< 10 August	12 August >

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. Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VSD Viewer[edit]

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

Topic of article unclear, VSD file stuck in toaster. Is this article about the general concept of viewers for Visio files or a specific OSX application? Because if it is about a specific application (as suggested by the alleged version history), it is probably the longest article ever qualifying for speedy criterion A1 (no context) — none of the links given allow us to identify which of the many VSD viewers the article is about. (I guess there are several, seeing for comparison List of PDF software.) To add insult to injury, this article is in Category:Classic Mac OS software, which is blatantly contradicted by dates in the version history. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is quite incomprehensible. It seems to be about a class of programs that open one particular file type that aren't the main program that deals with that file type, then it tries to turn into an article about one specific program with version numbers, but none of the references open... I pride myself on not being a complete idiot but I can make very little sense of this article and think we would be better off without it. At the absolute best it's an article saying "program exists to open files". › Mortee _talk 23:56, 16 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Beecher[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 21:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two one-episode TV roles and chumming with notable people do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When WP:RS produce WP:SIGCOV about people, it does add up to notability, even if the reason for the interest is because they chum with notable people. Please note she appeared on more than two TV series as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she does just about pass notability, the Star Trek episode is an important one. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she simply meets WP:GNG with in-depth and persistent coverage of her life. Her acting career includes appearances on major iconic television shows that make her memorable.[1][2] Quite a few articles on her in newspapers.com archives - I will additional citations to her article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be notable in her own right, and many sources mention her as possible Dylan muse which might cause readers to want to learn more. PamD 09:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a reference. The subject has received enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. A sufficiently prominent role in an episode of the original series of Star Trek probably does amount to notability due to the enduring popularity of that series and the fact that they never stop repeating that series over and over and over again and will probably continue repeating it as long as television exists. James500 (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2018 (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. I agree that this seems to be an implausible search term, hence I did not create a redirect, but have no firm opinion against one either if other editors deem it useful. Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Blue Origin lunar south polar landing mission[edit]

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

Speculation; far WP:TOOSOON to expect that such a mission will happen in 2020. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Origin. Too few hard facts available, too speculative, not enough content for stand-alone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tarl N. (discuss) 09:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has a specific year in the article name makes me lean towards deletion. I have yet to see a rocket development program reach fruition in the original year specified, so even if the mission does take place, it probably won't be in 2020. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Blue Origin; paucity of sources makes this WP:TOOSOON Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Not a plausible search term so I see no need for a redirect. (But, redirects are cheap, so I've no objection to one). › Mortee _talk 00:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 17 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor Indian actress. I think that she still does not meet our notability criteria. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .Upcoming at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to gain significant coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence she played a significant role in films or TV shows listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distil Networks[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Coverage is mostly attempts at self-promotion such as: "Beware the botnet lurking unseen on your computer | Irish Examiner-Jul 22, 2018 | Some 8% of all bad bot traffic comes from mobile devices, according to a report from Distil Networks, a specialist in bot mitigation, website ..." etc. Created by Special:Contributions/Gogo_Rulez with few other contributions outside this topic and whose account is currently globally blocked. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, no significant intellectually independent coverage. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though recreation in near future is possible and wouldn't be controversial. शिव साहिल (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 15 August 2018 (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. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Riley[edit]

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

Fails notability, created by an account blocked for sockpuppeting, and only edited via the subject of the page (WP:AUTO) PapaMichael (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF as holder of a named professorship, member of a national academy, the National Academy of Engineering, and fellow of a number of scholarly groups. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion written by author; reads like a CV and does not make notability evident. His own personal website and journal papers are not substantive coverage. About a fifth of all professors in the College of Engineering at UW have endowed professorships and there are are well over 150 endowed professorships at the UW medical school alone; to call this evidence of notability is laughable. Reywas92^Talk 05:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - content appears to have been cut-and-paste copied to User:James.joseph.riley/sandbox/James J. Riley and User:James.joseph.riley/sandbox/James J. Riley - draft. ansh 666 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes notability in academics,WP:NACADEMIC.

Criterion 1 - Article subject has a substantial number of scholarly publications published in peer review journals with significant citation rates. Google Scholar is showing over 9600 citations, H-Index of 43, and I-10 index of 87. "Google Scholar". Retrieved 10 August 2018..

Criterion 3 - Article subject is a peer-elected member the National Academy of Engineering. "National Academy of Engineering". Retrieved 10 August 2018. (page 19)

Article creator was not blocked as a sock at the time article was submitted thus this is not a reason for deletion. Contributing to an article about oneself is discouraged, not prohibited and not a reason for deletion. If an editor feels the article needs a cleanup, that can easily be done. IMO the article doesn't seem promotional and pretty much a run-of-the mill article about an accomplished academic. CBS527^Talk 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know why the original creator's block was brought up in the nomination. If it does have any relevance at all, then it deters from the argument for deletion: the editor in question is SwisterTwister, a well-known deletionist. – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF on multiple counts, including being a Fellow of the American Physical Society [3]. It could stand cleanup, for sure (and I've started doing a little of that), but that's not what AfD is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF, and AfD is not cleanup. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:PROF, also the current version does not seem to be promotional and content is sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2018 (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 all arguments have a basis in policy, this comes down to whether or not the sources provided are substantive, non-routine coverage, and so contribute towards meeting GNG. As this is essentially a matter of judgement with no objective criterion, I cannot ignore the substantial numerical majority who do not find it to be substantive. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Swayman[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "I removed the deletion notice because it makes no sense. Jeremy swayman is a goaltender prospect for the NHL's Bston Bruins who was picked in the 4th round 111th overall in the 2017 NHL entry draft."

Unfortunately, while a good prospect, he simply doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Teenage amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:TOOSOON, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per coverage by NBC sports, Bangor Daily News, Boston Globe, Herald News, and the Anchorage Daily News. Nom clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE on this one.--TM 12:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine draft coverage and analysis of the local college team do not make a GNG pass. For example the Anchorage Daily News article is the sort of thing that every single player on an amateur roster would expect to have.18abruce (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you'd like more in-depth sources: NHL.com, Hockey Journal, CBS, The Hockey Writers. These are not trivial and he is the subject of all of them. Clearly, he passes WP:GNG.--TM 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL.com article is routine draft coverage, the CBS article is local coverage (as it indicates itself), the hockey writers article is part of a series that covers the draft and prospects but maybe there is something there, the New England hockey journal article is by definition local and routine (that's what that part of its publication is for). I am still not seeing anything that is not common to any prospect, that is pretty close to the definition of trivial (commonplace), but I won't lose any sleep if the community disagrees.18abruce (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) non-national coverage does not mean the source is invalid per WP:GNG. 2) Specialized publications (like Hockey websites) are valid for determining notability. 3) Swayman plays on the US junior national team, has been drafted by a NHL team, and is the starting goaltender on a major collegiate ice hockey team. Looking at this holistically, it is clear that he passes WP:GNG.--TM 13:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Specialized publications are only valid for determining notability if they meet the test for reliable sources. Blogsites rarely do; (b) Neither playing on the junior national team, being drafted by a NHL team (other than in the first round), nor starting on a collegiate hockey team at any level of play fulfills any extant notability criteria; and (c) I don't know what looking at this "holistically" means, but the GNG's clear, and the subject does not meet it. Ravenswing 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CBS article and Herald News article are substantial articles about the subject and are not "routine draft coverage." The NBC article is a substantive article about the subject that is related to him being drafted, but that in itself does not make it "routine" - not every hockey player gets drafted and many draft picks get a one or two sentence blurb saying that "X from junior team Y was selected by NHL team Z in round W." I wouldn't hang notability on the mere presence of several articles about someone being drafted in the later rounds, but the fact that a reliable source chose to write an article about someone because he was drafted counts for at least one source towards notability. The NHL article is also about him being drafted so I will subsume that to the NBC article. But that still leaves 3 substantial sources. The other sources are less impressive, but some rise a bit beyond trivial, so we have at least 3+ sources. Which is enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The draft articles including the NBC one are all routine being drafted articles. Every single player who has ever been drafted has been covered in a routine drafted article and/or prospect reports. Draft articles are no different than game summaries in that respect. The others as mentioned are local which generally ends up being routine coverage of the local star. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing and Djsasso. He hasn't done enough yet to warrant an article. Deadman137 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time he doesn't meet any notability criteria. At best, the article is WP:TOOSOON. Local coverage of him and updates in the Boston paper about how the Bruin's draft pick is doing should be considered run of the mill sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Dakhovskyy[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman. Articles looks like a resume and not an encyclopedic entity. It had two paragraphs that were copy/pasted from here which I have removed. The creator is likely an undeclared CoI paid editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this reads like a CV and after cutting the word "exclusive" out of Google searches, there's very little showing up about this person (a bot mention of this AfD on Reddit is the 15th result). No indication that this meets the WP:GNG. › Mortee _talk 00:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – He's been mentioned in a few independent articles like The Moscow Times, but he still appears to have little notability. Best if deleted, but there should be more arguments if possible. Redditaddict6 9 08:46, 19 August 2018 (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 Tonga at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 02:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ʻAloʻalo Liku[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NOLY. No results on English or Tongan Google, Bing, Newspapers.com Kees08 (Talk) 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tonga at the 2012 Summer Paralympics He doesn't meet WP:NOLY and the coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. The redirect target actually contains more information about him and his performance than the individual article does. Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've searched, and haven't found nearly enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet the criteria listed at WP:NOLY either. I think redirecting to Tonga at the 2012 Summer Paralympics would be the best option, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD, as well as the fact that there's a lot of information about Liku in the page already.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:48, 18 August 2018 (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. It appears the relistings have generated a clear Keep consensus. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 02:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Napoles[edit]

