam and unambiguous spam. Someone recommended improving this but it's been done before, a load of times now and no progress each time. The appropriate place to propose we should make yet another try at improving is WP:Village pump -- definitely not an AfD. Meanwhile, we'll make sure Wikipedia spam policy is enforced piece by piece. In my opinion, I do think everyone wished they would've recognized how spam is dealt with between years ago and now; it's our choice to see the light. Trampton (talk) 06:33, 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 delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to Sonova. If anyone would like a temporary restoration of the article into their userspace for the purpose of facilitating a merge, just ask. A Train^talk 07:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Bionics[edit]

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

Company is barely notable subsidiary of another company Sonova, the article of which is thin. There has been a long-running slow edit war to keep this page independent or merge the content into the Sonova, where it fits very easily. The content is merged there now, so you can see that easily. In my view this should be deleted; the Sonova article easily encompasses this. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is quite notable as it is the second largest producer of cochlear implants, and all of the implants are branded as "Advanced Bionics." MED-EL, a much smaller cochlear implant company, has an article, and many subsidaries have articles, like Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions being a subdivision of Cochlear Limited; Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions is an article despite being smaller than Advanced Bionics, Advanced Bionics wasn't always part of Sonova, and Sonova does not have as much name recognition as Advanced Bionics. For cochlear implant brand comparisons, nearly all audiologists call the company by Advanced Bionics instead of the parent company. There was no full consensus to the merge based on the talkpages for AB and Sonova,(50% want seprate, 50% want merge) and Jytdog just merged the articles by copy+paste and a redirect instead of creating a merge discussion. This was my first article, and it has been improved over time, hence it has been added back. On grounds of notability there are far smaller hearing device company subsidaries on Wikipedia, and as the second largest cochlear implant producer it should have its own cross-linked article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This never happened ((Mergeto|Sonova)), content was moved without consensus. Content should not be merged without a merge discussion, especially if there is disagreement.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree not notable as an independent article. Merge bit that is to parent company Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At Talk:Sonova#Child companies and Grand-Child companies User:CerealKillerYum suggested Advanced Bionics should have a separate article as did I, but the articles were merged by User:Jytdog despite the opinion of notability being 2-2.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic does not appear to have independent notability nor have enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more sources--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here you added mostly directories, passing mentions, press releases, and churnalism based on press releases. Notability is determined by independent secondary sources. And none of that addresses the fact that this article fits very comfortably inside Sonova and there is no justification for splitting it. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for "spliting"

It's not even spliting; if you wanted to have merged them you should have added the template "Merge:Sonova" to the page instead of copying and pasting.
Of the "big three" cochlear implant companies, companies, the other two have articles. MED-EL is much smaller than AB but still has its own article
Hearing company subsidaries do get their own articles on even less notable topics. Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions has barely any name recognition since BAHAs are in the new less than CIs.
AB wasn't always part of Sonova. In term of name recognition, only recently is the name sonova associated with AB and in most articles, blogs, and journals comparing the three major brands refer to Advanced Bionics as Advanced Bionics, often not even mentioning Sonova. If you read AB user manuals, catalogues, It's hard to find "Sonova" anywhere.
As far as subsidaries go, AB is recognized by the general public as a cochlear implant company before part of Sonova. In terms of branding, all AB hearing devices are marketed as Advanced Bionics. Someone who reads a pamphlet about an Advanced Bionics device would probably not associate it with Sonova.
Here's the Naida Q90 user guide. The word Sonova does not come up once. [13]
If the name of the company had Sonova in the name, then merging would be ok. However, nothing about the name indicates it is associated with Sonova. (Unlike most subsidiaries, Ex Delta Private Jets belonging to Delta Airlines, Aeroflot-Don of Aeroflot, Alitalia CityLiner of Alitalia...etc)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't considerations here in WP. I understand that they are why you want it to be separate. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and protect- since the content appears to have been merged into Sonova, deleting outright would be a problem regarding proper attribution. However, this is clearly unsuitable for a stand-alone article per nom. Redirect to get rid of this as a separate article while preserving the history, and protect to put an end to the ongoing edit war. Reyk _YO! 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Giovanni Kiyingi. A Train^talk 07:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amakondeere[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Could not find in-depth reliable sources XFhumu^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MassiveYR ♠ 06:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added more reliable sources
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ugandanm (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giovanni Kiyingi. None of the sources currently in the article are sufficient to meet WP:NALBUM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Giovanni Kiyingi. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This album fails WP:GNG generally, and there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources. It will remain permanent stub but WP:NALBUM already has solution "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". — Ammarpad (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inviting those who participated here for the possible deletion of the other album by the same person for the following reasons:

