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 to keep this. It may be in need of some cleanup or a split or two, but that's not for AfD to solve or a reason to delete. I'll note that most !votes discuss the utility of the page rather than notability, so perhaps this isn't as resounding a keep as mere counting might suggest, but still, a strong keep for the content. ~ Amory(u • t • c)00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is going to get longer and longer as new Windows 10 updates come out. What can we do when the article reaches 500 kilobytes?? This article might violate "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts." Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline is for the release notes for software projects where each release is not notable (i.e. not described in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject). Each Windows 10 release has had non-trivial mentions in reliable third party sources, e.g. [1] (Windows 10 1803) [2] (Windows 10 1709) [3] (Windows 10 1703) etc. Indeed, the guidelink you link to says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article" (emphasis mine) Samboy (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How?? What will you do when this article reaches 300 kilobytes?? (Feel free to replace this with a larger number if you prefer.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There will be a day Win10 will be replaced with Win11 and that is when the size of the entry is decided.
I found the way the information is presented very useful and accessible. This entry gave exactly the information I was after helping me to solve an issue where otherwise I would have been left in the woods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.151.114 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there never will be such a day. Windows 10 will always be the newest version of Windows according to what Microsoft made official. Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Why is this even in WP:AfD?? I was Googling Windows update history and was shocked to see this AfD. Knowing which Windows 10 versions exist is very useful information. Finding references from reliable sources is trivial; here's one from a 20 second Google search for "Windows 10 1803" (the version running on my laptops): "Here's what's new in Windows 10 April 2018 Update". ZDNet. We do not delete articles because they might get too long; we split them (Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019; Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024; etc.) Deletion is for non-notable topics; Windows 10 updates, used by millions of users, are obviously notable. Samboy (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of secondary sources on the topic. Splitting by years (I imagine near years might make sense to sever along major updates) is the way to go. Deciding what size each article should be I would leave to those most interested in the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above, I use this page for reference often, but perhaps clean up the References, that section makes up most of the page and is a mess! 206.123.216.105 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure of great interest to some, and an extremely notable product, with this page keeping the more detailed information pertaining to it off the main Windows 10 page, and attempts to be informative and encyclopaedic.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's to keep the Windows 10 page from being too big. But we need a way to keep this page from being too big; it will just get bigger and bigger every time a new build of Windows 10 comes out. Georgia guy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information is extremely helpful when installing Windows 10 from an ISO and winver reports Build 10240 but it is known retroactively as 1507. This was the first hit on Google and answer my question perfectly along with additional releases so I know how far behind this system is. --64.141.165.2 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Samboy: - the article is clearly too long at its current length - I think waiting until 2019 to launch a break would leave it too late. It would be the easiest to get user approval for (since it doesn't require any difficult break-point discussion) but would leave a very large article. I think 2015-17 ( that's inclusive: 2015-2018 exclusive) makes more sense, i.e. end of last year.
In any case, these are post-AfD discussions, there is a clear solution to the article's only issue, and that issue didn't warrant deletion in any case Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs the approval of the Wikipedia bureaucratic committee to split up an article if it’s getting too big. Just do it! I know this isn’t the Wikipedia of 2005, but, really, whoever goes to the effort of splitting the article gets to decide how to split it up. This isn’t a hot button article about religion, politics, or sex—so I don’t think people are going to make any significant controversy. Samboy (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very true - I can't imagine any split you (or another) implementing causing significant controversy if you just went for it. My point is just to stop a future argument that the articles are still too big because they've been severed into too large chunks. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly... But, just remembering: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." King James Version (KJV)
I am sure that future things can be dealt with when they are really present. Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases. Aainitio (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" - generally a dangerous viewpoint to hold in life I would say, @Aainitio:! "Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases." - A spectacularly optimistic POV given past experience with the site, I feel!
Our contrasting world viewpoints aside, that was just my advice on article size breaking - it's not an article I'm linked with, nor is size-splitting a speciality of mine, so we'll see what happens then. While there is a delete !vote at the top, we've really hit snow grounds now. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I refer to this article when I need to and I find it helpful. I don't agree with the purpose of deleting the article. Just split it in different page and sub-page and that's it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this information is very helpful and useful, sort of like technical world history. In 10-years when we find that Win10 PC running 16299.248 we will know what it means without having to read 10 pages on a Microsoft site. If the article can not grow larger than 500KB then perhaps offload some data into new sub-articles or trim out extraneous details from this main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrFour (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep as it has been and continues to be a very useful resource. There are other, varied ways to resolve excessive article length concerns. Timeshift (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but split... this article into suitable subsets, so that such subsets refer, for example, to chosen arguments, such as time (year, semester or other), edition or otherwise. Thus, the current article would have only the initial part and the evolution table ("Overview").
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.
Keep. Some of the references weren't formatted. They are now, and I think the references from reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs)06:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AfD nomination is incorrect, the ((note)) tag does not mean an article "fails notability". Only AfD can determine that, and there has been no consensus about it. Second, the article contains numerous in-depth biographical profiles of Hamburger including a front-page feature article. More so when you read them it becomes clear he did something unusual in his field, he is an innovator in his profession. There is a reason all these sources about him. I agree there is some salesmanship in the writing, I started working on it just prior to the AfD. -- GreenC02:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very borderline notable at best, and almost entirely promotional. Most of the refs are from his own site or obvious PR. One WSJ article does not prove notability in theabsence of anything else. 80% of the content is listing his opinion and talks he has givern. No indication his law firm is notable; no indication his charity is foundation; no indication his conference seies is notable. The content in the section on his conference consists of namedropping the people who attended. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hamburger "helped define the (Registered Investment Adviser) industry" (Wealth Magangement magazine). He "took the independent advisory model to the next level" (October 2008 issue of Investment Advisor). These are direct assertions of notability by independent reliable sources. Do we trust the expert sources, or the opinions of Wikipedia editors who may or may not be expert in the field of RIA. -- GreenC
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.
No sources, the article is insufficient. It's also being considered for deletion in the portuguese wikipedia. There are no volcanoes in Brazil btw. Holy Goo (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a very useful list. People often search for physical features by country and this list (even if it is small) is useful for navigation purposes. An example of a similar list with more information is List of volcanoes in India. This article can also be similarly augmented with additional information.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should never apply policies from one language wiki to another. I was going to vote strong keep, but doing a bit (but not enough) research into extinct volcanoes in Brazil and its islands, I found that the page for Pico do Cabugi states this is the only extinct volcano in Brazil to exhibit its original form. I have added a ((disputed inline)) template to that statement and added a note on its talk page, as a result of this paper which suggests Pico do Cabugi is simply a sub-volcanic neck which has experienced differential erosion, and does not classify as an extinct volcano. Similarly, please read Nova Iguaçu Volcano to discover that as yet there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is the site of an extinct volcano. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to investigate Trindade and Martin Vaz.I f there's any doubt, I feel this list should be kept, at least pending any downgrading of volcano status at the three listed pages. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately many users use the English-speaking rules in Portuguese and so it continues ... so I believe that the proponent has found that such a list would not be able to continue active in en.wiki, so much so that it was used as an argument in the very discussion of this language in Portuguese.
Despite this, I consider two relevant points to be corrected. (1) There are no active volcanoes in Brazil, it is not necessary to quote "[...] of active and extinct volcanoes." (2) "Nova Iguaçu Volcano" is a supposed volcano, with no scientific evidence, so it should fit in since the little introduction says "active and extinct"?
Finally, I do not consider such a list useful because of the lack of information, it would be eliminated (as it is well under way) in Portuguese, but since I do not know English rules, I prefer not to comment. Le Comte Edmond Dantèsmsg19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conde Edmond Dantès (talk • contribs) [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.
Has been listed on Forbes 30 under 30, has listed a few non-notable awards, a couple of passing mention but nothing in depth and it's just another WP:PROMO page Edidiong (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply stating that Gilbert Eugene Peters is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the he may not be notable. I have removed the non-notable awards from his profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmagaisa (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 June 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. Numerically split. Several opinions on both sides need to be discounted as pure votes, etc. The rest are divided regarding the indiscriminateness of the list and the notability of the topic; this is a matter of editorial judgment. Sandstein 08:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“This information could be displayed more sensibly in the articles about the relevant Politicans themselves. Additionally Wikipedia is a not a list of indiscriminate information WP:NOTSTATS.” I personally don't agree but if it violates rules of Wikipedia, then all articles have to be removed, not only the Russian article. There are no exceptions. There are two options: or to remove all such articles, or to restore the Russian article. Norvikk (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk ·contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . It is hypocritical to keep these articles about India, Iran, the United States, and the Philippines and delete the article about Russia. AyodeleA1 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "diplomatic visits to the United States" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
"when President Louis Borno of Haiti indicated that he would like to make such a visit in 1926, he was told that he could, but only at his own expense."
"The first visit to the United States officially classed as a state visit was that of President Syngman Rhee of Korea in 1954, followed by that of President Tubman of Liberia."
"Red carpets are the international norm, but in 1959 the president of the Republic of Ireland, Sean O’Kelly, arriving on St Patrick’s Day, was provided with a green carpet!"
"Presidents Truman and Eisenhower used to greet guests at the railway station or airport, but as the tempo of visits of all categories increased, Eisenhower was convinced in 1957 to move the greeting ceremony to the White House. As a result, the next scheduled visitor, King Saud of Saudi Arabia, took offence and cancelled his visit. In the end Eisenhower had to agree to go to the airport to meet him."
In 1939 US President Franklin Roosevelt invited Britain’s King George VI to visit the United States, having learnt that the king was about to visit Canada. This June 1939 visit was not only the first by a reigning British monarch to Canada, but also to the United States."
"US President Clinton delighted Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma by upgrading his visit to Washington as a state visit, only the fourth of his presidency, in response to Ukraine’s serious economic reforms and adherence to nuclear non-proliferation."
"This led to diplomatic turmoil when the president of the Republic of China visited the United States in 1995. Although President Lee [Teng-hui] was officially granted only a visa to attend a university reunion, Beijing’s government protested vociferously."
"This was one reason why in June 1939 when George VI visited the United States it was decided not to send the foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, as minister-in-attendance in order to avoid any suggestion of Anglo-American collusion. "
"In 1970, an otherwise well-choreographed visit by French President Georges Pompidou was marred when demonstrators protesting the sale of French warplanes to Libya jostled Pompidou and his wife on a side trip to Chicago."
"That’s a step above the reception accorded Haitian President Louis Borno, who was told in 1926 – before state visits existed in the U.S. government lexicon – that he could have an official visit, “but only at his own expense,” Goldstein said."
"The first visit to the United States officially classified as a state visit in modern times was that of President Syngman Rhee of Korea in 1954, Goldstein said."
"The president of the Republic of Ireland got a green carpet welcome in 1959."