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

A ten-year-old with a Instagram account. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This ten year old has made national news. He mets the notability standards and has had ample major newspapers interview him. cbratbyrudd (π, ν) 23:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may be a 10 year old, but the sourcing is adequate to meet WP:BASIC. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is hardly adequate, and it tends toward the dangerous promotionalism of children with no respect for children that is becoming all too common. None of it adds up to the indepth reliable source coverage we need to demand of every article on someone below the age of 12.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously lists some sources that are questionable for establishing notability, and the language and claims seem likely to be contested. Neither of those are good reasons to delete the article. Even ignoring the references that are from unreliable sources or are merely aggregated social media posts, there remains significant coverage of subject in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Not all social media attention translates into mainstream media attention. This time it did. Passes WP:BASIC. Sources cover multiple events, so no WP:BLP1E problem, either. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NBIO in that he has received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per Bakazaka. It's true that he's "a ten year old with an Instagram account," but the article contains multiple reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:59, 18 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Swap[edit]

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

Delete References are based on announcements or rely on information/interviews/quotes from the founder. No significant coverage on the company itself. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Narratives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Request at OTRS ticket:2017070110003254 The reason for deletion is this ‘mixtape’ doesn’t exist anywhere on the internet. The artist is not notable (article has been deleted) and is no longer active. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mixtape did exist, it was reviewed by at least three independent sources. It passes WP:NALBUM#1. The artist's own article was deleted in April after being nominated (see AfD:Lostkeyz) by @Doronlosky97: who did not declare a possible WP:COI and has the same name as the artist. I missed that AfD and would have argued against it. That same editor tried to have this article deleted in May and again a few days ago but used the failed 1st nomination (see contribs). The artist may no longer be performing, his article may no longer exist, it may not be relevant to his current career but that does not mean that the work, itself, was not notable. This article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Comment - Since the rapper has no article of his own (see AfD:Lostkeyz) , this album should be speedy deleted (WP:A9) unless there is evidence that anybody else notable was involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Not quite, the cited policy also states, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." As indicated above, notability in this article is established per WP:ALBUM. The discussion at AfD:Lostkeyz was thin and unfortunately I missed it: that article should not have been deleted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You have said that the album passes WP:NALBUM #1 because it was reviewed by some notable sources. But you have not (at least in this discussion) provided any detail as to how exactly those sources confer notability. My assessment is that the sources in the article, including those from Acclaim and Howl & Echoes, are little more than introductions to the album's existence with some faint praise from a writer who probably listened to it once. I can find nothing beyond these in my own search. These brief media mentions might be enough for a "Weak Keep" vote for an album by a more notable artist. But since this rapper was already found to be non-notable in his own AfD, then so are his releases. Therefore my vote is Delete but I would not be opposed to re-creating the rapper's article when and if he becomes more notable as a musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album is self-published/self-released; the in-depth sources are more about the artist than the album and if they were not sufficient to establish notability for the artist they are not useful for the album either; the other sources seem to be local press, blogish or essentially trivial. There is no indication that it has charted. In total nothing convinces me that this work is notable per WP:NALBUM. In addition I think it appropriate to, by analogy to WP:NBOOK, consider a self-released work to have a strong presumption of being non-notable. Being the work of a red-linked artist is the final nail in the coffin. Jbh ^Talk 01:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of evidence that this entered any national charts is a huge problem. The fact that this article, if created today, would probably fall foul of WP:A9 is another concern. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a list of trivialities and non-notable things. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2018 (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 Kirpal Singh (politician). Anything worth merging elsewhere is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Janata Morcha[edit]

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

A non notable Indian Political party that was disbanded within 6 years. The party never won any election[4]. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG DBigXray 20:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "The president was the late Kirpal Singh, a former Janata Dal leader, who broke away after being denied the Amristar ticket in 1989, got elected MP independently, and then formed the new party.", this means the party was represented in the Lok Sabha 1989-1991, and thus passes for notability. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your (Author's) justification does not exactly state how it makes this party notable. even if he is assumed to be notable that does not automatically qualify his party to be notable. Did the party win any seats ? was there any notable work done by the party ? did it receive any widespread coverage in WP:MAINSTREAM Media WP:RS ? No. I strongly believe this fails WP:GNG however if you can establish the notability, I am open to withdraw my nomination. As of now I stand by my nomination. thank you. --DBigXray 20:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A person elected to a state or national parliament is automatically considered notable. Failing to obtain a party's nomination in an election can be explained by many things, including policy differences within the party. Did the party win any seats? At least one, that of Kirpal Singh. I think that any political party that is represented in a state or national legislature ought to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kirpal Singh[5] won the election as Independent candidate and then formed the party (not vice versa, that you are assuming). (party was never (and can never be) denied nomination). Anyway person may be notable, party is not. Party never won any elections[6]. Parties formed by notable persons still need to qualify notability. Your argument is based on this incorrect assumption on party. I appreciate policy and source based AfD debates. Can you provide sources for the party to justify notability ? If no sources, then Kindly reconsider your !Vote . --DBigXray 21:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the sequence you describe is correct, the party was represented in a legislature, and is therefore notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the legislature official link again[7] He is mentioned as an Independent. So No the party was not represented in the parliament. Please share your sources in support of notability. Thanks. --DBigXray 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kirpal Singh was independent at the time of election, which makes him notable, not the party. -- » Shadowowl | talk 23:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete There is impressive little to delete here after 14 years. Ubehage (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

And you know that Punjab Janata Morcha is not notable when interest in its deletion discussion looks to be more than 10 times as interesting as the article itself.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-04-26&end=2018-07-27&pages=Punjab_Janata_Morcha

~~Ubehage (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I fail to understand the keep !votes.The party was never represented in a parliament, (it's founder won a seat but as an independent and then found the party) and there is just nil coverage about the party other than trivial mentions as something found by Kirpal, which vanished soon-after. Nowhere near passage of our notability guidelines.∯WBG^converse 09:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article says it was split from Janata Dal, so merging/redirecting there per WP:ATD should be discussed as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being the Nom I have no objections to Merging. With this edit, I have already merged this article to Janata Dal. The subject on its own is not notable, even the redirect is of Questionable notability, but I am ok to keep the redirect.--DBigXray 16:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These were 2 separate parties, merging articles improves nothing and just creates a mess. --Soman (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Mergeing is a perfectly valid WP:ATD how does it create a mess ? The other viable option is Delete here, since no claim to notability with source has been provided.--DBigXray 20:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a mess. It's fairly clear that the topic doesn't meet GNG; however, as a party represented in the national parliament (it doesn't particularly matter that the party was formed after Singh's election: the party still held a seat in parliament) it's also clearly notable. The quantity of available information is not large, suggesting that a standalone page is not necessary, but the information should be somewhere. The best outcome in my view would be to merge and redirect this to Kirpal Singh (politician); the founder, as an MP, is unquestionably notable. We could look at a merger into Janata Dal, but I don't think that's practical. The JD had innumerable factions join and leave it; we cannot, and should not try, to treat them all at any level of detail in the main article. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2018 (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. Nomination withdrawn. AuthorAuthor's newly added sources (specifically ABC International and The California Sunday Magazine) satisfy WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 02:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sweeny[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Related coverage is mainly focused on his company Flirtey, with passing mentions of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 15:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has had extensive coverage in national publications for his invention and continuing work on it, including with NASA, making this an easy pass for both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Magazine feature articles include Smithsonian Magazine, Entrepreneur and Fortune. News organizations include Reuters, CNBC and Wired. The article was poorly written, citations were oddly formatted and, frankly, easy to miss. I worked on the article and improved it. I also found at least one more reliable source and included it. The subject clearly passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of your sources meet WP:GNG, since they cover the company Flirtey (which already has an article), and not Matt Sweeny, which is what this article is about. I performed a web search before nominating the article and found nothing better. — Newslinger talk 22:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, ABC International News did a 30-minute story about drones featuring Sweeny and his business partner, with Sweeny sitting down with ABC for an on-camera interview, which appears periodically throughout the story here. I have added that TV piece to the article. Also, Entrepreneur magazine and The California Sunday Magazine are feature stories about Sweeny and his invention. The extensive publicity Sweeny has received as the drone inventor, not to mention four inventions for which he holds patents, is enough to meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The merits of a possible merge can be firther discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji[edit]