1. It has all problems of this one and even fewer sources; 2, It is is permanent stub too. 3. They are both created on the same date by same author Ugandanm (talk · contribs) who is now blocked indefinitely. 3. It was heavily embedded with external links of SoundCloud which smacks of promotion attempt. (though one user now removed them). The deletion discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy of an African (Esanyu Ly'omufilika) — Ammarpad (talk) 07:00, 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 keep. per remove duplicate section from Shilpa Shetty.(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Shetty filmography[edit]

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

The list has been duplicated from a section of the article Shilpa Shetty#Filmography, no attribution of copying provided. Mark the train^Discuss 10:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have added the correct attribution to the talkpage of each article, it seems reasonable for a stand alone as it is of sufficient length and referenced Atlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am in process or researching more about her films not only year of release, director, her character but also the box office collection. Source will be there but need some time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 11:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provided that sources are given on the article within a reasonable time when further work is done on it. The article is in my view acceptable. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:36, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WE ARE FURY[edit]

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

Musicial group lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are YouTube, SoundCloud, and brief mentions of EP release. Written by duo member, the article verges on an advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC, none of the sourcing is reliable for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG (we require media coverage, not the band's own self-published social networking presence), and even a genuinely notable band wouldn't get to create the article themselves per WP:COI. We're not a free public relations directory for newish bands who are still trying to make it big — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the sources are generally not reliable, there is subtle attempt to mask the notability of the subject by inordinate replication of the sources used –Ammarpad (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isnt WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for the aforementioned musical group. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 31 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 keep. Article has been completely re-written and new references have been published since I filed the AfD. I still feel a rename is necessary, but that can be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camelback Potential[edit]

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

Declined PROD. There don't appear to be secondary references, and I can't figure out what the term means based on the existing article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly complicated. WP:BEFORE = [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. So basically two papers that use the term, therfore not notable, this article has no real value to anyone, and unless substantially WP:TNTed and rewritten, it is Quantumcruft. Dysklyver 21:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I also was not able to find in-depth secondary reliable sources. The prose itself is based on primary papers and is thus original research. This magnetic configuration (essentially a local potential well) has patents associated, so this article may have some promotional aspects, too. Without independent RS, there is no independent verifiability and the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs the writer of this article, I can declare that I do not know the authors of the papers used and do not stand to benefit from their work. This phenomenon is actually rather simple to set up, requiring two diametric magnets and pencil lead, so I don't find it overly complicated. There are 3 papers that use this term, with two from the same group of authors, thus there are multiple sources. If needed, I can rewrite the article. Any constructive feedback is appreciated Jiale8331 (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain what this phenomenon is for that would be useful, I only found two papers when checking, however three papers does meet my standards so an improved article would be of use. My vote is mostly based on the fact that A. it makes no sense, what is camelback doing in the article? B. it makes no sense, wtf is a diametric magnet? C. it just makes no sense. No disrespect to the PHD physicists who do understand what this says, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia. Imagine we are all 5 year olds, and make a simple lead for us to know what this is about. Dysklyver 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, @Dysklyver. I have added a graph of the magnetic flux density, an explanation for diametric magnets and the reason behind the naming. Regarding the technicality, I think it is reasonable for readers of such a page to have a basic understanding of fundamental concepts in Physics (eg Magnetic flux, Stokes Drag)Jiale8331 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Den Albeit I agree with you that Wikipedia is general purpose encyclopedia but no policy that say all its contents must be understood by all. All your 3 arguments for deleting this article (A, B, C) are invalid reasons because none has meaning and none is considered in deletion discussion. Also all your arguments should be rephrased and appended with "me" thus ("It makes no sense to me" ) this is needed so as to remove the fallacy of hasty generalization in your original statements. All hard science concepts, especially physical sciences are naturally hard to comprehend by layman, and WP guideline on Technical subjects clearly agrees that oversimplifying them (for you and 5-year-old to understand, as you said) will amount to telling lie to children and that is part of what Wikipedia is not. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a legit scientific concept, 23 articles on Google Scholar, Scopus has 2 articles using it in the title of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple results from different sources in single search also the article has since improved much better that when it was created. Plus currently there is Draft of closely related concept that will soon be merged. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammerpad: I am correct on this, see WP:NOT which says:

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.