"President Dwight Eisenhower was convinced in 1957 to move the greeting ceremony to the White House from the airport. The next visitor, King Saud of Saudi Arabia, was offended and canceled. “In the end,” Goldstein said, “Eisenhower had to agree to go to the airport to meet him.”"
"In 1976, Turkish President Cevdet Sunay spent 11 days in the U.S., stopping in 11 cities including Palm Springs, Calif., and Los Angeles."
"a lavish state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderon after news reports put the cost for the 2010 event – featuring entertainment by Beyonce – at nearly $1 million."
Throughout the history of the United States, there have been approximately 300 visits to this country by foreign chiefs of state, heads of government, and similarly ranked leaders, including foreign ministers. To the end of World War I there were only some 30 such visits. By way of contrast, since 1939 there have been more than 200, accounting for more than two-thirds of the total.
This increasing hegira of foreign government leaders to the United States in the last two decades is rather impressive. In October 1929 Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald of Great Britain came to Washington and conferred with President Herbert Hoover respecting the proposed London naval conference, the distinguished Briton remaining for a twelve-day visit.9Prime Minister Churchill consulted with President Roosevelt in Washington on at least three occasions during World War II. Between 1939 and 1945 the President was host to about thirty visits. The roster includes the Presidents of Czechoslovakia, Iceland, and several Latin American countries; the exiled-President of Poland the Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand; and members of European royalty, the latter accounting for about half of the visits.10
During the earlier years of President Truman's incumbency, state visits to Washington were occasional, but the tempo increased in his last term, 1949-1953. He played host to approximately twenty visits. Half of these were by chiefs of state, and the remainder included Prime Ministers, a President-elect, Crown Princes and Princesses, the deposed King Michael of Rumania, and General Charles deGaulle of France—all of whom were accorded appropriate state receptions. During the Truman Administration visitors came from Europe (including such countries as Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Rumania, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries) and the Middle East (including Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), as well as from India, Pakistan, the Philippine Republic, Canada, and a number of the Latin American countries. The last (April 1952) and perhaps the most highly publicized was the visit of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, which included not only the formal visit to the National Capital but also a three-week tour of the United States followed by a brief sojourn in Canada.10
Since the inauguration of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States in January 1953, the state visit to the United States has been employed on an unprecedented scale. If one includes Prime Minister Churchill's pre-inaugural visit of January 1953, there were an even fifty such visits to the United States during the first term, and some fifty-nine by the end of 1957.12 These embraced nineteen by chiefs of state13 and forty by heads of government and comparably ranked individuals.14During 1957 there were the colorful state visits of King Saud of Saudi Arabia, of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip of the United Kingdom, and of King Mohamed V of Morocco, as well as those of the President of Viet Nam, the Chancellor of West Germany (on his fifth visit in five years), and the Prime Ministers of France, Japan, and Pakistan.
...
During the five-year period, 1953-1957, nearly all non- Communist Asian countries sent dignitaries on state visits to Washington, as did all non-Communist European states except Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The President also played host to representatives from all of the British dominions except the Union of South Africa. However, during President Eisenhower's first term none of the state visitors came from any member of the League of Arab States, the Middle East being represented solely by Iran and Turkey. After hostilities broke out in Egypt, King Saud of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince of Iraq (as well as the Foreign Minister of Lebanon) arrived in Washington for overlapping visits in late January and early February, 1957. The distinguished guests of the United States Government therefore have represented nearly forty different countries during the past five years. The fact that most non- Communist countries of Europe and Asia were so represented, but only one-fourth of the Latin American neighbors, perhaps persuaded the Eisenhower Administration to promote the calling of the Panama Summit Conference in 1956, obtensibly to commemorate the 130th anniversary of the Congress of Panama.
Normally an official state visit to Washington entails a three- day stay in the national capital. In exceptional cases a dignitary may be in Washington for only one day or, as in the case of President Syngman Rhee of the Republic of Korea (5 days) and King Saud of Saudi Arabia (10 days), the period may be extended.16 In addition to enjoying the Washington ceremonials, the visitor may spend additional time in the United States for a variety of reasons—to travel, to visit historic monuments and sites, to receive honorary degrees, to deliver public addresses, or for general good will purposes. Some have remained for as long as a month or more.17
A footnote:
17. The fifty-day visit of His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, in 1954, was quite exceptional.
Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia made six official state visits to the United States between 1954 and 1973. His reception by his American host, the President of the United States, reflected the official attitudes of the United States towards Africa in general and towards Ethiopia specifically during the Cold War era. Each visit is a special story, a strand that weaves a patterned fabric of the history and foreign relations of the two nations. The Emperor’s personal diplomacy during his state visits with Eisenhower in 1954, with Kennedy in 1963, with Johnson in 1967, and with Nixon in 1969, 1970, and 1973 produced varied results that demonstrated the depth of mutual reliance between the two nations as well as the international celebrity of Haile Selassie.
…been a theme during the state visits to the United States by President Aquino in 1989, President Ramos in April 1998, President Estrada in 2000, and President Arroyo in August 2002. These visits were reciprocated by the state visits to the Phillipines of U.S. presidents William J. Clinton in November 1994 and George W. Bush in October 2003.
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.
Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the ((Expand list)) template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:List notification templates. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the ((Dynamic list)) template.
I do not think a complete list of all the diplomatic visits would be excessive given that incomplete lists are fine.
Keep. I began writing out a deletion rationale, and realized while typing it that it didn't make sense. The lists actually have a clearly defined scope: visits from heads of state to a sovereign country. There are actually not very many of those. Furthermore, contra Cunard, I do not believe these to be appropriate material for politician/head of state bios. A head of state who holds office for an entire term is likely to make 20+ visits in their career. In their biographies, these become distracting detail (I should know; I've spent a lot of time pruning such material). The only feasible alternatives are "list of visits by [head of state]", or "list of visits to [country]". Of the two alternatives, I find the latter to be a more logical and easy-to-follow alternative, although both could conceivably exist. As an aside, the topic "Diplomatic visits to [Country X]" is quite feasible as an article, but a separate article, which doesn't just refer to heads of state. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I do apologise: the nomination was made by Power~enwiki, not Cunard, as I said above: Cunard was responsible for the notification which led me here. ALSO, I believe we should revisit the Russian Federation list. While there was clearly consensus in that discussion, the discussion itself had only two participants, which isn't enough for a substantive topic, in my view. ALSO re: visits to the UN: it should be fairly straightforward to define article scope in a way that visits to the UN are not considered visits to the US (which they shouldn't be). Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are clear inclusion and exclusion criteria per WP:LSC and each visit is not notable on its own. If the resulting list ends up being too large, it can be broken up by decades. Reliable sources do group diplomatic visits to a particular country such as WSJ's State Visits to India in 2010 gallery, The Hindu's piece on memorable state visits to India, India Today's US Presidential visits to India gallery. Moving the state visits to the visiting politician's article is not a good alternative as it cannot show how a country's relationship with others has evolved over the years. —Gazoth (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Ministerial-level visits to countries are entirely unremarkable (speaking as someone who's organised a couple of them in previous jobs). Leader-level visits are somewhat more notable, but are best covered in the articles on the relations between countries rather than rambling articles which attempt to lump them together in an unmanageable way. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, per LISTN. I might be able to support inclusion of pared down lists of notable visits, with each entry appropriately sourced, but what we have here are fairly indiscriment lists that will never be complete. I feel bad for the contributors, as clearly a lot of work went into these lists, but this not what wikipedia is for. Yilloslime (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of List of diplomatic visits to the United States sets the inclusion criteria as "International trips made by the heads of state and heads of government to the United States".
The lead of List of diplomatic visits to India sets the inclusion criteria as "a list of heads of state and heads of government who have visited India".
Delete all. I just can't see anyone really using these pages. They are likely to be incomplete and often lack sources, they are a hoaxers gift. A list of Formal head of state visits might have value if sourced but I don't think private visits or ministerial visits are notable Lyndaship (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.
The inclusion criteria of List of diplomatic visits to the United States is "International trips made by the heads of state and heads of government to the United States". This criteria is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" I presented above. WP:LISTCRITERIA supports retaining this article, not deleting it.
List of state visits to Iran and List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines set the inclusion criteria as both leader-level visits and ministerial-level visits. To remedy the concerns about these lists' inclusion criteria being too broad, their inclusion criteria should be changed to include only leader-level visits. That requires a simple pruning of the list instead of complete deletion.
Keep I think there are people here who want this deleted for exactly opposing reasons. The nominator want this delete since they believe that including every visit is indiscriminate but having a partial list is not possible. I wonder how they reach this conclusion. Then there is another editor who supports the delete claiming that a partial list is not useful (implying that a complete list is useful?) and adding that references are insufficient (the last time I checked, List of diplomatic visits to India) had over 250 references and I know because I added a bunch of them even before this page was every nominated. The suggestion by the nominator is to merge the visits with the respective leaders visits which will (as already stated) will lead to unnecessary content inflation on those pages. I certainly believe that many of the events in the lists meet WP:GNG on their own, say the first visit of an American visit to the Indian Republic Day (which was hailed historic and received extensive news coverage) and some of them ever merit individual pages of their own. In addition, these lists provide the reader with a better understanding of each countries overall foreign relations with different countries (this point has already been alluded to before). Yes the lists do need some pruning and overall improvement. There can be a separate discussion on what is entailed during this pruning but I strongly believe that the solution is not an outright deletion of these pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 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.
Weak keep - Might be able to narrowly scoot past WP:NCORP. Page creator isn't the same as the now-deleted version, so contents are probably different this time. There's a number of articles in the company's native language that appear to be about the software ([4], [5]), along with English articles like this (note that this is a press release, and therefore doesn't entirely justify notability), and even an article in Japanese. Only about 3 of the articles I've found through my own searches or through checking the inline citations already in use are properly in-depth, but the others can be used as minor resources for extra content. Nanophosis (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Useful Information
Ended up on the article from the Comparison of Remote Desktop Software which I visit often to see if there are any new ones I've missed. I find these pages very useful. I really hope this one and the others from it don't get deleted. If anything lets improve the content not delete articles others find useful.68.119.40.81 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
This product page represents one of the early international Remote Desktop and Support product entrants and is relevant to the history of that industry and product type. There are others similar to it shown on the "Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software" pages, evaluating those companies wiki articles does not demonstrate on average more notability than this article provides. See the company's Wiki page in another region also Slovenian Wikipedia entry on ISL Online. Wdslwalling
Keep - WP:GNG is followed through. Along with secondary sources being used throughout the article. The WP:CONTN states that if the source material exists, then even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject’s notability. RoseChella —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article may not be in full potential but I suggest that a reimprove tag be placed on it. CatsloveDogs
Delete. The article creator has added promotionally-worded statements from dubious sources even since the article was nominated for deletion. Deb (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also may I add, WP:AUD which states that it is clearly notable to be on the Wikipedia because it has following on social media and has many articles about it in different languages and created outside of the US. RoseChella —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoseChella: You do not get two votes just because you created the article. Your changes to the article added promotional wording and are not therefore an improvement. Also, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation to establish whether you are controlling the SPAs that have contributed to this discussion. Deb (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: There is no promotional content, there is informational information about the company. That is the whole point of Wikipedia, is to better it. If pages keep getting taken down about companies then the information in those articles can't help people understand what that company is.