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Includes POV like beautiful , true spiritual experience. We dont need its postal code or how to get there. Sources are Google searches, the website of the church and Facebook. » Shadowowl | talk 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to let us focus on the notability issue I've made a number of changes to the page to remove some of the NPOV content, duplicative language, interesting ref formatting, connectivity paragraph etc etc. The primary website has extremely similar content to what the article had before I reworked it. I don't know which was drawing from which. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete just not finding anything that's about the cathedral anywhere other than its own website. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a merge to Pazhanji. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - there are a couple of news/book sources with one line references but that is the sum limit as far as I can tell, thus no notability Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with a merge, however, per the below discussions

Keep. As a co-cathedral it's pretty much de facto notable as a major church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my initial impulse, but the lack of any independent sourcing rather overrode that. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As a Cathedral, it should be notable. Furthermore, being "several hundred years old", it predates most western missionary endeavour in India. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were accepting WP:GEOFEAT rather than WP:NCHURCH, which is not guaranteed, there still would not be sufficient sourcing (as provided at this point) to meet the very low barriers. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we are, since WP:NCHURCH quite clearly refers to the organisation (i.e. parish etc; note it is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and this article quite clearly refers to the building. For a building as important as a cathedral for a major denomination, existence is pretty much all we need for a presumption of notability. That, to me, is common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's heading more in the direction of a line in the diocese's article saying where the cathedral is and what it is called. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any stub. There's always going to be more you can say about a cathedral. It just hasn't been said yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I could say anything about anything but it would usually be nonsense. In this case the problem is that there's all evidence at the moment that such a stub isn't going to be expanded for now because there isn't anything to expand it with. Usually cathedrals get articles because they are historic buildings in their own rights, and that's plainly not the case here. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their Claim on the age is a lie. see my comment below. --DBigXray 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on its age and as the see of a diocese, probably notable. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Simply being the seat of a diocese is not separately notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but that is not my entire argument. For years I have consistently argued for or against the notability of churches, based on a number of factors, and for that reason I think this house of worship is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, I reviewed your check list and The church fails the notability test even by your "own" standards, The age is disputed below and not precisely mentioned even by the church. --DBigXray 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, based on confusion about its age, and the need to source that fact, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing your !vote. --DBigXray 09:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a cathedral of this age should have old book reliable sources coverage, well before google, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is for deletion, not keeping. I found no significant book sources. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an old cathedral passes WP:NCHURCH. No notability issue, but content sourcing one. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NCHURCH requires that at least WP:GNG is satisfied, it doesn't give automatic notability for meeting any specific requirement. GNG is not, from the sources given thus far, satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is old ? see my reply below.

Merge: ~~Delete~~ the Keep votes in my opinion are based on the first impression of the title and a lack of research on this church and its coverage. the Cathedral fails WP:GNG spectacularly. Was only in news for wrong reasons [8] of animal abuse. The article itself was WP:PROMO and I removed the Facebook link from infobox and other spams. Per their own official website it is "few" hundred years old without any date, (How convenient). I would say they are trying to bluff, and the ambiguity regarding the age is deliberate as its suits the church. None of their claims about age should be taken seriously. It is a common tactic in this area, to attract more followers by fabricating the age of the church. --DBigXray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever its age, the fact remains that it is a cathedral of a major denomination. Common sense would suggest that we keep such edifices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi User:Necrothesp The declaration as a second church of diocese happened in 2015, which is fairly recent., Can you please point me to such a Policy on Churches. AFAIK GNG is important to be satisfied. If even the local media finds it not worth discussing, then why must Wikipedia, choose otherwise. --DBigXray 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't always need a policy, you know. As someone who's been an editor here for many years, it always amazes me how many editors seem uncomfortable with doing anything unless a policy tells them to. It's rather sad, to tell you the truth. I reiterate, common sense would suggest that a co-cathedral is notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting Relist : the Consensus above is tilted on delete. The keep supporters have failed to give any verifiable justification. --DBigXray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments of a particular side, though enough in number, fails WP:AADD spectacularly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. Cathedrals are legally recognised under ecclesiastical law (canon law). [For the avoidance of doubt, we should for this purpose take into account the laws made by a non-established church or government-in-exile, etc, provided it is sufficiently powerful to merit our attention.] There seems to be coverage [9], but I am having difficulty reading it as my browser doesn't support Malayalam. I think it is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of books are not searchable online, and those that are mainly come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic bias that implies. WP:NRVE says that if offline sources are likely to exist, we do not delete. In the case of a historic church or cathedral in India, I think we can infer that it is likely. Finally, I must point out that WP:IAR is still policy, and if we are satisfied this building is a Syrian Orthodox cathedral, then not having an article on it would prevent us from improving and maintaining the project, which is forbidden by said policy. And AADD is an essay, so what it says carries very little weight. James500 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I did find a book in English: [10]. There are also images in Google Images (the building looks large and impressive), and the building is a verifiable source for its own design. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it satisfies GEOLAND - it's a physical thing, not a populated location. You might have meant WP:GEOFEAT, but I haven't seen criterion 1 satisfied in its several aspects, and criterion 2 definitely hasn't been met. (Criterion 3 not applicable). To use IAR as a justification requires strong consent that nothing else should apply, and bluntly, the lack of anything about it that can be trusted makes it hard for me to know whether it's something worth bypassing the rules to improve the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant GEOLAND. This is a place or location in the sense that we are talking about an area of land whose co-ordinates are not going to change. This is not like a vehicle or vessel that can move. [The area for a church will normally extend to the boundary wall of the graveyard, as they normally have one.] To try to make a distinction between bricks and the soil beneath and around them seems to me to be unjustifiable. This place is populated in the sense that there are lots of people there. I appreciate that GEOLAND is primarily aimed at villages, but the ordinary meaning of the expression populated place is much broader than that, and I have to infer that the choice of words is deliberate. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction between bricks and the land it is on is made in almost all walks of life and within Wikipedia. That isn't the definition of populated at all, otherwise any building which had a reasonable number of people would qualify, such as a medium-size office block. WP:GEOFEAT wouldn't be necessary if such an inclusive viewpoint of GEOLAND was implemented. Its presence distinctly indicates that being a fixed location with people usually within is not a notability grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. GEOFEAT appears to be for locations that are not legally recognised. A medium-size office block is not legally recognised and would not qualify for GEOLAND for that reason. A cathedral, on the other hand, is legally recognised under canon law. This line of reasoning would not make GEOFEAT redundant. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT does not apply here, one can argue to apply WP:NBUILD here but again NBUILD require significant coverage hence it fails NBUILD as well. --DBigXray 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GEOLAND does apply. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: @DBigXray:It doesn't. Lets take a look at GEOLAND criteria :

Criteria	Applies to this article
Populated, legally recognized places	No, it is not a place, it is a building.
Populated places without legal recognition	Again, not a place, but a building
Disputed regions	This is not a disputed region.
Named natural features	Named NATURAL features.

It does not apply. GEOFEAT#2 is the only criteria that can apply to this. » Shadowowl | talk 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShadowOwl, Yes, I agree with you here. Please note that WP:GEOFEAT (short for Geographics features) and WP:NBUILD (short for Notability of Building) point to the same policy subsection i.e. Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Buildings_and_objects. Which is why I said one can argue about NBUILD but as it can be argued to have social significance, provided it has "significant coverage" as of now it is not satisfied. hence even WP:NBUILD (i.e. Notability of Building) is not met. --DBigXray 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pazhanji - the village in which the church is located. My thoughts: WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT don't apply. This is a building, not a village or mountain or lake. I find it difficult to find any unaffiliated reliable sources containing coverage of this church. Even the diocese has no article Kunnamkulam diocese. However, the self-published material can support the inclusion of the information/text in another article, which I merit should should be the village in which this church is located. We have many articles on populated places that have sections on a particular (but not notable in the WP sense) building. Why not this as well? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Carlossuarez46 good point, I have now copied the usable content of the church from its article to the Pazhanji village article. Also did a clean up of spam links of the church from the village article.--DBigXray 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merger per Carlossuarez46, whose wisdom and experience I trust. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the new merge proposal that should satisfy both keep and delete !voters
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on my comment above I have changed my !vote to merge with Pazhanji.--DBigXray 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the city, in the absence of substantive verifiable information about the cathedral. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2018 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Naraht's newly added sources (specifically SC Magazine and TechTarget) show that SAINT meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAINT (software)[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Sources cited in the article include a dead link to a review, a page describing a related specification, a directory listing, and two pages from the company's website. Google Scholar only returns a couple of passing mentions. — Newslinger talk 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like?