As you see, this fails WP:NOT, until it is possible to understand. As 5 year olds are fully literate and have no specialist knowledge, they are the perfect target demographic for clear explanations. Dysklyver 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:TECHNICAL,

Write one level down

A general technique for increasing accessibility is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it. Not all articles need to be totally non-technical. This is a Physics concept that's likely postgraduate, thus the technicality of the article is suitable for the target audience (undergrad and above) The type of person searching up Camelback Potential is highly unlikely to be someone with no or little Physics background. I can certainly work on creating a more accessible lead but even so it is unlikely to be totally free of technicality since that would be verging on oversimplification

Comment as nom I still strongly support deletion. The article still does not even describe what the concept is. The name merely describes the shape of a graph; there is no evidence that all references to a camelback-shaped potential are describing the same concept. Indeed, as one of the references is "Quantum" and the other is on a macro-scale, it is likely that multiple different non-notable concepts are being discussed. I believe the article functions only to promote Gunawan and Virgus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phenomenon is indeed named after the shape of the potential graph. As I mentioned earlier, this phenomenon is notable as it is simple to set up and comprehend. It does not require some ridiculously expensive machine or insane amounts of expertise to do correctly. @power~enwiki, Your opinion on promoting the authors occurs to me as Ad Hominem and is not particularly constructive. I have edited the definition of the phenomenon, hopefully it's now clearer. Jiale8331 (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it notable at all. What notable means is that it has been noted by many others, and that is not the case here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps I misused the word 'notable'. In this case, the top two papers on camelback potential, that are cited in this article, have 37 and 25 citations (according to Google Scholar). The paper with 25 citations is 2 years old, with the average number of citations for 2 year old papers being 1.94^[1] The other paper is 7 years old and is also above the average of 11.52 citations. Hence, these papers certainly fulfills your definition of notable.

Does "Quantum Dynamics in a Camelback Potential of a dc SQUID" have anything to do with the rest of the article? Or did you just search for "Camelback Potential" and throw the first result in the article without reading it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Citation averages, 2000-2010, by fields and years". Times Higher Education (THE). 2011-03-31. Retrieved 2017-10-24.

Comment I'm going to inform WT:WikiProject Physics about this discussion, and then refrain from any further comment. I think my opinion is clear enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still incredibly techincal with no obvious claim to notability, it would need over 100 citations before I would even consider citations as a factor, think WP:NPROF, citations can make a difference but there would need to be a great many more. I think this should be relisted until someone from physics can tell us what it all means. (or userifyed if we have to wait a really long time for that to happen). Dysklyver 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the concept may be notable due to a JScholar search, however, as physics are not my strength I am abstaining from participating. I do think the article could be tweaked to be less OR-y and more explanatory. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article by IBM in a format that is intended for the layman definitely meets NOTE in my books, and that it was selected by them for a physics olympiad is another. So there is no "legal" reason in that respect for a delete, and thus KEEP. That said, I would love to vote DELETE simply because of the utter horribleness of this article. The topic seems mundane, but the description is written in what can only be described as complete gibberish. Given that the IBM article exists, a rewrite is certainly possible. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to mods: This article has been completely rewritten and now meets NOTE and anything else being discussed above. I think this AfD should be speedy closed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[23] is the IBM link (which was released after the AfD was started). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 1 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) 19:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheVolte[edit]

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

The sources are promotional advertorials, and therefore not reliable, no matter where they have been published. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sulfurboy. Why did you move this out of Draft space? Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fals WP:NWEB and this shouldn't have even crossed AFC review –Ammarpad (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficiently notable; coverage is all launch-related advertorials. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 2 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 salt yet, but something to keep an eye on. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Sawyer Jr.[edit]