Comment - I'd also like to point out Deb that taking down or reverting my other changes is in violation of WP:PERSONAL. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Taking down my R.H Sin article was completely ill-mannered and other people had edited on the article and found that as useful. Along with my Samantha King Holmes article that was up for very short, there was no advertising or promotional content on any of my articles. WP:WIP. RoseChella
"the information in those articles can't help people understand what that company is" - you're talking about advertising the company. Deb (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taking down other articles due to unambiguous advertising is not relevant for this AfD-procedure. Articles are judged on their own merits, so it is the content of the article what decides its fate, not the author. When you take removal for "unambiguous advertising" as a personal attack, it might be that you lack understanding the concept of an encyclopedia. The Bannertalk16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with other remote access and support company product pages
I am unclear why this page has repeatedly been tagged for deletion when no other remote access and support company or product pages have been during this period. I have anonymously contributed to the prior deleted versions and also to this one to a lesser degree, this is a real product and a real company producing a product that is notable and heavily used in many European and Asian markets, recently entering the US market.
In fact, the whole workings with all the single purpose accounts, the sockpuppet investigation and the rather promotional editing after the nomination is not making the article more reliable. The Bannertalk15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no established notability, and Salt (due to repeated re-creation, COI editing and socking). The article's sources consist of press releases, articles in self-published or associated websites, advertorials in trade magazines and PR platforms, blogs and similar low-quality sources. None of these types of sources is sufficient to establish notability. Uninvolved good-faith editors (or non-socking COI editors with a valid transparent disclosure) are welcome to use the draftspace and AfC review process, if additional better sources become available in the future. Currently the article's referencing is tainted with the excessive usage of promotional low-quality "sources". Also, the existance of other articles in similar poor shape is no valid argument to retain this one (see WP:OSE). GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 16 June 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.
Commissioned spam of a bureaucrat. As such, it fails WP:N by not meeting WP:NOTSPAM. He get's the standard appointment announcement spam that is routine coverage of a government announcement, not counting towards the GNG, but otherwise all we have is quotes. This guy is has no business being in Wikipedia, and the fact that it's spam makes it worse. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management" is certainly the kind of claim that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG as the subject of media coverage for it, but it is not an "inherently" WP:NPOL-passing role that allows him to keep a badly sourced article just because he exists. The sourcing here is parked on a government press release and an internal civil service newsletter, not on reliable source coverage that's independent of his employer, so it doesn't help to establish his notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. No prejudice against having this article, now or in future, if such coverage can be found. Note: This is a different person than the Michael Rigas convicted of financial crime at Adelphia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 16 June 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.
Note it says this is the second nomination, but the first time was for an album by this name. If the article remains it should be rewritten. A staff writer for Adventure Gamers gave it a detailed review. [6] Might be more coverage somewhere. DreamFocus22:49, 9 June 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.
Untitled album - fail WP:N for verification CASSIOPEIA(talk)15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)* Comment - For those who vote keep - those comment are backed without based on any Wikipedia policy/guidelines. If an unamed event/album on working state white white board state some "working names" are considered acceptable, then millions of unknown event / title would be permissible in Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON.[reply]
Keep. Album will be out in less than a week, following the release of Kids See Ghosts. The album will be titled within the week as more information comes in (as seen with the release of Daytona too). Deleting this page would just mean recreating it maybe the next day. Nice4What (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album will be out in less than a week, and it will surely receive a title in that time. No reason to go through the hassle of deleting it just to recreate it. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as the nom is based around getting WP:V from WP:N, then the "not base don policy" argument in invalid as well, I cited GNG, and just re googled it. cinco de L3X1◊distænt write◊01:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Undecided for now) - As of today, 9 June, the most recent news articles on this album that I can find are from 22/23 April and those said the album would be released on 15 June. But that is six days from now and iTunes, Amazon Music, and Spotify do not have listings for this album as a "coming soon" item. It is time to doubt the accuracy of the release date. It is suspicious to not even have a title at this point, and a supposed blockbuster album like this has not been mentioned in the press for the past five weeks before its supposed release date. The nominator has a good point here and I would suggest deleting or redirecting the article if things don't come together in the next few days. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really in question, imo. This album is part of a series of releases that began with Daytona, Ye, and Kids See Ghosts, with one album being released each week up to this point. All of the albums have been "surprise dropped", i.e. no set-in-stone tracklist/art before release, and Daytona and Ye did not get titles before very close to release either. You can debate whether it was necessary to make a page (I wouldn't have) but killing it off with less than a week to go strikes me as a bit pointless. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There is something in the news about an upcoming Nas album but per WP:NOTFUTURE, subjects "pre-assigned to future events or discoveries are not suitable article topics if only generic information is known". Since the album is supposedly scheduled for release in the coming week, I don't see why it shouldn't be draftified and later moved to the proper title. The editor whose username is Z0 15:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC) - Edit: Keep - has been released now. Notable album. The editor whose username is Z011:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album will surely be out in a few days going off of the track record of the GOOD Summer releases so far (Daytona, Ye, Kids See Ghosts). No real purpose of deleting it this close to the release as mentioned above. Ninjinian (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has already received 20,000 page views. It's obvious that readers are visiting this page from other West-related articles and looking for information. At this point, I think we should be pushing for a Speedy keep now. Nice4What (talk) 01:22, 12 June 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.
Unnotable soundtrack compilation; both games had their own album releases, why should a compilation that got hardly any press coverage receive its own page? Lordtobi (✉) 14:09, 9 June 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 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.
Delete this highly promotional text, created by a kamikaze account, about a subject lacking notability aside from mentions in a few trade blogs and sites. The first thing they learn apparently is to cram the text with "references". Say "cheese!" -The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional, at least the way the article is written right now. And like The Gnome, a quick search online for me turned up no reliable independent sources (only their own site/advertising). Clearly fails WP:GNG by that measure. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 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.
Delete Magnr as well as the similar article under the previous name Btc.sx. This is a bit confusing however. Is Magnr/Btc.sx defunct? I can't find any info one way or another, but nothing on their website (still up) or in the news, or anywhere else seems to indicate any form of existence since December 2017. Which is a big problem - whichever choice we take - dead or alive - we're taking a big chance of lying to our readers. Simple solution, since it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, delete. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:33, 11 June 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.
Non-notable singer. The given sources do not establish notability (Xing listing, and ref #2 doesn't mention his name or the referenced song). A google search revealed no in-depth coverage in independent sources (just a few song listings on sales sites and 1-2 promotional gig announcements). GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find nothing but basic song listings and promotional info copied from his own website. Note that there are two other Larry Elliott's in WP: one is an author and the other a football coach. Those will complicate the search for info on this musician. The title of this article would have to be corrected if it is kept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)00:07, 10 June 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.
Comment. Please expand it on its own authority (not from FATA) to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please expand it rather than deletion. We also have other articles about proposed provinces in Pakistan, like Saraikistan which exist despite being less sourced than Qabailistan. Khestwol (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saraikistan is not a good example, the proposed area for that covers multiple existing provinces so we cannot redirect it to one province page but here Qabailistan was just a name proposed for one region and that name proposal also just have nominal press coverage, the proposal died in the womb, did not even make it to infancy. There will be no future press coverage as well but we will have an article for it in Wikipedia just because a couple of folks mentioned that name. Also, the article you created presumed that the region of that name already exists if it was not for me to maintain due weight. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:11, 9 June 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 musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:28, 1 June 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 musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has nominated a few articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines. Local coverage does not preclude a band being notable, and they are covered in national newspaper like The Straits Times - [22][23]. They argument that coverage of the band is only local is in any case clearly false, as they have in fact being covered outside Singapore - [24][25][26]. Please note that it is necessary to perform a check for sources first before nominating an article for deletion per WP:BEFORE. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Hzh has identified significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Strait Times which shows the subject passes WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG and the Gnome has removed the promotional content, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 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 don't really need to write a rationale, because TonyBallioni has already written it. Just let me know when the inevitable DRV happens. Black Kite (talk)10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is still in high school. Such individuals are very rarely notable, and nothing suggests that Anderson is an exception to this general rule of thumb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to John Pack Lambert's assertion, he is no longer in high school. He has graduated and is now on campus at Indiana University, where he will play basketball for the Indiana University Hoosiers. He is one of the top recruits in the country and Wikipedia is full of other examples of similarly ranked players with pages. When this was first nominated for deletion, I thought it was a joke by a rival university (and perhaps it is). This easily meets the notability requirements, particularly if you look at the player pages for other similar programs.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may meet GNG but seriously @IndyNotes:, and @Smartyllama: he is in high school this year and begins at IU in the fall. Read here for how his season in high school is going this year and how he was persuaded to commit to Indiana for next year. Very clear, and easy to find in a google search, how much did either of you actually read in making your claims of notability.67.158.64.105 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the last day for students is Wednesday the 6th and graduation is on Saturday the 9th. IU recruits report on June 12 to Bloomington but can't have formal practices with the team until the fall. Perhaps semantics, but since he is still going to play in an all-star game for high school students, well you finish that for yourself. Correction, that game was last night and he skipped it, my bad.67.158.64.105 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that you keep nominating things for deletion and only then checking to see if it meets GNG. Either way, I'm glad you seem to now understand your nomination was in error. Let's move on.--IndyNotes (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment either way he has still not played 1 game in NCAA competition, and even playing in NCAA competition is no where near grounds for notability. The school I teach at does not get out until the 21st of June.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The high school calendar depends on the state. I don't know what state you're in, but many states' schools are out already. June 21 is unusually late, but not unheard of by any means. Smartyllama (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a pointless argument. High school players don’t meet a SSG anyway - the question is does this person meet WP:GNG? Many of the top high school players do. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a LeBron James level of coverage, high school athletes are not notable; WP:YOUNGATH is an exclusionary standard. The reference listed are insufficient at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The evidence that he is now enrolled at Indiana University are numerous, but here's one example of support for that: [35]. That's really unnecessary to support keeping this article -- it should be kept regardless -- but there you have it nonetheless.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I came very close to closing this as delete because not a single policy-based argument has been made for keeping it, and policy based arguments have been made for deletion. I'm !voting instead so when the inevitable DRV occurs, there is more for this deletion to be upheld on: stating that high school coverage becomes satisfactory upon enrollment is not in the spirit of the policy and certainly doesn't make common sense. If we follow this ridiculous logic, every single high school quarterback from middle of nowhere America who becomes a third string quarterback at the junior college suddenly would have all of their local paper's coverage count towards notability.The standard here is exclusionary and clear High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. I'm sorry, but high school athletes getting coverage because they signed with a university is the very definition of routine and doesn't simply become exempt from the requirement because 2 months (or less!) have passed. The keeps here are stretching our inclusion policy to ridiculous lengths and should all be ignored as the standard is 100% clear and this person fails it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping /deleting a page should be based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies which after THIS IS WIKIPEDIA and the policies and guidelines are here for the reasons. No double his is talented but have not competed in a game in NCAA doesnt not pass WP:NSPORT. When the time comes and appropriate where subject "meets" the notability guidelines, then a page will be merited in mainspace. As of current stand, it is WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA(talk)06:21, 17 June 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.