Obviously, these should actually be in the article, I'm just curious whether you think that integrating these would be a good start. I have a slight WP:COI, I worked for the company from mid-2005 to mid-2008.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Thanks for providing these sources! It looks like the SC Magazine review and the TechTarget overview qualify SAINT under WP:GNG. Although I don't think the other sources provide significant coverage (for the notability test), all of these sources look like good additions for the article. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. — Newslinger talk 22:48, 12 August 2018 (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 Withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christian School (Canton, Ohio)[edit]

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

Non-notable school which only takes children to fifth grade (per school website). No links except the school's own site. Tacyarg (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tacyarg, you may wish to withdraw this. Both the school's website and NCES verify that this is a PK-12 school and hence highly likely to be notable. John from Idegon (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John from Idegon, thanks for this. Am I misreading website then? It says "Preschool - Grade 5." under General Information. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg:, under "A-Academic excellence". Also, the NCES stats here are reasonably good evidence this is indeed a secondary school. I'll add stats and look for athletic info a bit later today. John from Idegon (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - many thanks, sorry I missed it.Tacyarg (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DSploit[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Insufficient significant coverage from reliable sources. There's a Lifehacker article and some passing mentions from Google Scholar search results, but not enough for the product to be notable. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from reviewing the sources, can't find significant coverage Enterprisey (talk!) 00:21, 19 August 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Communities[edit]

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

I've done a fairly thorough analysis of available sources, and on balance, I don't think there's enough coverage of this company for it to meet WP:NCORP. There are two reasonably lengthy sources (noted below), but that's all I could find. Given the extreme narrowness of their audience, I feel like WP:AUD is important here: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold for emphasis). I was not able to find any mainstream sources. On the whole I don't think there's enough to sustain a claim of notability.

Analysis of sources in article

Federal Times: Permanent dead link, no context or title given so can't search for the article another way
Inc. 5000 1: Business listing
Washington Technology Magazine 1: Trivial mention
Homeland Security Today 1: [11] reasonable, but a very narrow audience
Washington Business Journal 1: Dead link, but based on the date could be [12] or [13], both of which mention Tech Comm but are paywalled so I can't assess depth
Federal News: Dead and nothing in the actual site's archives so can't find it to assess depth
WA Business Journal 2: Paywalled, can't assess depth, but from title is about multiple companies
Washington Technology Magazine 1: Written by the company president, not independent
Potomac Executive Biz: permanent dead link, can't find an active website for this, unknown if its an organization or a periodical or what
Washington Technology Magazine 3: Fairly deep, but aimed at a truly narrow audience - the magazine provides "competitive intelligence for executives providing contract services to the government market"
Homeland Security Today 2: permanent dead link, the only substantial article on HST was noted above so not sure what this would have been
Military & Aerospace Electronics: Doesn't mention company at all
Federal Times Top 250 GSA Vendors: Business listing
Inc. 5000 2: Business listing again

♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analysis above. I have never found anything worthwhile in bizjournal sources (and they are way too narrow for WP:AUD) and even the most in depth sources don't have much really, if you take out everything that is a quote/paraphrase of a quote - they fail being independent as they don't seem to have "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Nothing to indicate more coverage than every business receives.Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. Corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the analysis above, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 17 August 2018 (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 David Horowitz Freedom Center#Programs. Sandstein 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TruthRevolt[edit]

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

Lack of secondary RS coverage. Of the cited sources, there is only one straight-news RS article (Daily Beast article) that mentions the site, and it does so briefly. The article subject was launched in 2013 and closed in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center#Programs where the subject is already mentioned. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:NWEB for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability at all, especially since this closed two years ago. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per K.e.coffman. Does not meet any applicable notability criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly meets WP:GNG. As well as The Daily Beast, the article cites the Washington Examiner, which is a respectable RS. Also, The Hollywood Reporter did a good piece on the source.[14] These other sources (1,2,3) may not necessarily be RS, but they show that this article is notable enough to keep. Right now, it may be puffed up, but it can and should be cleaned up per WP:RUBBISH.desmay (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 16 August 2018 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 03:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Leksell[edit]

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

This is a vanity biography created by what appears to be a CoI/paid editor. Laurent Leksell is the chairman of the company Elekta but I do not think he meets our notability criteria. What really annoys me however is that his article is incorrect and inflates his credentials. The second sentence states "Laurent Leksell Founded Elekta AB in 1972, while still a student of the Stockholm School of Economics." This is untrue, the company was founded in 1972 by his father, Professor Lars Leksell. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Im the creator of the post. I am a fan, a former employee but not paid to create this article. Thank you for your interest into the veracity of the article. It is not incorrect that Laurent Leksell founded Elekta AB. He was the first CEO and Chairman of the company founding it during his studies to capture Patent licence income streams from his fathers medical research practice. Lars Leksell invented the world famous Gamma Radiation knife, the first non-invasive cure for brain cancer, but Laurent Leksell built the company from its infancy into its role as a world leader in cancer care. The passage cited as incorrect can be nuanced to say that Laurent founded the company together with his father. The information is references in Elekta's website for its board of directors as well as numerous Swedish newspaper articles. Laurent Leksell is also the chair of Stockholm School of Economics, the worlds second business school after Harvard and has received numerous awards and accolades of both national and international character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTE2009 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think this one is a Keep. I'd not heard of the guy but the Swedish refs that I was able to access all confirm that Leksell is as described and is notable for the medals, awards and directorships that he has collected. It would have been better if the foundation were attributed to him and his father; if the refs for the personal stuff had not just said "ibid." to the book (which obviously I haven't seen); and if the other refs had been filled out with citation templates and properly formatted. But those are matters for editing; given Wikipedia's very low notability threshold, there's no doubt that Leksell clears it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chiswick Chap. I accept that Laurent Leksell is probably notable and having done some investigation I have edited his article and that of the company Elekta and added a reference so that they both articles agree and state that the company was founded jointly by father and son. I am now prepared to withdraw this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khyati Sharma[edit]

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

Contested ProD by ip with no reason given - original reason was non notable beauty contest winner. Apparently promotional article ProD was correct. PRehse (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nukable mess, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winner of non-notable beauty pageants fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Gargoyles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was redirected following an AfD in 2006 and, over the last 12 years, Wikipedia notability standards have raised. Though The Oxford Gargoyles won the 2010 Voice Festival (against limited competition) I don't consider that to be sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. I can't find any news coverage, or significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, other than the occasional student newspaper. Fails WP:GNG - I'd say SALT the article name if it is deleted. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to the list article as was done in the first AfD). They did a little international tour in 2015, which got them the only independent media piece that I can find: [15] That's one event in which they received reliable coverage but otherwise they are known through self-promotion and crowdfunding appeals. Not enough for independent notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:00, 12 August 2018 (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. Withdrawing as nominator. Thanks to Alpha3031 and Nosebagbear for reviewing and finding sources with significant coverage. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Rogan Experience[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joe Rogan Experience

Articles for deletion/The Joe Rogan Experience

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

Not sure if this podcast is notable or not. It was nominated for deletion in 2014, with the result of redirect to Joe Rogan. Not sure if it has become more notable since then. Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I was the closer for the previous AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs help, but it's seemingly a permanent top 10 podcast in most rankings of that medium. I'm surprised it doesn't have more to it, honestly; usually we have a whole mess of cruft to deal with, but we have a basic history of the production, not of guests, so a balance is needed there. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources that show notability of the podcast itself? The sources in the article are either primary sources or sources that only mention the podcast in passing. Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rogan isn't subject to interviews as often since he began the podcast, so it's a little more difficult unless we use snippets from the podcasts themselves. Redban has talked about the history of the podcast on other interviews, which has helped tremendously. I'll take a look at his Rolling Stone feature article and see if anything worthy is in there. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course it's become more notable since then, 10 seconds of research or just reading the article as it stands would have revealed that. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable and popular enough. With some additional good sources I think this can be a strong article. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this show gets more listens than many shows on CNN and other networks which have wiki articles. It is heavily cited in writing on the rise of alternative media. I'm sure more citations can be found. Danski14^(talk) 01:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My thoughts articulated perfectly by Xezbeth above at 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).--157.52.16.221 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Justifications - I was just going to give this a NAC close as Keep, but as it stands all the Keep statements are some combination of "there are sources out there", "WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It clearly is popular, but actually citing a couple of the best sources seems the logical thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's because sources are so plentiful. You don't need someone to post them because they're everywhere. But here's one if you need it.[16] Plus The New York Times states his podcast is the second most popular one after Oprah. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per Nosebagbear's rationale. Would be nice if some of the Keep !votes actually went beyond WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Joe Rogan podcast is the most popular podcast in the world. This page needs help, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.7.91.190 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