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

Promotional article by paid editor in violation of the TOU. Deleted several times previously under various titles. Not an improvement over previous versions. I recommend a speedy close, and salting. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This just passed community consensus via an AfD a month ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre Sawyer Jr. While I !voted delete, it was determined that it was an improvement over previous versions. I will abstain from commenting further unless pinged. I do not plan to offer a !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it did not" pass community consensus", there was no consensus, so it was kept by default. no-consensus closes are appropriately renominated after a month, in the hope of obtaining a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid TOU violation created by a CU confirmed sock that is obvious spam, so excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. The fact that this is paid and the subject is a young BLP makes deletion in this case even more of a good idea because of previous attempts we have had to blackmail the subjects of paid biographies (not this article, but others). Per my arguments in the last AfD: notability is also not established: most of the sourcing is trivial or local. Car crash articles do not establish notability, even if it is the Atlanta paper, because the Atlanta paper routinely covers car crashes. I don't think he's notable, but at most he is borderline, and given the paid concerns, deletion is the best outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources seem to be significant non-routine news coverage. A careful analysis reveals that this young person fails WP:NBIO. And yes, this is a violation of the terms of use. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Review of citations show them to be very skinny. Promotional. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I iVoted Keep at the last AfD) My preference, clearly stated on talk page recently, would have been to wait several months before doing this again. Sawyer does have plausible claims to notability. And, I often favor of keeping reasonable good article with clear notability even when patently written by someone close to the subject. In this case, however, on Sept, 7, 3 days after the last AfD, someone restored a mass of unacceptable sources and material that had been cleaned off the page, and enormous amounts of editorial time have been wasted since by editors making dgood faith efforts to keep the page up to standards. It is simply not worth the toruble to keep this page on a young man who is - at best - very marginally notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I voted Keep previously, but we've already been through AfD on this topic and there have been no events covered substantially in independent sources to have changed that outcome appreciably. The "Paid Editing" argument is a red herring — TOU enforcement is for San Francisco, not En-WP. Paid editing, disclosed or not, by one of multiple editors of the piece is not itself a valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still WP:TOOSOON. WP:CLERGY doesn't apply to BLPs very well, but obviously isn't met, and neither is any other SNG. References such as [24] don't suggest that GNG is met either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:39, 2 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino–United States relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. there really isn't anything to these relations except diplomatic recognition. Even the USA with the most number of foreign ambassadors does not post a resident ambassador to San Marino LibStar (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering the outcome of the last AfD (a very lightly-traffic'd no consensus seemingly caused by an almost rationale-free !vote of keep), I'd have to agree with the nomination here. GNG's not met, and the NYTimes article really isn't so much about the history of relations between the states so much as being one of those "bet you didn't know this about history" kind of articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the long time basis of the relationship (over 100 years) and the multiple sources covering said relationship.--TM 13:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there are 3 sources in the article. discounting the 1 primary source, 2 sources is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, notability is not about the sources showing in an article (AfD is not for cleanup or article improvement), but rather about the universal set of articles out there in the world — which are sufficient for an easy pass of GNG if one takes the time to look. Carrite (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve Could mention the Battle of San Marino during WW2, there was a big question as to whether the Allies were at war with San Marino during this time because San Marino had alligned its policies with Fascist Italy, the US state department said they wern't at war but still fought italian units on Sanmaranise soil. See here [25] . AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although GNG seems very weak I do think there is room to improve. Govvy (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of an endless series of challenges of "X-Y Relations" articles by this nominator. Usually X is a VERY SMALL country and Y is a PRETTY SMALL country in another geographical region, in which GNG passage is difficult to assert. Not so here. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HERE are multiple documents in the volume FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES: DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1944, EUROPE, VOLUME IV (US Government Printing Office). Carrite (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is the US State Department's official website on the history of relations with San Marino. Carrite (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AND coverage from the San Marinian side on an anti-terrorism agreement signed with the US government. Okay. We have all wasted enough time here. This is the second challenge of the same article by the same nominator. Trout to you, sir. And remember: Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 1 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shripad Mahadev Mate[edit]

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

Does not qualify WP:GNG. The individual was a teacher at a school and principal of a local college. There is one single mention in a book [26]. There are no other references, no media coverage. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Mate was a legendary writer of Marathi literature. His students went over to become noted writers.

Keep-The subject in question has been mentioned in multiple books/publications.[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35] and [36]. FITINDIA 16:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as per the multiple book reliable sources. As this is a pre-internet subject it makes sense that the reliable sources would be in books Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has been mentioned as a prominent figure in social reform in many written sources and in my view meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 29 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 keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Vaman Dandekar[edit]

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

Does not qualify WP:GNG. The individual is claimed to be a teacher at a school and and principal of a local college. There are no references, no media coverage(except for the external link which is not readable), no research publications. Google search points to some links which are essentially copies of this page Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldnt find anything online that would make him pass WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (kindly see the comment below) —usernamekiran(talk) 21:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Multiple book sources. As this subject is part of the pre-internet era reliable sources would be in the form of books. E. M. Forster mentions him here [37] and other books here [38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46]. There is an Arts collage named after him [47]. Usernamekiran I think if you searched under this name Sonopant Dandekar the result would have been better. FITINDIA 13:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the multiple book reliable sources identified above show that the subject passses WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep confusion because of name as Fitindia pointed out above. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- an acceptable stub at this point, with notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per FITINDIA. Having a college, currently attended by over 5000 students, named after him does seem to indicate notability! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 29 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.