Keep. I've seen many articles nominated for quick closure but allowed to remain, which subsequently turned into worthwhile articles as more evidence came in. No need to rush to judgment. Nihil novi (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because the award “Distinguished Service for Polish Culture” but I’m not sure about the other things, that’s why a weak keep but “keep”.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass any SNG (PROF is quite far fetched here, the medal doesn't amount to much - it is not a major award). Isn't close to passing GNG. The article itself is a mess, particularly the focus on coats of arms in his family. Founding/co-founding genlogical societes for his ancestors does not amount to much, nor does being a blogger or YouTuber. What we are missing is any semblance of WP:SIGCOV - which this subject quite simply does not have.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major award according to whom? You? Polish gov't seems to disagree. The awards are given by the Minister of Culture, the ceremony is mentioned on MoC website, where Minakowski and other recipients are called 'distinguished individuals' [36]. As for WP:PROF, he is mentioned (cited, described by something like 200 works according to Google Books), through he doesn't have much impact according to Google Scholar [37]. His books, while self-published, are held by several libraries ([38]). Lastly, his work and he himself have attracted coverage from major, mainstream Polish newspapers and magazines: Newsweek [39], GP [40] (on Polish-Jewish issues, btw), RP [41], he is occasionally cited in passing ([42]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And being a member of the DAR doesn't count towards notability. Any woman who can prove her direct descent from someone who aided the cause of American independence qualifies. DAR members can be notable for other reasons, of course. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject lacking notability. I'm sure that our fellow, Polish-speaking editors know the subject quite a lot. But that does not count for much. The subject is described in the article as a "philosopher" and a "historian" yet fails WP:ACADEMIC; as a "genealogist" but without any sources demonstrating notability in that line of work; as a "blogger" yet where are the sources to support at least WP:WEB; and as a "YouTuber", in which case where are the hits? -The Gnome (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the verge of weak keep but still the sources overall and a Google search indicates notability. The article needs a rewrite though when kept. BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 11 June 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.
Keep There are plenty of available sources (though not cited in the article), certainly enough for a section at Pantheon-Sorbonne University. In this case, there seems to be enough for a standalone article. Let's keep for now and have a separate merge discussion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:49, 25 May 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.
Delete – In actuality I found quite a few references for Jake Cruise, as shown here [44] that I believe generates enough coverage to meet WP:GNC. However in actually Jack Cruise is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso [45] a real person. As such, in that Jack Cruise is a fictional character, article should be deleted.ShoesssSTalk14:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sparse coverage there is is not of cruise but of his company, and that would be better covered in a topical article about the issues that lead to his company incuring fines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How anyone gets "zero hits" on a Google search for this name is dumbfounding. The name by itself gets over TWO MILLION HITS when I do a search on it! With regard to the first delete vote above, having an article under the most commonly known name for a person— whether their real name or a pseudonym— is standard practice on Wikipedia and is not usually sufficient reason to delete an article on a genuinely notable person (cf. "Madonna"). Is "Ric Alonso" notable? If so, then this article about him should stand, regardless of what it is titled. One of the sources I just added to the article describes him as a "Mogul" in its title. He's been discussed several times in reliable published sources, and I have given evidence of this in the article here. If you want to argue he is not notable, please don't claim that you get "zero Google hits" or that the article is "titled incorrectly". Neither of those will hold water here as a reason for deletion. Lastly, if you want to argue that his company is notable and not him, then you should probably be voting for a move rather than a delete, no? (But I stand by my assertion that the man himself is the discussion of the Miss American pageant incident, not his company) A loose noose (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, it's evident that nominator has somehow messed his WP:BEFORE search; results are close to 2 million. Whether this is significant coverage or not, I can't tell, but it's worth nothing that sources are not only from 2011; never sources have revisited this person. Shoessss's argument does not stand either; many notable people are known under pseudonyms, and pseudonyms are not "fictional characters". (Even if they were, that doesn't address notability either since some fictional characters are notable.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I apoligize in my wording for delete but will let it stand. My concerns is that I do believe that “Jack Cruise” does meet our current notability guildlines. However, that character is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso who is a real living person that took great care in covering his real name with concern to his involvement in the porn industry. And as such falls under our WP:BLP policy which states; “…"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step”. In that Mr. Aloson is involved with an extremely controversial subject and took pains to not to revel his real name I felt it was appropriate to delete this page until a more through rewrite of the article took place. Thanks for listening. ShoesssSTalk12:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the sources, then, Shoessss. Which of the ones currently in the article do you think are not reliable and how many saying Alonso = Cruise do we need to satisfy reliably sourced? There is no shortage of sources out there, now it's just a question of getting them in the article to address your concern. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reply by nominator Tried it again, still get zero hits; I'm doing this on a library computer so maybe all the hits are too smutty for some block or other.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Weird. The articles about his involvement in the Miss America pageant, while they do mention that he is involved in pornography, are not themselves smutty (did you try a search on "Ric Alonso" as well (not "Alonson")? That might show you at least a few hits, maybe enough to confirm that he is in fact Jake (not "Jack") Cruise). It does seem possible that your library computer is blocking all results that contain the words "Jake Cruise", since those words together probably appear in no other context than in relation to pornography. Can you attempt a search in any other location? Also, you may want to try doing a search on some other porn-related name or entity like, oh, Chi Chi La Rue. If you still cannot find her, then it is time to switch computers. A loose noose (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't know what was going on, but I tried a couple of searches with amended terms and as I say got zip. Really I don't give a rat's ass about the outcome of this afd; I simply came across the page while new page patrolling, thought the claim of notability sketchy , did a quick search. With the (surprising result of zero hits)TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Davey, he also doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC, or WP:ATHLETE, but I don't think a person necessarily has to pass PORNBIO or win an industry award in order to warrant a Wikipedia article, and aren't the subject-specific guidelines meant to be a secondary means of inclusion rather than a primary means of exclusion? Also, what part of GNG is not met? We have multiple articles here in reliable independent published sources, no? A loose noose (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Except aren't we supposed to have articles under the names by which the subject is best known? He isn't known (very much) under "Ric Alonso", he is known under his industry-related name, "Jake Cruise" (but I thought I already pointed this out). A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman: Here's a better question: does he meet the GNG? ANYBIO says he has to win an award (he has won no awards) or appear in a national directory of biographies (do you really think that is going to happen to a director of pornographic films?) to qualify under that guideline. I am saying that as a subject, he meets the GENERAL notability guidelines, not some some subject-specific one that other editors decide should be applied to this case (did you see my argument about this above??). I am not trying to qualify him under any such guideline, I am saying he meets the GNG, and that that, in the end, is supposed to be enough (...Isn't it?). A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-K.e.coffman: From SIGCOV: ["Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.] The mentions are not trivial ones, and he is the main topic of several. No original research has been added or is needed. Can you explain to me how this means SIGCOV is not met? Thanks. A loose noose (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Siddiqsazzad001: The nominator has admitted that the only reason he nominated this article for deletion was because he could not find the name anywhere on the Internet, which was likely the result of a library filter, because the name gets over 2 million hits (please verify that, if you like). And again, what part of GNG "not pass?" Simply saying it is true doesn't make it so. Which references are problematic? Which shouldn't count here? Why? A loose noose (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can see this going nc unless we start discussing the sources instead of just saying passed or fails.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!11:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the existing sourcing is about the company, not the person. As such, he doesn't meet the GNG. I see no other coverage that meets the GNG: mainly interviews, etc. which are not independent sources and thus don't count for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 17 June 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.