And alas, another ILIKEIT !vote Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fix, not delete. Ottoshade (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know much about the podcast or man but even I have heard of it. This is not a ILIKEIT !vote. Google search shows extensive coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rogan may be a bit of an annoying jerk, but he's a notable annoying jerk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Details, again - again, !votes can't just declare someone is notable they should say why. Likewise, if you're going to say a google search shows extensive coverage (which is certainly possible) it has more worth as a point if you can link to a couple of actually functional sources. These are supposed to be !votes, not votes
Comment 9500 news mentions would certainly imply notability. His podcast is frequently reported on both in MMA press and mainstream press as a significant platform. And while I'm sympathetic to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:MUSTBESOURCES not being sufficient on their own, there's also no particularly strong rationale presented for deletion beyond WP:JDL and a pretty clear consensus that nobody monitoring AFD wants this page deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination. While the keep !votes more or less fall into WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Clearly notable and WP:GOOGLEHITS, "not sure of notability" isn't really a rationale for deletion. It appears to me that most of the sources are passing mentions: The Washington Examiner article is mostly about Joe Rogan the person, and not the podcast; and the New York Times article mentioned appears to have cumulative mentions of no more than a few sentences in the whole thing. I suppose someone could perform 10 seconds of research and return with the results, but they could equally add citations or renominate in the case of a procedural close. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional sources may be provided, and the Washington Examiner article may be further evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After a bit of trawling, I've found this National Review article, which seems to be a mostly significant mention of the podcast (and its style) and not of the guests appearing or the man. I'll be going through the remaining 9 pages of Google results later to determine if there are any better sources. Comments welcome. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source, and I was hoping it could add to one of the very few stated above to finally let this be resolved. Alas the NY one doesn't come close to satisfying Sig Cov, and I can't judge Washington Examiner properly (I can't tell whether it counts as an Op Ed piece) because it has a habit of crashing my computer, which makes it unhelpful for me. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the #3 rated podcast [17] is a sufficient claim of notability. This Rolling Stone article discusses the podcast in detail, as well as Rogan himself. I'm not sure why this is still open. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the Rolling Stone article and the this National Review, there is finally sufficient sourcing (that doesn't crash my computer) actually stated to give a clear keep under WP:WEB, which seems most appropriate for podcasts. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think with the incidental coverage re. Conor McGregor, this Indianapolis Monthly article, plus the Washington Examiner, Rolling Stone and National Review articles, notability has finally been reasonably established. Now to ping Natg 19 for a possible early close. I also propose we trout all the WP:MUSTBESOURCES !voters. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully each trout can be used more than once... Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep The article and sourcing is better since its 2014 deletion nomination, it's one of the more notable podcasts as stated above and just because it's a podcast doesn't mean it can't have its own article (if any sports podcasts deserves an article its this one). JC7V-constructive zone 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. One of the most popular podcasts today. Finnishela (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sangharsh (2018 film)[edit]

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

An upcoming film with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I moved this article to draftspace twice but the author who appears to have COI constantly creating it in mainspace. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. Its best we wait for the films to release in August 2018. Fit India 08:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG due to more than 2 notable actors in starcast and coverage [18][19][20][21] in multiple WP:MAINSTREAM media sources. A Bhojpuri film. --DBigXray 09:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 00:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The majority target audience of Bhojpuri dont read English news, per Language WP:BIAS, the fact that there exists a few sources with detailed coverage, passes the notability test. --DBigXray 10:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources DBigXray provided. I believe these are enough to meet WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:05, 19 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 09:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhan Kandil[edit]

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

A non-notable health coach with minor English coverage. Plus, the page has a long contribution history of sockpuppets Sillva1 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the references are in Arabic, but I have added translations of the titles to help editors evaluate the usefulness of individual references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems like this person is aiming to be a social media celebrity doctor; sources are mostly low-quality social media bloggy sites; would need to be completely worked over. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article is of poor quality and the subject is an obscure one, but it strangely satisfies the WP:GNG criteria. It is backed by a fair amount of secondary sources like Al-Masry Al-Youm and El Watan, which are somewhat reliable. Per GNG#3, sources do not have to be available online or written in English. It is also not a our job as Wikipedians to evaluate the career motives of the subject of a BLP, and I don't see any socks in the page history. What we should be examining instead is the main contributors' motives and whether there is a COI involved, the evidence of which I have yet to see. The obscure nature of this subject is the only reason why I'm in the "weak" !keep zone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a bit early for that personality to receive a wiki page. 196.157.255.129 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hercher[edit]

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

This player never played in a professional league, all of his Scottish League career was in the old Third Division. Echo2018c (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though player never played top flight football, he was still a notable figure in Inverness CT's history. Speaking for many-a fan of ICTFC (and not being bias as the article's author), it seems disrespectful for such an important and loved player in the club's history, fade away so soon after his death. Cheesy McGee (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was an unsourced BLP article until his unfortunate passing two days ago. Willing to accept he may be a notable player for Inverness CT, but notability is based on the existence of reliable secondary sources. Possibly best covered on the Inverness CT page? SportingFlyer talk 12:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question...did he play on any Premier league or equivalent, team? Antonio Unrareat Martin (whhaaaatttttttt?) 12:14, 14 August, 2018 (UTC)
Answer No, fourth level of the Scottish League was the highest as such he played in. 86.169.171.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I'm sorry he died, my condolences to family and fans, but I have to vote delete.Antonio Multiple Goals Martin (whhaaaatttttttt?) 06:24, 17 August, 2018 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Every club has important players in their history, but that's insufficient to show notability for WP. Papaursa (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silicone Sex World[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG most of the sources deal with the publicity stunt of advertising for a doll tester and the other sources are mostly from the daily star which is not really a reliable source. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organization has reasonable level of coverage in news sources e.g [22][23][24] Should qualify under WP:NORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irsashahid (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sockmaster vote struck by ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)~~ Unstruck ref below ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organization meets the primary criteria of WP:NORG with secondary sources e.g [25][26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex235D (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Alex235D is a sockpuppet of Irsashahid, and has been blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: - Does the use of a sock also invalidate the original editor's !vote? I've seen it go both ways in AfD so I was wondering if there was an actual policy on it Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, "[removal/striking] should be done for all blocked sock puppets and sock masters in a discussion". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear and Hydronium Hydroxide: Well, that's someone's opinion, but as far as I know the question isn't mentioned in any policy or guideline. I think using common sense is best, rather than looking for some "rule", or following what someone else thinks just because they have chosen to write it in some so-called "essay". In some cases it is clear that the editor in question is purely disruptive, and it is best to discount all his or her comments in a discussion. That tends to apply, for example, in the case of a persistent sockpuppeteer. My own feeling in this case, however, was that for the editor to make one comment in this discussion was perfectly reasonable, and the only thing wrong was making a second one while pretending to be someone else, so I didn't see any need to strike out the first comment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson and Hydronium Hydroxide: It won't answer the point here, but it seemed an interesting discussion so I've started a chat on Village Pump ideas on the issue Nosebagbear (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organization seems to meet notability guidelines, although I think the article can be further improved Buzzy anslem (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "seems" could you be more precise? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company clearly passes the notability requirements in line with WP:CORP. A simple Google News Search turned up multiple results about the company from reliable independent news sources other than the daily star. Plus, The topic of Sex doll is generating interest all over the world. Hence, the page should be kept. Sillva1 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more clear about which sources you feel are in-dpeth coverage of the company itself and not its stunt to look for testers for the dolls? This is very clearly a publicity stunt that has drawn attention from the lower end of the news media. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at this. I don't believe RT is a lower end of the news media. Going further, you may also find that not all articles are about testers for these dolls. Sillva1 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very light rehash of the sun article here so no better. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor below pointed me to the same link earlier and I've provided reasoning why it fails WP:ORGIND (part of WP:CORP). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive discussion of the sources in question is necessary here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Company is one of a number of sex doll suppliers in the UK of equivalent (un)importance[27]. Coverage of the sex doll tester position is considered dependent (ref Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage), and thus does not, by itself, meet requirements for NCORP -- nor does momentary coverage of that stunt meet WP:SUSTAINED. Remaining coverage (including what's visible at GNews) is extremely limited, from tabloid sources, and tastes like PR-dependent material. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing independent requires a minimum of two references. It isn't that these references must be from reliable sources but they must also be "intellectually independent". As per WP:ORGIND, this specifically excludes references that base their article exclusively on company announcements and also further states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references either in the article or that I can find online meet this criteria. The references either fail WP:SIGCOV as the article is more interested in the titillating aspect of the product and says nothing about the company (the subject of this article), or they fail WP:CORPDEPTH where the company is name-checked, or they fail WP:ORGIND where the article fails to provide any original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Notable too that the Keep !voters haven't produced any references despite request. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what will you say about an article on RT [28] Buzzy anslem (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not intellectually independent and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Once you spot the "Silicon Sex World told the Sun" references you realise it fails the requirement that independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to anything stated in the article relating to SSW that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with SSW? I can't. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company passes the notability requirements in line with WP:CORP. I agree that Google News Search turned up plenty of results about the company from independent news sources. Article needs to be refined to more appropriate wiki tone. rjwmccafrey (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind saying which sources you consider meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria and are not simply linked to the publicity stunt of asking for a tester? You say your search turned up plenty of results can you maybe give some? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other uses citing actual WP policy on coverage needed. Lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly believe that this page is in line with WP:ENC. The topic of Sex dolls as propagated by this page is becoming increasingly relevant. It has been generating interest, both good and bad across the world. Hence, keeping the articles of the industry's most relevant firms is important. Secondly, it's also in line with the rest of the 5 pillars. One of the points there says "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" From every indication, this page is written in non-ad-like point of the view as seen in the "Controversy" point stated there. Finally, this page passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This is clear from the avalance of news-related references seen. The company made an advert which generated intrest in the media but good and bad. Thats' enough to prove notability. News media wrote about this without anybody paying for that. See these: [29], [30], [31]. These are from well known news media. Aside from the advert news info, there are also other news-related references such as these: [32] and this [33]. So, I believe the page should be kept. --isacdaavid 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the date on the tester job stories? They are all around a few days of one of another and then nothing else? The story was probably fed to the papers as part of a publicity stunt to generate coverage. There is almost nothing else there from RS. This fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The phenomenon of sex dolls does not mean that this page has to exist the information can be found . It doesn't matter if the page is written from a NPOV or not if notability is met or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. almost all the coverage is on the tester job advertisement, a pure publicity stunt, There's enough promotionalism in the world with out memorializing it here, The coverage doesnt rise to the extent that it would be worth covering as a stunt, and there's no other significant content. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP & WP:ORGDEPTH. Coverage offered above is PR-driven and publicity seeking. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Powers of the Earth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Onel5969, who asked for assistance on my talk page when their previous nomination suffered technical problems. I make this nomination purely as an administrative action and offer no opinion myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This won the Prometheus Award and has coverage in GNews: [34] [35] and elsewhere: [36] [37] [38]. There is something about an appearance by the author in the Concord Monitor: [39]. There is legitimate material in this article that could probably not be practically merged into the article on the award for reasons of length. At the previous AfD, this book had only been nominated for the award; some of the participants who argued for deletion said they would consider the book notable if it won the award. Now it has. As to the importance of the award, I cannot say whether it is a major SF award, but it seems to be the most prominent libertarian literary award (I can't find a more prominent one), with quite a lot of coverage. James500 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I largely agree with James500 (talk), in particular his comments about there not being any more prominent libertarian literary award and that those who previously argued for deletion would consider the book more notable if it won the award -- which it did, beating out a substantial number of other books, including those from much better-known and -established authors like Andy Weir, Ken MacLeod, and Sarah Hoyt. Even if some do not consider the award "major", it's longstanding (almost 40 years old, so this is not some recently-established vanity prize), and importantly, every single other book that has won this award has its own page. That seems pretty strong evidence of notability to me, and it would be odd if, for the first time, a winner of this award lacked its own page. Also, it was considered notable enough to be picked up by an audiobook publisher (with the audiobook being released on September 4th), which seems to confirm that it's not some small-run vanity project but a real and notable book. - Loweeel (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prometheus Award. That isn't an award that guarantees notability, though I'd expect its winners to often meet WP:GNG. In searching for references, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence is most prominent. Apart from the few mentions of the Prometheus Award win, all I've found is the book's Kickstarter and Goodreads pages. It may be WP:TOOSOON; perhaps the book will get some reviews after the win. Even in libertarian media, I can't find any right now. None of James500's refs are good from my view; the Concord Monitor one is clearly trivial with regards to the book, and everything else he links to is about the award. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - If we're going to host a page for the award itself, and I agree that we should, doesn't it follow that we should also host a page for as many of its winners as we can? Why maintain a list of notables but no indication of why they're notable? 74.95.123.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 15 August 2018 (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 Nils Carl Aspenberg. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baneforlaget[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP » Shadowowl | talk 21:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Nils Carl Aspenberg as the owner, CEO, and main author. gidonb (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 12 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Loves Jenna[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film). K.e.coffman (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete does not pass our very low notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources in the article such as Forbes, Regan Books and AVN and those found on the Google such as LAWeekly, Sydney Morning Herald and Kapanlagi, Easy Keep - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per:
- "the second-best-selling adult movie of all time" as of August 2004 article in Salon magazine,[40]
- "2001 video with contemporary megastar Jenna Jameson, Briana Loves Jenna, is legendary among porn watchers" in LA Weekly magazine[41]
- "became the bestselling adult film of the year" in Los Angeles Times[42] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant enough for inclusion due to awards, sales, rentals. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leaning towards keeping because of the reasons already mentioned by Davey2010 and Michig (The Sydney Morning Herald and the LA Weekly article, plus the awards and "bestselling adult film of the year"). Robertgombos (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I'm not convinced with the sources. This may warrant a redirect to Jenna_Jameson_filmography#Pornographic_films but not a stand-alone article. This is still a direct-to-video release; sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All porn in the United States goes straight to video. Porn theaters haven't been a thing since 1980. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Pee-wee Herman... Carrite (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the straw man. My point was that theater is not a major revenue stream. All porn is released to video or online. But porn theaters exist congrats! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:17, 17 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Assembly (school)[edit]

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

Delete Although the title says "school", this is in fact a company/organization that sells educational courses. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (most fail WP:ORGIND) and are not intellectually independent as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the big coding bootcamps, and has plenty of sources. The article cites several TechCrunch articles which, while not a traditional media outlet, is credible on technology issues like this one and has editorial oversight. There is also significant coverage from traditional outlets like WSJ, San Francisco Chronicle, South Florida Business Journal, Reuters, Forbes etc. While a lot of press headlines surround the business side of funding/acquisitions, there is also enough on the operations to form the basis of the article, and plenty of coverage significant enough to meet GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarginalCost's ref analysis, and that Forbes ref they supplied - that's definitely significant coverage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'm surprised at the Keep !votes above. I have analyzed the sources below and none meet the criteria for establishing notability as follows:
- This Forbes reference fails since it is on their "sites" part and therefore fails WP:RS.
- This coursereport.com reference is a website that lists every provider of bootcamp-like courses. The reviews are written by the public and fail RS. The description appears on other Bootcamp listing websites. The course information all comes from the company itself including the descriptions. This reference fails WP:ORGIND.
- This Techcrunch reference is largely based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from connected individuals. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This inc.com reference is an interview with the founders with no original analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND.
- The WSJ reference is a blog fails WP:RS (no editorial overview, etc)
- This TechCrunch reference is based on an company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
- This reference is from the company website and fails as a PRIMARY source
- This San Francisco Chronicle reference is based on quotations provided by the CEO and has no intellectually independent opinion or analysis and fails WP:ORGIND
- This bizjournals reference is based on rumour (shouldn't even be in the article IMO) and the contents fail as a WP:RS.
- This TechCrunch reference is based on a company announcement where Adecco acquired the company and relies extensively on quotations from connected sources. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- The skilledup.com reference is an exhaustive list of coding bootcamps which mentions General Assembly. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
- This PCMAG reference contains no information on the company itself and fails CORPDEPTH
- This geekwire reference only mentions the company in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This switchup reference contains reviews from the general public (fails WP:RS) and contains a generic description with no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This technical.ly reference is based on a company announcement, contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This edsurge reference is based on an interview/quotations from company officers, contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.

I'm happy to change my mind if references are found but the ones in the article don't cut it. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thanks for doing that detailed work. I agree with you that many of the sources listed are sub-par, and don't establish notability. But I guess my main disagreement comes in the definition/application of intellectual independence – I think you're being too strict here. Yes, many articles include information provided by the company or its workers, but the publications themselves report on other aspects and have editorial control. They're not just re-packaged press releases, which seems to be the main concern of ORGIND. I think the standard for original analysis you're seeking is unrealistic, though I guess part of the point of AFD is to get consensus around questions like these.

I'll also throw in this Inside Higher Ed piece on how GA's partnerships with universities are working, which is a little more in-depth, though focused on only one part of the business, though I doubt you'll find it much different than the others in this dimension.