Keep as this one is getting quite a bit of coverage due to a notable director taking a starring role. If the consensus is against keeping suggest move to draft untill its released and reviewed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 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. No one except nominator supports deletion. Shutting this down also to prevent more personal discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. There are millions of such games, and nothing indicates that this one is of any particular interest or importance. It has attracted a couple of routine reviews. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are not promotion, those are reviews in independent reliable sources. Polygon (website), Destructoid, and Nintendo Life are used as references in thousands of gaming articles. Just click on their links and select "What links here" and then click to list things by 500 at a time, and keep clicking next page and count. These have long been established as reliable sources. DreamFocus17:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm talking to you. There are six third party sources that dedicate entire articles to the subject. I know people all have their own interpretations and standards for meeting the GNG, but to say that this situation doesn't meet the GNG "by any stretch of the imagination" is ludicrous. That is not a good assessment of the situation here. Sergecross73msg me22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every gaming article on Wikipedia has coverage in media that reviews games. It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Significant coverage was given, not just brief mentions of it, these detailed reviews. DreamFocus16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: You specifically stated in your user space that its significant coverage was not the reason you created an article on it, but that your kid niece is a fan. My brother when he was younger was a big fan of the Kellogg's mascot character CD-ROM game Mission Nutrition that came free in certain cereal boxes, in which the player could play as Tony, Snap, Crackle, Pop or Coco (with Smacks as a secret unlockable character), and honestly the sources discussing that are probably far more numerous and in-depth, but you don't see me writing an article on it and finding one or two game reviews to prop said article up on. And no, I did not just make that game up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage, so made an article for it. I would not have created it if I didn't think it met the notability requirements. DreamFocus21:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage is what you said about Mottainai Grandma, and you weren't lying then -- the sources you found were so detailed that they told you the short picture book was a "bestselling novel", a factoid you added to the article and then tried to deny you had. Please stop trying to rewrite history in your userspace, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? A minor mistake, I already explained, using the word "novel" when I meant book, and I didn't deny anything, I just remembered I had changed it to something else, but the edit history was blocked so I couldn't tell that after I changed it to something, someone else changed it to something else which was the current version. And I did not try to rewrite history in my userspace. Also why are you bringing that up here? Comment on the sources I found and this article, not something unrelated. DreamFocus22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diff is right there (actually it's behind the other diff): you denied, then argued your denial back and forth with me and another editor for hours before the revdelling admin stepped in and pointed out that you were wrong and I was right. And when trying to find the diff of your claiming you created an article on a game a relative of yours enjoyed based on similar cursory research, I noticed you had more recently posted a permanent piece of revisionism denying the plagiarism that resulted in the revdel -- do I need to ask Tony to tell you you are wrong again and that you had several full sentences almost identical to the source? I know I already told him I'd avoid bringing up the plagiarism unless it's relevant, but in this case it is because you are actively denying it (and attacking me) in your userspace. As for why I'm bringing it up here -- well, it's relevant because your talking about the creation of this article (Puzzle Puppers) in your userspace was apparently not noticed by the nom, and on top of that I don't really have anywhere else to politely ask you to remove it lest I MFD it; you've banned me from your talk page, and when I ping you on my talk page you ignore it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue for hours. I didn't post that much at all. It was an honest mistake about something no one but you seems to care about. And I never had any plagiarism, I just didn't paraphrase things well enough, some minor changes made. I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you. Now then, are you going to comment on the reliable sources in the article and significant coverage they provide or just whine about unrelated nonsense? DreamFocus00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen users get indefinitely blocked for less overt personal attacks than you are out of your mind. You should retract it (along with the rest of the above post) before this AFD is closed, or there will definitely be consequences. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. You refuse to stop following me around and saying the same lies every chance you get, distorting everything, then trying to play the victim. Now kindly focus on the subject at hand and stop ranting off like usual. The wikiproject for video games says those are reliable sources, and they are giving significant coverage, so this article clearly passes notability requirements. DreamFocus12:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per OP: trivial, arbitrarily selected one of millions of such games, and the fact the article's creator admitted this arbitrary selection here.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been adequately improved to at least make a reasonable claim to notability, and even if it hadn't this AFD wouldn't be going anywhere, and I'd have put up with far too much personal abuse for the above !vote for it to be worth digging my heels in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't admit to anything, I stated I became aware of the game because my niece enjoyed it. I then looked up information, found reviews for it, and created an article. Millions of games don't get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, otherwise they'd have articles as well. DreamFocus21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
STOP, STOP, STOP! @Dream Focus and Hijiri88: this is not the forum to argue about your differences of opinion over past matters. This is the forum discuss whether Puzzle Puppers should be kept or deleted and notability is the nominated issue to be discussed. Hijiri 88 please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Dream Focus may have made errors in the past, but that does not make their argument invalid on this occasion. Dream Focus please limit your responses to Wikipedia policy and guidelines and do not continue the irrelevant argument. If you both want to continue this take it to the appropriate forum; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and limit your arguments to whether or not Puzzle Puppers is notable! 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneso: What do you mean by please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Pointing out that the article creator has admitted on-wiki to their having created the article based on an apparently cursory source check because their niece likes the game is directly relevant to the notability of the topic since his niece could like all sorts of non-notable garbage that might have received superficial review in online gaming publications, like the Mission Nutrition example (which currently exists on-wiki only as a redirect to a completely unrelated topic). The rest was in direct response to DF's honing in on something I said on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My source checking was thorough. The video game wikiproject has a list of what are considered reliable sources. And these reliable sources are in the article, and give significant coverage. It clearly passes notability. Thousands of articles use these same sources, as I have mentioned before. And your ridiculous Mission Nutrition example makes no sense at all, so bringing it up a second time serves no purpose. It has nothing at all to do with this. DreamFocus01:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of why the article was made, and whatever beef there is between these two feuding editors, there is enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. The following sources are entire articles dedicated to the subject, all found usable/reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S.
Reading through the two not in there and not knowing what I could say. [50] and [51] don't really give any information not already referenced to the Polygon article, and they don't really give an actual review when talking about it. DreamFocus23:35, 11 June 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.
This page cannot be deleted because doing so would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, because this page could be merged and redirected to its parent topic (concealed carry). This article is not a content fork, it is a sub-topic (see WP:SPINOUT: in principle, we could move the material from the concealed carry article to this article if we wanted to). If this topic is not independently notable, it should be merged to its parent topic. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 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 List of fictional aircraft mostly as a procedural closure. Even though this AfD wasn't added to the logs until a few days ago, the merge has stood for over a month (AfD tag on the resulting redirect included), so I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open. ansh66600:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only in the opinion of the nominator does it lack notability. I will see if I can add some sources to it, but if the nominator will continue on removing information so that it will be deleted quicker he got everything wrong. I propose merge at least. I also would like to ping @AHMED XIV:, a person who had some dialogue with this editor in the past to sort out this, unethical, in my opinion nomination.--Biografer (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof lies with editor who's adding content per WP:PROVEIT - further as stated "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" per WP:BURDEN The article clean up tag has been there since 2010 - FOX 52 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was doing before you did another 7 edits after you put that tag. I don't care if the tag is there or not. As I said earlier merge proposition without PROD would have been a better solution, but you just want to start a discussion via this template instead of discussing it on the article talkpage. In fact, nobody had a problem with the article, only you did.--Biografer (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was created without the ((afd2)) template and nver transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngalltalk09:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The contested article meets the standards for an independent article in Wikipedia but, since a List of fictional aircraft exists, the best way forward is to merge this text, with almost all content intact, into the bigger list. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 9 June 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.
A different, Autobiographical version of this new page has been repeatedly rejected at AfC by various reviewers as failing GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL see Draft:Jennie Rintala. Either this player meets inclusion criteria or they don't. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 2 June 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.
Barring some quasi-promotion-ally written news-pieces in local metro-editions, which may be PR stuff, nothing resemblant to significant coverage that makes it pass the stringent requirements of WP:NCORP and distinguishes it from the numerous NGOs, sprouting here and there with innovative ideas/aims..... ~ Winged BladesGodric03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as i know article have two independent reliable news references Like the Hindu and Indian Express both are reliable national news source and i did bit research on google and i think it's notable Heshiv (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:ORG & WP:GNG. Both of the previous !votes are based on the two cited sources – [52] & [53]. But both of these sources are advertisements of the organization's workshops & they are filled with promotional statements from the organization's founders. In short, they fail WP:ORGIND. We need independent & in-depth coverage for notability which is totally missing here. In fact, leaving behind these two adverts, I couldn't find any coverage of this organization in reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Even if we ignore the fact that the two aforementioned sources aren't independent, they hardly contain any information about the organisation. Here's the relevant quotes from the two sources:
First source: "Pencil and Chai, a fine arts gurukul by Colouring India Creative Arts Centre, was started more than three years."...."They also organise monthly workshops with eminent artists from across the country."....."The institute also issues certificates at the end of the year-long course."
Second source: "Organised by Color-In India, this is the sixth edition of ‘Hues of Watercolours’, a series of workshops focusing on this beautiful technique." Other couple of relevant lines from this source are just the repeat of the first source.
So, we have basically around four relevant lines, which is surely nowhere close to what we require for a standalone article.
Egaoblai, can you tell me how the above 3–4 lines from the two non-independent sources are sufficient for meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG?
Heshiv, you mentioned that "i did bit research on google and i think it's notable". It seems you've found some extra sources. If so, please share them here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for subject lacking clear notability, per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Only two sources dug up, one of which, The Hindu, reports on Colour-in India, the same organization. Most of the text reads like infomercially-placed promotional material. Hopefully, though (since the outfit seems to be doing valuable work), a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 9 June 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.
Barring trivial mentions of a film produced or that of an art exhibition held by the organisation, zero coverage in reliable independent sources or other scholarly stuff.Fails WP:NCORP. ~ Winged BladesGodric03:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent Catholic Newsarticle is about the first Christian album to focus on the Dalit community in India and contains a comment on the album by someone from Chindu. That's the extent of it.
The reference in The Hindu is nothing more than an announcement of an upcoming Chindu event, in the paper's routine listing of events.
The other Hinduarticle is a review of the film Mahadiga, The Man Descending from Above, and "Chindu" is twice mentioned as a side note.
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.
Delete It is clear from the comments above that the two Keep !voters are not familiar with WP:NCORP and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a single one of the references mentioned in the article or the Times of India references above meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not one of the references is intellectually independent as required to establish notability. The Gnome above even argues that "all of the references currently cited are primary sources", seemingly oblivious to the fact that primary sources automatically fail WP:ORGIND and do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to believe there's something wrong with my English. Didn't I make clear that the sources already cited in the article are primary and, thus, not acceptable? Why did I link to the very policy that says so, do you think? I went on to add that it's the material unearthed by Hzh above that permits the subject to claim notability. But perhaps I'm still not making myself clear. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, you did say that but your comment was ambiguous nonetheless particularly in light of your subsequent comment that the Times of India references "sealed the deal". HighKing++ 11:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing was simply using an interpretation of WP:ORGIND that is unreasonable. By his interpretation, UN Women would not be a notable organisation as coverage about the organisation would be about the reports released by the organisation and campaigns organised or promoted by them, therefore such news coverage would not be "intellectually independent". Hzh (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, unless there are intellectually independent comments/analysis/opinion on the reports then yes, the reports themselves fail the criteria for establishing notability. This is as it should be. Even if an article looks like all the references are PRIMARY or fail the criteria, a WP:BEFORE check would turn up more than enough to meet the criteria. HighKing++ 11:04, 15 June 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.
By "numerous" you must mean the exactly three listed at Awards. Let's examine those. The award by a notable org was 1 of 100, which is a situation covered in WP:Identifying PR. The other two awards are from non-notable groups themselves, which means they should have no bearing on this debate. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards) in which the notion was covered extensively. This is backed up by WP:NCORP where "non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or product" are specifically listed as trivial coverage not contributing to notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 26 May 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.
These pages are beautiful and informative. However they are all basically unreferenced and I can't find RS secondary coverage in either English or in feeble attempts to do so in Hebrew. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I've actually watched a few games over the years on TV, also all the match reports are external links which are in Hebrew know, which I can only partially understand. However it's more than enough to pass WP:GNG through the external link citations in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the games are showed on tv helps with GNG to me. It seems like all the match reports are from one website which is why I didn't just assume GNG. Is there coverage beyond that one website? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well the website, Sport 5, is actually a TV Station in Israel, it's fairly large coverage in Israel so notability with be local to Israel and those that know about it, they do have some presence in Europe. You would have to check on ratings which I don't know about. Coverage will all be notability towards Israel mainly, but some Jewish organisations around the world have covered parts at sometimes like the Jewish Chronicle in England, however the citations are going to be Israeli based news services which will be harder for English search engines to pick-up on. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (
@Egaoblai: I brought them here because I don't think they meet guidelines. If I am wrong, well OK, and if they are improved as a way of showing I"m wrong, all the better.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : If we cannot verify notability, we cannot claim it as an attribute of the subject. Whether or not we "have watched [the games] on TV" or the text is "beautifully written" is completely immaterial. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my keep all comment on the 4th, here are some more articles I found in Israeli media, specifically reporting on the start of the 2018 season yesterday [69], [70], [71], [72]. And this final link appears to be TV listings regarding the broadcast of matches in Israel (thought it might be relevant to what has been said in previous comments) [73]. TurboGUY (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of those 13 sources, most of which I uncovered during my WP:BEFORE it feels like only two of them actually help to establish notability, which leads to one RS article for the 2017 and one for the 2018 seasons. The rest simply help to prove that this league exists (was never in question) and is broadcast on TV (which on its own doesn't mean it's notable). The league itself is most definitely notable in my opinion (hence why it was not bundled here) but the individual seasons do not appear to be (WP:BOMBARD) and the lack of coverage in outlets even when its televised actually helps to reinforce this view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 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.