Minor quibble: as far I can tell, all Forbes articles, even the ones that appear in the print edition (e.g.), have "sites" at the top of the URL. The article you cite seems to have been written by a random contributor, but the article I linked to here in the AFD was by a Forbes staff writer - though not in the print edition. WP:ORGIND specifically cautions against articles in Forbes written by non-staff writers. I'm not familiar enough with Forbes' process to say exactly what degree of editorial review was conducted here, but it's probably irrelevant since even the non-interview part of the article probably wouldn't meet your standards for intellectual independence. MarginalCost (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By way of background, there was much discussion before NCORP was updated so as to describe the correct interpretation of "independent" since at the majority of AfDs, some editors were interpreting only in terms of "functional independent" - that is, the publisher/author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. ORGIND provides this: Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.. Simple enough - if the journalist/author provides an independent opinion/analysis, all is good. Personally I don't believe it is too "strict" as it assists greatly in being able to winnow references. It is an incredibly low bar when you think about it. Also, yes, the Inside Higher Ed piece is written by a company involved in a partnership so it also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think the criteria is too strict, I think your standards for meeting it are, but I think we've covered that as well as we're going to. The IHE piece was written by an IHE News Editor - where do you see GA has a partnership with IHE? MarginalCost (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. If you can point me towards something particular where you believe my interpretation is too strict, I will gladly review. You are correct that I misstated above. What I should have said is that the article relies extensively on material provided by a company involved in a partnership with GA. I would say that it fails as per ORGIND, since there is no evidence of any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's excellent analysis of the sources which I have checked and concur with. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. HighKing's analysis is excellent, but I would disagree with the notion that simply because coverage includes inputs from the company CEO or employees, it does not include independent analysis and investigation, especially in the case of sources which are considered reliable on the whole. For example:
- The WSJ reference: While it is hosted on a WSJ blog site, it must not be entirely disregarded, per WP: NEWSBLOG, the journalist being a staff writer with WSJ.

In addition, the following coverage on the subject exists:

- Forbes feature: It is an interview, but an interview with Forbes would contribute towards WP: CORPDEPTH.
- NPR: Includes CEO inputs, but would be disingenuous to say that the article contains no intellectually independent analysis.
- The Economist: Again, includes CEO inputs but most certainly includes intellectually independent analysis. For example: At first sight the London office of General Assembly looks like that of any other tech startup. But there is one big difference: whereas most firms use technology to sell their products online, General Assembly uses the physical world to teach technology. Its office is also a campus. The rooms are full of students learning and practising code, many of whom have quit their jobs to come here.

Considering that all three would qualify as WP: IRS, would strongly argue that the article must be retained. I understand that WP: ORGIND is extremely important, but journalists do rely on inputs from company founders, especially in the case of private firms, to understand operations and scope of activities. Shobhit102 | talk 09:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response That's all very well so long as you realize that you are essentially agreeing that the sources fail WP:ORGIND but your own opinion is that the article should be kept anyway. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's what Shobhit102 is saying at all. What he is saying (and I agree with - he is putting it better than I was) is that while yes, these articles incorporate information from the company, that is not all they do. In the NPR Article & set of Economist articles linked above for instance they visited the office/campus. The Economist article & Forbes (the one written by a Forbes staff writer, not the other one), evaluates the impact of GA on the tech education industry as a whole. The Reuters article contains criticism from others in the industry about potential conflicts of interest, and notes the company's prior failures in disclosure. The NPR article (the strongest of all these sources) interviews people in the industry but outside the company on the relative performance of graduates vs. traditional CS degree-holders, and mentions state regulatory actions. Yes, all these include quotes from the company, its employees, and its published records, but it's not fair to say that these are strict rehashes of company talking points, or that no independent research, analysis, or verification was undertaken. With all that's been written about "the largest of the boot camps, by far" (IHE), I really don't see the need to delete. MarginalCost (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MarginalCost, these would precisely be my thoughts. To say that an article fails WP: ORGIND the moment it includes founder or employee inputs would not be appropriate characterization, or even fair to the publications or the writers. There's a certain nuance involved, and no, it does not mean that I agree that the articles fail WP: ORGIND.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit102 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Response The issue with articles that is not that include "inputs" from founder/employee but that they rely significantly on interviews/quotations from connected sources (including company officers, employees, partners, etc) to the point there is no intellectual independence as described in WP:ORGIND which states Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.. The references I've examined fail to demonstrate any original/independent content/opinon/analysis/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N and WP:V compliant. This seems like a well known coding school with multiple reliable sources, such as TechCrunch and Forbes. As for Forbes, it's got very little information IMHO. Might that affect things perhaps? 🖍S (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response There's a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that points out TechCrunch (generally) fails ORGIND. Forbes is even worse. Therefore it isn't WP:N complaint unless you can provide two other sources that will meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot HighKing, it was pretty useful to read the discussion. I did find additional coverage on the topic:

LA Times: Does not include any founder or employee inputs, is an analysis of people teaching themselves to code.

The New York Times Again, about learning to code with the coverage including a consumer's perspective of going through a General Assembly program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit102 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response The NYT article relies extensively on quotations/interview from a co-founder. "Extensively" mean there is no information or opinion that isn't the co-founders. It fails WP:ORGIND because if doesn't contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The LAT article mentions the firm three times, two of which is the name included in a list of companies described as "education startups" and the final mention provides an short description of the company's recent history in getting acquired which is not "significant" coverage and fails WP:SIGV. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note! CrayonS is blocked with checkuser evidence. As such, I have struck out the vote. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears to be leaning keep, but let's give it one more run. . .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no doubt that this is a good faith nomination and I also note that editors I respect favor deletion. However, I believe that the nominator is a bit too dogmatic in evaluating the relative independence of the various sources. Standard ethical journalistic practice calls for journalists to ask the subjects of their articles for comments and input. So, inclusion of comments by involved parties are not sufficient to judge a source as not independent. It is usually quite obvious when a news story is straight regurgitation of a press release or spin by corporate insiders. I am not seeing that with quite a few of these sources. Evaluating how much of an article by publications like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (for example) is original reporting and how much of it is "extensively" repetition of the company line is a skill for experienced editors. Keep in mind that these publications have good reputations for original reporting and are not known as PR regurgitators. In my opinion, there is more than enough original reporting and professional editorial judgment exhibited in the sources, and therefore I conclude that the threshold of notabilty has been met. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGIND. A promotional page for a for-profit institution. Sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH and are routine notices, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. Appears to be part of a promo walled garden around Adam Pritzker; the name sounded familiar because I had nominated one of articles related to him for deletion. The page under discussion was created by an account with few edits outside this topic, so COI-based editing is likely: Special:Contributions/Mentes. Delete, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some of the references are promotional, it's not reasonable to claim that NPR, the New York Times, and the LA Times articles all fail WP:ORGIND because their stories include quotes from people affiliated with the company; they have sufficient coverage apart from those quotes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 19 August 2018 (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 "keep" opinions do not address the problems identified with the sources. Sandstein 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Medeiros[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only an interview and a blog post. Vexations (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those new sources are not about the subject. One compares his pixel art tutorials to Disney's twelve principles of animation, and that is not serious commentary. The other only has that Pedro Medeiros is asking for donations on Patreon fir his tutorials. Vexations (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis of the new links. Maybe TOOSOON. I did some looking, and not enough independent RS. --Theredproject (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vexation's arguments.96.127.242.226 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep new sources were added. Brunhildr (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vexation's analysis of the new sources are on point. And I also feel that the article is TOOSOON. But if it has the potential to grow in the near future, I suggest it to be moved into AfC draftspace, so that the author can modify and publish it when the time comes. EROS ^message 10:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State–Temple football rivalry[edit]

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

This series between two in-state schools has been played for a long time, however, I don't see any evidence that it is an established, legit "rivalry". The biggest piece of evidence to support this claim, in my view, is the fact that Temple has only beaten Penn State four times in 45 meetings. There is no name for this rivalry, no trophy exchanged and no true animosity between the schools. This would be comparable to a Memphis–Tennessee football rivalry page. (Memphis and Tennessee are in the same state and have played a number of times through the decades but only 1 Memphis victory). When Temple wins, it is like winning the lottery for Temple and being mauled by a polar bear and black bear in the same day for Penn State. A Penn State victory is essentially expected by both sides and outsiders when they do play and there is no significant outside attention given to the matchup between these two squads. This does not have the makings of a "rivalry". CalebHughes (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything this lopsided doesn't qualify, or as Penn State football historian and author Lou Prato stated, "Temple…Never going to be a rivalry."[43] That's good enough for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Wikipedia doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. However, I see no indication in the article that a rivalry ever really existed. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a Google search brings up the following sources on the first page:
"It’s hard to call Temple-Penn State a rivalry because Penn State has dominated the all-time series..." (The Temple News)
"Many point to Penn State as the Owls’ biggest enemy, but four wins in 45 meetings is not considered a rivalry." (underdogdynasty.com)
"But for now, the Lions and Owls will continue to meet, and even though there’s no proclaimed rivalry" (Penn State Daily Collegian)
"...it will mark the 40th meeting between the two in-state rivals. I use the term "rival" loosely, because frankly it's not much of a rivalry." (SB Nation)

Doesn't seem like anyone considers it a rivalry, or, for that matter, ever has. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Playing another sports team does not automatically entail a “rivalry”. There are actually more sources here arguing there is not a rivalry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PCN02WPS. Cbl62 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ just playing each other often does not make it a rivalry. Fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep after new sources and research have been provided, it seems to me that this rivalry now passes WP:GNG. Wow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:SNOW delete I did search, because there certainly could be a significant rivalry I happen never to have heard of. But Penn State v. Temple is totally WP:MILL. The only puzzle is why someone went to the trouble of creating such a an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)strike comment, per new sources brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment - nominator fails to invoke WP:GNG and the above discussion mostly follows suit on a non-GNG basis.

Newspapers.com archives many regional newspapers. These papers do demonstrate "significant coverage" as required by GNG, including:

1940 (The Mercury) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83704266/ "NITTANY LIONS AND TEMPLE RENEW RIVALRY"
1976 (The Progress) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/60881506/ "Penn State has beaten Temple 10 times in 14 meetings. There has been one tie. The rivalry' resumed last vear for the first time since 1953."
1977 (AP/The Evening Standard) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/27914862/ "How does Pat Carey, doctor sound to you? Carey right now is concentrating on getting ready to quarterback Temple against Penn State Saturday in the heated state football rivalry."
1980 (Philadelphia Daily News) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/185681638/ "Temple-Penn State is on the verge of becoming more of a football rivalry than anyone ever anticipated."
1986 (Tyrone Daily Herald) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/13488146/ "Penn State has won eleven straight games in its series with Temple, which dates from 1931. The Nittany Lions have also captured 18 of the last 19 games in the rivalry, a streak interrupted only by a 7-7 tie in 1950."
1991 (Indiana Gazette) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/14273537/ "Penn State beat Temple for the 17th straight time and boosted its- series lead to 25-3-1 in the intrastate' rivalry. Temple hasn't defeated Penn State since 1941."
2010 (AP/The Republic) - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149077746/ "If Penn State is Temple's measuring stick, the Owls have been off by miles. This Pennsylvania rivalry is decidedly tilted in the Nittany Lions' favor."

This is "significant coverage," includes five different decades, and includes AP sourcing. As we're approaching a week since nomination, I'd ask any closing admin to allow time for additional review of the above, rather than closing based on the prior comments. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per UW Dawgs' sources, numerous reliable sources regard this as a rivalry, even if it is a lopsided one. That's good enough for me. Rlendog (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No valid reason to keep / contest the nomination Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of UW Dawgs' addition of 7 sources from 1940 to 2010 (UW Dawgs I hope they will make it to the article before the AFD discussion is over, as it will help the reviewers), likely to be more. In my view they justify GNG. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere trivial mention of a "rivalry", per WP:GNG, does not make it so. There is stronger evidence of a rivalry not existing between these schools than there is in support of a rivalry. There isn't enough to support WP:GNG. UTEP-UTSA football rivalry was deleted in spite of the fact that media sources proclaimed it a rivalry. There must be in-depth coverage beyond mere trivial mention, UW Dawgs. CalebHughes (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, done. 5 cites from 5 decades including 2 from Associated Press. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a sports fan but even I can't justify calling this a rivalry. The games get the expected local and Pennsylvania state coverage, as every game does, but the true test is whether this is covered in national papers (doesn't seem to be) and by what is reported besides the games themselves (nothing that I can see). A true rivalry exists even when the teams are not playing - that doesn't seem to be the case here, as pointed out above. No trophy, no reporting on the subject when the games aren't being played, etc. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/additional cites

8. September 5, 1982 (New York Times) https://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/05/sports/penn-state-passing-routs-temple-31-14.html "expects the football team to soon close the gap with its cross-state rival."

9. October 7, 1990 (AP via New York Times) https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/sports/college-football-east-late-duke-score-frustrates-army.html "Leroy Thompson and Gary Brown each rushed for more than 100 yards for Penn State, which has won 16 games in a row over its intrastate rival since the two teams played a tie in 1950."

10. September 22, 1996 (New York Times) https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/22/sports/penn-state-comes-out-pounding-and-temple-crumbles-in-defeat.html "It was Penn State's 21st consecutive victory over its cross-state rival and it raised the Lions' season record to 4-0. Temple dropped to 1-3."

11. September 15, 2011 (Philadelphia Tribune) "Temple, PSU match a new chapter in state rivalry" http://www.phillytrib.com/sports/basketball/temple-psu-match-a-new-chapter-in-state-rivalry/article_0a6f6f02-ae36-531b-b23e-f9e355f689df.html "The Nittany Lions would like to pick up a win against their in-state rival. Addazio expects Penn State to be well prepared for this contest."

12. November 15, 2014 (Philadelphia Inquirer) http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/temple/20141115_To_beat_Penn_State__Temple_needs_to_jump-start_offense.html "For many of their classmates and fans, this week for the Temple football team has been about beating the cross-state rival."

13. December 8, 2015 (Philadelphia Tribune) http://www.phillytrib.com/sports/temple-football-gets-bowl-game-invitation/article_09b413ee-fba7-5db5-82dd-7a2c3aa8775a.html "a 7-0 start was the program’s best ever, and a big opening day victory against Penn State, which was the first over the in-state rivals in 74 years."

14. September 17, 2016 (Philadelphia Tribune) http://www.phillytrib.com/penn-state-avenges-loss-to-temple/article_9f637806-c989-5d75-b3dd-0b43f1372d36.html "Early in the second quarter in the matchup with in-state rival Temple, Beaver Stadium announcer Dean DeVore..." "A 1-3 mark against in-state rivals Pittsburgh and Temple would have been unacceptable for Penn State fans restless for in-state success."

15. September 20, 2016 (Philadelphia Tribune) http://www.phillytrib.com/sports/in-loss-to-penn-state-temple-rb-jahad-thomas-reinvigorates/article_1a6bde59-d5ed-5b36-844b-97369a7ee8b2.html "Temple suffered a tough road loss to Penn State in an exciting matchup of the two in-state rivals."

There is clear national, local, and AP-syndicated coverage over decades from WP:RS which go well-beyond GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just because two sides have played each other does not make their playing each other notable enough a rivalry to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be delete. I hope this discussion is closed very soon and the page deleted in a swift manner also. CalebHughes (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per new sources showing it passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2018 (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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A1, WP:A11, WP:G1. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1417 km[edit]

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

One of many creations by Nikolai Kurbatov. Not a populated place, no clear indication of its actual location, no claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a fancy way of an article saying there's nothing there. Nothing on Google maps too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Russian article quotes a population of 32 in 2002, so it's a formerly populated place. PamD 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hōjicha Co.[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references are poor. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7) Non-notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I could find no sources at all. The article amounts to a promotion of the company sourced as it is solely from the company's own website. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate promotion fails WP:SPIP. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing very much for sourcing, so fails WP:GNG. Perhaps this could be merged as a one line add to the Hōjicha article, as the first North American importer. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:22, 18 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On-again, off-again relationship[edit]

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

This is a really shaky and poorly-written WP:DICDEF for a term which only seems to prevalent have use in tabloids and fictional books and not in regular society. The 'what links here' is limited to fictional characters and actors and public figures, and has likely been removed a countless number of times from the latter in many articles due to justifiable WP:BLP concerns. The first source is a dicdef of something else entirely, while #2 doesn't even use the term in full throughout the article. Every time I see it I hope that better sources have been found, but there hasn't been improvement that I've seen. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is poorly written but I feel that WP:DICDEF may not apply because of its notability as a common TV trope for couples in popular, long-running TV shows (Ross and Rachel, Carrie & Big, Sam & Diane, etc.). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Psychology Today is not a tabloid ("How Healthy Are On-Again/Off-Again Relationships?", "The Truth About On-Again, Off-Again Couples"). There are scholarly articles ("On-Again/Off-Again Dating Relationships: What Keeps Partners Coming Back?" in The Journal of Social Psychology, "A qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships: 'It’s up and down, all around'" in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships), articles by the BBC ("5 on-again, off-again celeb couples we truly can't keep up with"), the Huffington Post ("8 Great Things About On-Again/Off-Again Relationships"), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corrected to prevalent use in tabloids; certainly wasn't trying to call PT that by any means. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I see no reason to delete but the article surely needs expansion and rewriting. An important article by the title, but the content is rather trashy. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then blow it up and start over. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend. Then RW. --Theredproject (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. With extra clarifications and cites. Jimthing (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (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.