I recently discovered that we've got hundreds of these little stub articles about NOAA WX radio stations (see Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations). These are all automated stations which broadcast routine weather announcements. Other than minor details like where the transmitter is located and what counties they serve, these are all the same and should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I've picked one more or less at random to start discussing. -- RoySmith(talk)00:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, NOAA Weather Radio, in general, is notable. That doesn't make every one of their automated stations also notable. And, I don't think WP:NMEDIA applies. These aren't media, in the sense that a commercial TV or radio station is. They have no original programming. They broadcast routine automated weather announcements. In the old days, these were tape loops of humans reading the weather. Now, they're probably all computer synthesized voices. They're somewhat akin to airport ATIS broadcasts. Nobody (I hope) would think that LaGuardia Airport ATIS would be a suitable encyclopedia article. Everything in WNG560 is sourced to NOAA websites. WP:GNG requires independent, secondary, sources. NOAA websites are neither independent or secondary. -- RoySmith(talk)01:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOAA Weather Radio is absolutely notable enough for an article about it as a company, but every individual NOAA transmitter across the country does not need its own standalone article — they aren't notable independently of NOAA as a whole, they can be referenced nowhere but NOAA's own primary source data about themselves because they get no standalone coverage in independent reliable sources that have anything whatsoever to do with the establishment of a topic's notability, and they all fail at least one of the NMEDIA conditions for the notability of radio stations (namely the one about having to originate at least a portion of their own programming, rather than operating solely as rebroadcasters of a larger parent service.) There was actually a consensus established a couple of years ago that all of the articles in Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations should be redirected to broader articles about the regional NOAA office that they operate from — but that never actually happened because nobody was willing to actually take on the work, and even the regional NOAA offices aren't really reliably sourceable anywhere but NOAA's own self-published content about itself either. There's simply no need for each of these transmitters to have its own standalone article independently of NOAA as a whole — we could maintain a list of them in the "name, frequency, location, the end" format that we use for lists of radio stations in geographic locations, if desired, but there's no encyclopedic value in each one having its own standalone article or even in maintaining all of the same content by merging them into regional omnibus articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The radio section of WP:BROADCAST has a sentence about Travelers' Information Stations ("On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP."), and I see this as being very similar. I don't think there's any doubt that NOAA Weather Radio is notable. However I don't see that the majority of the many individual stations are notable. They would need to meet WP:GNG, and I would be surprised if there was in depth coverage from independent sources. For this test case WNG560 the references are not independent. The principle of WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply here. I am not sure of the procedure for a bulk nomination followed by bulk deletion or redirection, but that's what I think we need here. Anyone making those changes would need to check each article to see if there's special treatment required of individual stations on the basis that for some reason they have individual notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible that some of these are in fact notable. KWO35 would be one such possible case. I'm not convinced all the detailed radio-cruft actually meets WP:GNG, but it's clearly a case that would need to be evaluated on its own. -- RoySmith(talk)19:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but read on They meet WP:BROADCAST easily, but...I think a better mode of organization and article use would be to instead merge all these articles into one article serving a state or region, such as for this one List of NOAA Weather Radio stations in Oregon rather than individual articles about each station, which as-is has a skeleton of "station is based in city and serves these counties". There are obviously exceptions to large-market stations such as the much-better organized National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois article and New York's KWO35 (which has a long, long history), but for the most part NOAA stations are operated by a state authority for the NOAA, and that's a better mode of organization than having an article like this one about a station that literally serves a middle-of-nowhere national forest whose only listeners are campers on weather watch. Nate•(chatter)06:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your Oregon example is a redlink, but I found a similar example at National Weather Service Paducah, Kentucky. It includes a dozen or so stations, all of which are redirects. There's no information in it other than a compilation of raw data taken from NOAA sources (i.e. WP:DIRECTORY). The information is formatted in an absurdly verbose way, with infoboxes for each station. The lede is totally boilerplate, with the exception of mentioning that this station is equipped with NEXRAD and ASOS, both of which are extremely common pieces of equipment. -- RoySmith(talk)13:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BROADCAST requires a station to pass all four of its four conditions simultaneously, not just one or two of the four — so I'm struggling to understand how anybody can claim that these would pass BROADCAST, when they fail both "originating at least some of its own unique programming" and "reliably sourceable as the subject of media coverage". Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE deletion because of WP:BROADCAST and because these pages provide information and details in a structure that is easy to navigate, unlike the official government pages. I agree that there is lots of room for improvement.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 15:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how does this pass BROADCAST, when it fails fully half of the four conditions in BROADCAST? A radio station has to pass all four conditions to pass BROADCAST, not just one or two of them — it's an "all four or nothing" test, not "as long as it meets one of the four". Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I'm not sure we're looking at the same WP:BROADCAST. The one I'm looking at talks about one or more of a variety of factors. But, be that as it may, it's not the main issue here. The main issue is that WP:NMEDIA, under Notability of media topics in a nutshell, says, There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is repeated in WP:N, where it says, if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. That's the core problem; there are no secondary sources. All the sources are NOAA's own websites. -- RoySmith(talk)14:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of reliable, independent sourcing is one of the conditions I'm talking about. The four conditions that a radio station actually has to meet, spelled out in much more detail further down the NMEDIA document, are as follows: one, it has an actual FCC license to broadcast (that is, excluding unlicensed Part 15 services); two, it is actually on the air (that is, excluding stations that exist only on paper as unlaunched construction permits); three, it actually originates at least a portion of its own programming in its own standalone studios (that is, excluding stations that exist solely as rebroadcasters of parent services, which is one of the conditions that these NOAA stations fail); and four, all three of those facts are reliably sourceable to some evidence of media coverage outside the station's own self-published content about itself (which is the other condition these fail.) A station has to meet all four of those conditions, not just one or two of them. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article's subject lacks independent notability; keep the main article about the mother (even merge this text to her). Leave the gun; take the cannoli. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- these stations are not independently notable. Even KWO35's notability is questionable since there is a lack of reliable independent secondary sources in that article too, but the article in question here is a clear delete. Someone can create List of NOAA Weather Radio Stations to cover this.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: We could start taking the information from National Weather Service Paducah, Kentucky and placing it into List of NOAA Radio Stations in Kentucky. This would leave National Weather Service Paducah, Kentucky as a great candidate for deletion itself. In the past I proposed deleting the articles on individual weather offices, but people used the faulty reasoning that since the National Weather Service is notable then all its offices must also be notable, which is not much different from the keep arguments here. However, you do have a point, the list already exists in its entirety here, so why even add a directory listing? (since it would violate WP:NOTDIR as you pointed out)--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:BROADCAST. If someone generates a list of NOAA stations in the US (I'm not so sure state is needed) that can be handled outside this AfD. I don't foresee a redirect/merge being useful for anything here, so better to just delete and let someone pick up the listing topic independently. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 16 June 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.
Biography of a recently deceased activist, whose claims of notability are referenced to blogs, not reliable sources that would get her over WP:GNG. Being a founding member of a group is not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to be referenced to much more than just a couple of WordPress blogs -- but on a Google News search, I can't find any significant coverage about her: besides more obituaries in her local media, all I get otherwise is glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about other things. This is simply not enough to get somebody into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Only two references are in the article, which is not nearly enough for notability. Delete per WP:GNG. You forgot to add the deletion template to the article by the way. 344917661X (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't forget; Wikipedia's going through some weird technical shit today and some parts of the automated Twinkle process are failing to save properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm working on adding additional content and sources. Adding Wolf's integral involvement in Supreme Court Freedom of Expression case. Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In light of new sources and additional information found by Jackiekoerner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has "failed" neither of those things. At its most extreme, ATD can easily be claimed as handing every article that has ever existed at all an automatic exemption from ever being deletable, just because "alternatives" theoretically existed — ATD is about things like "there is a credible reason to believe that this is a valid enough search term to warrant redirection to another related article", not an automatic trump card in every deletion discussion just because you type the letters. And people can only BEFORE in resources that they have access to — if somebody has access to a database I don't, in which a person has more coverage than she does in the databases I do have access to, then that's great but it fails to constitute evidence that I failed to do my due diligence in the first place. Please note what WP:ATTP explicitly says about why BEFORE should not be used as grounds to attack other editors. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearcat appears to have it right. I am seeing a lot of mentions of ATD at the moment - is it the new attempt at a catch-all for inclusionists? - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No verifiable proof of independent notability. An admirable, no-nonsense person, in my very humble opinion, but Wikipedia is shaped by policy and not sentiment. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 9 June 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.
Why do this? Why does anyone want to delete a well-sourced, well-written article about a man who was the elected county executive of Howard County, Maryland, similar to being Mayor of a city that size; and who was, at a different point in his career, Superintendent of the Carroll County Public Schools (Maryland). Article was created in 2013 by an editor who last edited in 2016, but who created over 800 solid-looking articles. Article is not an orphan. It's reliably sources. Subject passed away in 2015 so this is neither PROMO nor MEMORIAL. It's a useful, well-sourced article and I frankly fail to understand in what way deleting a page like this is a useful contribution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was not ADHOM. It was an honest question. You edited in mainspace for almost a decade, then, suddenly, started nominating large batches of state, county, and city-level politicians for deletion. It really was a question, but you are under no obligation to answer it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misundertood. The reference to ADHOM was for your statements that the creator made many other good articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That, of course, is your personal opinion; editorial opinion on whether he passes WP:POL-3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". will vary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails NPOL but meets GNG per significant coverage in RS. Contrary to what E.M.Gregory said above, the article could use some work but the sourcing is there for notability. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 00:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What significant coverage? All the coverage is local, most is routine I see an obituary (routine), election coverage (also routine), and a few other articles where he is mentioned briefly (not in-depth). Politicians always get coverage in the local newspaper no matter what, its all routine (he won the election, he approved a loan, he banned a book, etc.) its going to take more than that to establish notability. He doesn't pass NPOL is right and the only thing he is known for is being a politician, so that's clearly the applicable guideline.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop with accusing me of not doing searches or accessing coverage, its not the first time. And if you actually bothered to read the my comment directly above yours, you get my analysis of the sources. That I posted it later and not in the initial nomination is irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not accuse you of a thing. I asked a question. All these ultrabrief nominations focus on WP:POLITICIAN as if coverage does not matter. It's just what sticks out to me. Answers to questions and more invested nominations would be well received. gidonb (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, I see multiple in-depth articles in reliable sources on him starting in 1990 at Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Newspaperarchive and two more obits. --RAN (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subsequent two opinions did break the string of keeps. I count three or four keep opinions above in a row, definitely not two. Our process is not voting. You keep repeating this error. gidonb (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John Pack Lambert. I noticed you set the bar high for a person to pass the WP:GNG. For example here you claim that one of the Germany's most decorated actresses ever does not pass the GNG. This bar was so high that the nominator withdrew while you were still at "just plain not notable". Of course there is also notability by position. In this discussion you claim that "County Executives are a lot like mayors of major cities, so in a heavily populated county like Howard County, Maryland they will be notable." This is relevant since we're talking the direct peer and very same position as that of Charles Ecker. It is a few years back and Howard County, Maryland kept growing ever since. It was 321,113 last year, a population about that of Corpus Christi, Texas. Ecker is WP:N, considering his position in combination with the large population size of his county, as you have correctly pointed out! gidonb (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. No policy exists which allows a politician to be notable and override WP:GNG just because they hold an office that represents a lot of people. They have to pass WP:GNG. We've tended to keep mayors from larger cities because of a presumption they'd meet WP:GNG, and I can tell you there are a lot of stubs for historical mayors of cities like New Orleans or Houston without any sources. It's easy to add a reliable source to those stubs, even for the ones who served a long time ago. But making an argument this non-notable politician should nevertheless remain because he represented a growing county is against policy. SportingFlyertalk05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they have to pass the WP:GNG. Point is that mayors and county executives with a certain population and above always do. Ecker does, not withstanding attempts to downplay the sources. Shreve did. Otis did. With even less population, though still considerable. More than 250,000. gidonb (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete as lacking notability, since all coverage is local. And yes, HoCo gets local coverage in the DC and Balto. papers. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete There's two sources which directly talk about him - one is his obituary, the other is a piece on his absolutely failed gubernatorial campaign. The Washington Post gave him a "slim to none" chance of becoming governor in this interview with him: [75] Clear WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyertalk08:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an issue of a multiple nomination with those AfDs which clouded the AfD a bit. As I've said, I don't think those politicians are notable either, but the vote there was split. Also as I've noted, WP:GNG isn't really met here. SportingFlyertalk23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the closing volunteer says: "The double-nomination confused matters, but there is a rough consensus to keep both articles". gidonb (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can read. A "rough consensus" really should probably be "no consensus," but that entire AfD was plagued with the improper inclusion of two articles at once. In any case, it has no bearing on the notability of this article. SportingFlyertalk02:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but rough consensus is not the same as no consensus. Also nobody claims you can't read but your reading was and remains selective. A comment was made in response to The Gnome who clearly shops in recent WP:POLOUTCOMES. One person in this job was recently deleted but two were recently kept. That was my point in response to his point. gidonb (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right - and my point is it doesn't matter, and in spite of the ultimate "keep" vote (which may have been necessary given the way the nomination occurred) they were quite contested. SportingFlyertalk04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a given that these politicians were contested as someone nominated them. That's how an AfD starts. The decision was keep and not because of the messy nomination. Because of the rough consensus. The same applies to your other point. There was no problem with a POLOUTCOMES claim before I reacted. Now that we see that recent cases are quite the other way around, it doesn't matter. Maybe not you but to The Gnome it did. To others it might. Hence my reaction. I'm not making a value statement. I'm setting the record straight. gidonb (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW in the one rare case referred above, where such a discussion ended in delete (pro-deletion closing person "weighed" the opinions by criteria that convinced her personally the most), the article was userfied. This exceptional decision could have been challenged but I thought that a less confrontational approach was far more constructive and respectful of a fellow volunteer. Everyone is welcome to improve sources before the article is republished in due time! Also with the republication, I'm a big believer in giving it time. gidonb (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a DRV, go for it, but if you republish that page, it will be promptly nominated for speedy deletion under G4. You cannot choose to ignore the consensus because you do not like it.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, that's exactly my point, isn't it? Since you do not look any further than the article, you miss out on all else that is out there: references, unique achievements, national awards, biographies. When you say: does not meet the WP:GNG, you really mean that the references could be improved but that is where an article should get a refimprove template. Not a valid basis for deletion! gidonb (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
So if you provide your opinion on a German actress, you need to look who she is, is she famous, are there sources out there, were books written about her, did she win major prizes. Same applies to this nomination and all others. Saying references aren't in the article is WP:JUSTAVOTE and, in fact, misleading when you do it while referring to the WP:GNG when really raising a problem that should exclusively be resolved in the article space. gidonb (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obituary, profiles while running for offices, and retirement announcements provide in-depth coverage and sufficient RS to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Deceased individual not a risk for failing NOTPROMO. Substantial public activities make me feel the individual is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article and NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply. Smmurphy(Talk)16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stop the genocide of politicians at the sub-national level. What editors are doing is a disservice to readership and harmful to informed, engaged voters, which is critical to a democracy. Coverage is not local or routine and meets WP:GNG requirements. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If wikipedia articles are critical to democracy then we're all doomed. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide, there are much better places on the internet to get information about candidate positions on issues. Looking a this article, there is nothing in it that would help me make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for him. Details like where he was born, where he went to school, etc. are hopefully not things that people are considering when entering the voting booth.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 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 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 Welsh championship is a title way below the thresh hold of notability required at NCYCLING, and the first reference given is merely a race report of an even lower level event, and does nothing give significant coverage to Lloyd. The second citation here could be argued to be significant coverage of Lloyd, but VeloUK scarcely meets reliable sources, being, as I understand it, essentially self published with volunteer contributors. "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." A struggle to find one, which is questionable, does not seem to demonstrate passing that test. Kevin McE (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and I can find nothing to show he's notable as a cyclist. He doesn't meet the SNG criteria for cyclists and I can find no record of him ever earning any road race points on the UCI's European or World tours, even though thousands of riders have. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 10 June 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 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.
Delete Zero indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company that produces perfume. References are (for the most part) not intellectually independent, relying on interviews and quotations from company sources and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me a solid pass of GNG, both when I began the entry and when I reviewed it today, adding some further sources. The brand has coverage in major outlets in US, UK, Italy, India and the UAE (and that's just what I got without really stretching my language skills—there looks to be more especially in Russian but I’m hopeless with Cyrillic), from at least 2010 2008 through this week. The assertion these sources are not intellectually independent is contradicted by, for instance, the product reviews in different outlets which often give quite different descriptions of the same fragrance, meaning they’re giving independent assessments and not reciting PR copy. The fact of also having interviewed the company is not disqualifying; if it were, we'd have to base the encyclopedia entirely on "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold". Innisfree987 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987 any chance you could post links to the references you consider meet the criteria for establishing notability? Also, the fact of having interviewed the company as a major part of the article is, on most occasions, a sign that the article is not intellectually independent and while it is generally true, is not universally true. Be aware also that the guidelines for companies contained in WP:NCORP are a little more stringent when it comes to finding references to establish notability. HighKing++ 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will be difficult at the moment as I’m presently limited to mobile and UX would make duplicating the referencing work take more time than I’ve got. (Specifically my WP editing window reloads, and erases all my work, when I toggle between it and another tab—e.g. to collect reference details—on my phone. It’s fun.) Until back on desktop, I’d refer ivoters to the sources abovementioned (most of them referenced with working links in the entry) and then I notice more coverage via a GoogleBooks search as well (which makes sense, I’d forgotten I knew of at least a couple books that discuss the line.) Will add as I am able. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have expanded entry with info from six more sources by five authors (well, six authors but a pair of co-authors did two of the books, so those two are not intellectually independent of one another—altho in this case it’s maybe complicated since those authors do sign their reviews individually within co-authored book—anyway, five or six more pieces of coverage toward notability, depending on how you count.) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: non-trivial sources for this niche frangrance house; some critical reception present from notable personalities in the industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 10 June 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.
Delete Zero indications of notability. No references. No attempt at writing a decent article, has been this way for 8 years! Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for improvement. The article definitely needs to be expanded and properly referenced, but even a cursory Google News search reveals that a WP:GNG-passing volume of coverage, about both the company and its namesake founder, very definitely exists to salvage it with. GNG is not purely a question of whether the article is already well-sourced or not — it's a question of the depth and quality of sources that can be found, not just the depth and quality of sources that are already present in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are many references to the person, Lise Watier, this article is about the company founded by the person. Many of the Keep !voters above appear to say there are loads of references but none have produced any that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. The book references are about the person, not the company. Other references that have been placed in the article are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Can anyone post a link to a reference about the company that meets the criteria for establishing notability? If you can, please do so here. The awards mentioned by Eastmain listed in the old version are trivial and also fail the criteria. Comments by Innisfree987 that there's been solid coverage over a long period of time isn't backed up by simply providing a single link that meets the criteria for establishing notability and could merely indicate a good PR and marketing department. All that said, the comment by E.M.Gregory that material from the 80s and 90s won't necessarily show up in searches has some weight but I still would expect to see at least some indication that *the company* is notable. Perhaps this article should be turned into an article on the person - she easily passes WP:BASIC? HighKing++ 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my nomination already but I am still of the opinion that the person has more significant coverage and the company is a lesser topic. HighKing++ 14:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either way works for me. Bio might allow inclusion of a bit more info that I didn't want to shoehorn into the company entry (e.g. about Watier's foundation). FWIW, had I created this entry, I might've erred on the side of organization rather than person because sometimes you see bios criticized on the grounds that if a person is most famous for her work with one company (or musical group or whatever), she should be described under that rubric, absent additional indicia of notability independent of that project. But since here the company and the person share a name, seems tough to make the case that Lise Watier is less well-known than her brand is. (Probably a tough thing to pin down--at this point, for instance, I suspect there are a lot of people who don't really think about Estee Lauder the person when they use Estee Lauder products--and ah indeed, WP currently has the search term "Estee Lauder" landing on a dab. So not the first time it wasn't clear which was the primary term, the person or the eponymous company.)
Anyway if there's general agreement that we have encyclopedic material here in one format or another, we can probably move this to the talk page since the entry's title won't need changing. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 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.
Keep Many sources, at least some of which satisfy Wp:GNG (the Financial Post+Northern Miner ones, for example). Being CEO of a publicly traded company is a significant indication of notability. If the article is too promotional, re-write it, don't delete -Mparrault (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Being a CEO of a "publically quoted company" counts for nothing unless there are independent (which means "intellectualy independent") sources providing in-depth information on the person. None exist. Also, just to point out, there are about 2,500 companies listed on the [TSX Venture Exchange] and not all their CEO's are notable nor are they automatically entitled to an article. None of the references I can find are "intellectually independent" and while they may be independent publications, they rely exclusively on information provided by either Sebag of his company - signs of an effective marketing department but not of notability. Of the two you mentioned above, the Financial Post reference is a company announcement with a quotation from Sebag - the first words in the article are "A Canadian startup says". The Northern Miner Reference is a straight-up verbatim interview. HighKing++ 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a plethora of sources which denote notability. This Financial Post article is most certainly not a "Company Announcement" but rather a long feature article describing a new technology (BitGold) and venture. Or this one relating to the company's winning of Canadian Startup of the Year Award for best "Technology Innovation". Also, Roy Sebag's company is listed on the TSX Main Exchange where there are only several hundred companies, not the TSX Venture as was mentioned above where there are 2,500 companies. Furthermore, Sebag is also the founder of a Tel Aviv Stock Exchange company (where there are only 400 listed companies). This article provides yet another intellectually independent viewpoint relating to Sebag's activity in Israel. Not only is this an indication of notability but also of materiality within an economy's (Israel) capital market as the events reported on were matters of local news interest stirring dozens of articles. There are not many companies who's share prices rise by 3,000% in a few months. Sebag is also the first outside seed investor in a New York Stock Exchange listed company: PPDai, so that makes three publicly traded companies across three different geographies at the ripe age of 32. To say there is a lack of notability seems like a pretty easily falsifiable statement. Lastly, there are two additional full fledged feature articles, this time from the New York Times and Vogue relating to Sebag's jewelry venture with Diana Widmaier-Picasso: here and here. These are features reported on independently by multiple outlets. These and many other sources confer notability par excellence, no marketing department could cause multiple independent publications across multiple geographies to want to write features about four different ventures. With all of this being said, I do Agree with Mparrault if article is too promotional, should be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4001:D600:F581:1E:2CA8:60F8 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The anon IP above seems to completely miss the point about "independent" third party publications. Quoting articles that repackage company announcements or rely exclusively on interviews with the person in question does not qualify as "independent" and fails to establish notability. Looking at the sources provided:
This Financial Post article may possibly get away with being described as a "long feature article" - but in reality, it is actually an interview with Sebag and Crumb, both founders of a company and the interview is primarily concerned with their promoting the new company. This type of article is commonly referred to as an advertorial or puff-piece. It does not count towards establishing notability as it is not regarded as intellectually independent and is closer to being a PRIMARY source.
this Financial Post article doesn't even mention Seabag. Notability is not inherited. The notability of a company that is associated with Seabag has exactly zero bearing on the notability of Seabag himself (for the purposes of establishing Seabag's notability).
True enough, this globes.co.il article uses Sebag's name in the headline but the article itself is not about Seabag, it is above a number of various companies. Arguing that not many company's share prices rise by 3,000% has not bearing on Seabag's notability. The article mentions Sebag in passing and it is not significant coverage. As stated earlier, notability is not inherited. The other points about Seabag being the first outside seed investor, etc, etc, are great - but I note there are no references to support this claim to notabilty. Similarly, if Seabag is notable because of his involvement in three different publicly traded companies - get a reference.
This nytimes article put forward by the anon IP above doesn't even mention Seabag.
If Seabag was as notable as the Anon IP appears to think, it should be a straight-forward matter to find two references that meet the criteria for establishing his notability. As of now, we have none. HighKing++ 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps HighKing is searching for the string "Seabag" which he has repeatedly typed throughout this debate process. Here are two screenshots evidencing that Roy Sebag (the person in question) was indeed mentioned in the NY Times and Vogue articles. The NY Times author specifically notes him as the "brainchild" behind a concept in partnership with Diana Widmaier Picasso which raised a $21 million Series A: [79] and [80]. As another user pointed out, there is no question that the first Financial Post article above is a feature, it even seems that it was a front page article given that the Financial Post sent a photographer to take the photo. The second article is reflecting that Sebag's company won a pretty serious award for technology innovation of the year. As the founder and largest shareholder, that award was obviously received by him. Finally, your issues may be caused by the mispronounciation of Sebag's name as "Seabag" but if you watch these videos of him on CNBC (further evidence of notability) his last name appears to be pronounced as "Seh-Bahhg": [81][82][83][84]. I can't do anything about the fact that I am using an Anon IP. But I have been involved and enjoy contributing Wikipedia since its early days. The matter at hand is clearly an incorrect assessment of a person's notability warranting my contribution to the community.
Response I note you don't provide your former identity, Anon IP. I unintentionally misspelled Sebag - I note how big a deal you make of it, no offense intended. Thank you for your comments. Your comment "The second article is reflecting that Sebag's company won a pretty serious award for technology innovation of the year. As the founder and largest shareholder, that award was obviously received by him." is the opposite of our guideline WP:NOTINHERITED. Your continued assertion that mentions-in-passing of Sebag (regardless of whether the mention calls him a douchebag or a brainchild) is not "significant coverage" and fails WP:BASIC. HighKing++ 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi there HighKing - are we reading the same articles? Fortune mentions Sebag twice, Bloomberg 6 times, and clearly not in passing since the article is about him. Looking back at Anon IP’s sources and your response, with the exception of one (FP) I was able to find Roy’s mentions with no problem; perhaps ensure that you’re not searching for the common “Seabag” misspelling by mistake. Cheers, BelBivDov (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sources are not independent / WP:SPIP. Affiliated with one blue-linked company (BitGold) which, with $13M & similar SPIP sources does not appear to be notable itself. Content is advertorial in nature and cannot be helped since the subject is non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This point about "BitGold" is factually incorrect. The company raised in excess of $100 million in equity capital (The $13M was only the initial raises) and made several acquisitions notably Peter Schiff's SchiffGold and Goldmoney for $52 million [85] or [86]. In other words, in less than 2 years Sebag's digital gold patents and idea rapidly advanced from concept to executing in excess of $200 million of financial activity. As for WP:SPIP, coincidentally it was this transaction which resulted in Sebag and BitGold earning the "Corporate Finance of the Year" award in 2016 from the Private Capital Markets Association of Canada [87]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4001:D600:F581:1E:2CA8:60F8 (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Factually incorrect. Seabag did not earn "Corporate Finance of the Year" award in 2016. Once again, you are conflating two separate identities. Notability is not inherited. HighKing++ 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a photograph from the PCMA Canada website photo gallery showing Roy Sebag receiving the award. The evidence of notability is indisputable. [88] -
Comment Perhaps Sebag received the award, doesn't mean he earned the award, the company did. He may have received it *on behalf* of the company. Certainly doesn't make him notable. Again, note, Notability isn't inherited. HighKing++ 18:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, between the multiple companies that have gotten coverage, his investment activities and his patents. It just needs some good cleaning up, which I started. BTW - BitGold should probably be moved to GoldMoney but I need a good source first. It appears that it was a reverse merger. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
timtempleton Any chance you could post some links to articles that you believe are "good coverage"? There's lots of "coverage", just most of it is crap or covers his companies and not him personally. Where and What is the good stuff? HighKing++ 18:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing A few that I like include Bloomberg (not a primary source) [[89]], The New York Post [[90]], CNBC [[91]], and Reuters [[92]]. To a lesser degree (as far as notability) is Northern Miner [[93]]. Combined with the patent award, I think he just barely passes notability, although more biographical coverage would be helpful for sourcing. To your point, while a lot of the coverage is about his role in different companies, I think it's important that the coverage isn't just about his role at a single notable company. If that were the case, a merge and redirect to that company's article would be in order. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)19:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to BitGold. I've gone through the sources in the article and on this talk page and I did some limited source-searching. While Sebag has been quite prolific in arranging promotional interviews, proper sourcing and notability is not a series of "According to [source] Sebag said XYZ about his business/industry". Notability requires multiple independent sources writing significant coverage about the subject, and that is systematically lacking here. Given his success in arranging promotional interviews, there's a decent chance that some sources will write about him in the near future. If future sources are shown significantly writing about Sebag, it may be possible to restore the article for improvement. Alsee (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bitgold name has been changed to Goldmoney. The web site redirects to Goldmoney.com. Sourcing for the name change is poor but I found this. [[94]] Mute your speakers when the annoying avatar comes on. Keep in mind, it's easy to arrange an interview when journalists in the field want to hear what you have to say. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is substantial notability to the subject in line with
WP:GNG. I've found some additional sources which I have not seen
mentioned. A Barrons interview (Paywall) [95] and a Financial Times feature (Paywall)
[96]. I've
also found a rather long feature piece on Sebag himself (rather than his companies) which
also includes extensive biographical information.
[97] and
translation here [https://translate.google.com/translate?
sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globes.co.il
%2Fnews%2Farticle.aspx%3Fdid%3D1001216258&edit-text=&act=url]. This long
piece was published in hebrew by Globes. I am confident there are
others. Lastly, I find the arguments to be made by some about Sebag's
interviews being promotional as unconvincing. There are 4 prime time
television interviews with CNBC and several others with Bloomberg. The
overwhelming majority focus on macro financial/economic matters where the news
organizations seek Sebag's insights and opinions. The cause for these
interviews isn't Sebag soliciting to get interviewed but rather his success
and notability which make him a desirable interviewee for the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.2.182 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 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.
Delete No sources found except for listing in film database websites, and non-independent sources, therefore fails WP:NFILM. It is possible that when the film is released, there might be reviews of the film, but before that, it's WP:TOOSOON, and the article can be recreated should there be more sources when the film is released. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More likely will never be notable; the other film by the same director is also at AfD and it was released in 2017. Neither the director nor the production company has an article, but there is a draft that has been rejected twice and then abandoned. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 10 June 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.
Delete As with the other film by the same director, no sources found except for listing in film database websites and non-independent sources, therefore fails WP:NFILM. Hzh (talk) 13:09, 9 June 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.
Weak Keep-This google search [98] throws up some mentions of the play in different books(which seem reliable). Additionally we need to move the article since title of the article is wrong ( It should be Buro Shaliker Ghare Ro) — FR+06:58, 1 June 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 article is poorly sourced, all of the sources are about Asif Mohiuddin and not him. The article appears highly promotional with a POV tone. The page was created by a user who has not edited any page outside of this. A draft and previous version were deleted but were recreated by this user. The user possibly has a COI. While his work is admirable I do not think he meets the notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 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 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.
This article has no reliable sources. Also since being an actor in and of itself is not a sign of notability, there is no actual claim to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJohn Pack Lambert I would give the benefit of the doubt to someone who died 80 years ago and appeared in 10 German movies. It's more in line with wikipedia's mission to tag this as a stub and wait for it to link to something, than it is to delete it. Unless you're saying the movies didn't exist. Seafox289 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the German Wikipedia, articles from two German-language biographical directories. that I think establish notability. Perhaps the article could be expanded with the information from the new references. Eastmain (talk • contribs)08:32, 9 June 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.