Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 July 16 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page to Stage Festival

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Page to Stage Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable festival. The last AfD had no votes. SL93 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no claim of notability; the only references are productions of the festival and its operators. I found a reference to a different group in London [1] but nothing for this one. Clearly a promotional page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jetboat Superchamps

[edit]
Jetboat Superchamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The deletion arguments are mostly variations on WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:PROMO, and problems with sourcing. On the keep side, most of the arguments were essentially WP:USEFUL, which isn't a valid reason to keep.

KVDP believes there may be an earlier version which would be worth keeping, but made that argument 6 days ago and nobody went with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bitcoin wallets

[edit]
Comparison of bitcoin wallets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a linkfarm for non-notable products based on unreliable sources. Not a single one of the references is subject to editorial oversight; they should be considered self-published. Removing all unreliably-sourced content would amount to blanking the page. Huon (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep it is useful content that has been moved off the main Bitcoin article due to WP:TOOBIG. Maybe needs some help with WP:RS. BTW, Huon you should have alerted the editors on the Bitcoin page of your proposal to delete a sub-page. I have done that for you now. You stated in your nomination, "Removing all unreliably-sourced content would amount to blanking the page." However, there are 8 wallets that I count on the article you nominated that have their own wiki articles, so I can't see how they need citations as well. Do they need citations just to justify being on the list if they have their own articles, I have seen lists of yoga instructors, eg List_of_yoga_schools, that dont comply to that strict standard. I think I will delete the offending content and then we can discuss the article in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or a consumer guide, and most of this page is just OR/ SPS spam. Even the main source here, cryptocompare.com, is an advertising business itself. See their Advertise page which says "If you are a new Crypto Currency, a Bitcoin or Crypto Currency Exchange, a Mining equipment provider or Mining Contract Provider, or a Wallet provider - we can find a way to give you a means to push your product to those you want to reach. We have multiple methods of getting you and your ideas in front of customers". So this "article" is really just an ad for that site. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per based on single, unreliable source. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too reference guide for me. I don't think its our role to provide comparisons between all software. Digital technology changes quickly so it can easily become out of date. What is the criteria for inclusion? How many people are actually using these? It seems a bit trivial. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good points... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Having an article that provides a comparison between cryptocurrency wallets to choose the one that offers, say, the safest wallet, is, per se, an enough reason to do not remove the article, in my humble opinion. Besides, all sources included seem ok and reliable. Arguing that just because some (or even every single one) have advertisement is nonsense. Almost any source from any article have advertisements - that's usually their business model and that's how they survive and provide great contents/services. - Acaciosc (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revert to earlier version - Since I made this page, a lot of data has been removed and other promotional data (like "rating" columns, ...) has been added. See my version and then see a version with promotional data added I think a page like this has a benefit on wikipedia but only if kept objective and focusing on important elements.KVDP (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to guide or a directory. That's what this link-farm effectively is. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced, and also per WP:NOTCATALOGUE: we are not a consumer comparison website. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoia Di Angelo

[edit]
Sequoia Di Angelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article was created in mainspace after repeated rejections in AfC. Most of the "citations" are from un-reliable sources or links to the subject's work. Some pieces like this from Time is about Slim Thug and makes no mention of the subject, who published his book. This is an announcement about a book signing. This is essentially an interview using photos provided by the subject. This only mentions the subject because she talked to the newspaper in question. The subject is a publicist so it's not surprising she grabbed every bit of free media available. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User clearly trying to game the system. Don't be fooled by the number of sources, as Chris's interpretation of the sources is spot on- looking at a selection of the sources, many of the sources only give a passing mention, some sources do not mention the subject at all and others are press releases. In what is probably an attempt to get by on the number of sources, even Amazon is cited as a source. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Software

[edit]
Jama Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant Promotions. Typical Press coverage on Online Media for funding and such news. Only intention is to promote the company and nothing else. from the writing of this articles, appears a Paid PR/ marketing work on wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable private company; notability not established. Promo content includes:
  • Jama has over 600 customers,[2] including: SpaceX Northrop Grumman Texas Instruments[14] The U.S. Department of Defense
Wikipedia is not a sales brochure or an investor prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10,000ft

[edit]
10,000ft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not adhere to Encyclopedia standards. Spin Off company is not notable. Article is mere writing from Marketing or PR Gimmick. Purpose is to promote their product. Corporate Spam. Awards are in finalist. No-depth and repeated coverage on notable media is found. Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unremarkable private company. The content belongs on the company web site, as in:
  • "Since then, the product has grown to support over 1,000 businesses worldwide. In 2015, 10,000 ft introduced 10,000 ft Insights!" (no citation offered).
Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or a replacement for a company's sales brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has never actually won a first place award. The references are notices document wnd place, finalist, etc. No sources or evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Highly promotional as others have stated. Most of the information in this article is cited to the company's website, a press release, and several product advertisements. There is one article from a notable author written in 2012 before the product was released, but that was in anticipation that the product would become significant within its targeted industry. No evidence ever emerged that this ever happened. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional wording, no evidence of notability in independent sources. Attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formulators Aquaflex

[edit]
Formulators Aquaflex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, only sources are press releases. ... discospinster talk 18:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources are apparently not substantial enough per discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosbit

[edit]
Kosbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article about a three year old IT company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of independent reliable sources. - MrX 18:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam with content such as:
  • IT solutions and managed services to reduce Information Communication Technology (ICT) cost and improve service delivery!
Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or a replacement for a company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mainly per the "papers" argument Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth power

[edit]
Sixth power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 17:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh power

[edit]
Seventh power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 17:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Galactikapedia 17:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The fourth power article seems like it may have some notability, but the higher powers do not seem to be notable.- MrX 17:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe higher powers could be redirected onto the Exponentiation page (list of whole-number powers)? Galactikapedia 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Boulet Brothers

[edit]
The Boulet Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD was declined because "Article claims coverage in reliable sources." The article doesn't really meet WP:GNG in its current state. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Sungwoon

[edit]
Ha Sungwoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual fails WP:GNG and article is completely sourceless. Abdotorg (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Suicidal ideation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'appel du vide

[edit]
L'appel du vide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mere dictionary definition, I suggest deleting and trans-wikifying the contents to Wikitionary. DrStrauss talk 15:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons from Dragons: Rise Of Berk

[edit]
List of dragons from Dragons: Rise Of Berk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This AFD is for an article with a declined PROD by the main author. The list is a list of fictional components from a game of even questionable notability and for which we do not even yet have an article. Even if an article on the game were to be created, we would not include this detailed a list in that article per WP:VGSCOPE numbers 1, 5, 6, and 7. Even still, if for some reason that list were retained in the article, it would need secondary sourcing and be limited to summarizing the work. Izno (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed 21 links to DAB pages and some other bad links for the second time. Article creator had added them back. Narky Blert (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Roanoke

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Camp Roanoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Couple of local sources discussing a renovation aren't enough, and no others were located on GHits, GBooks, GNews. Was kept 7 years ago because someone asserted there were sources, but didn't bother to link or suggest any, or include them in the article but only added a single local source to the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I've corrected my nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salima Khudhair

[edit]
Salima Khudhair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough mentions to pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the citations: baretly.net is self-published and has hardly any views, and elcinema.com is a listings/IMDb type of site. Neither looks in any way WP:RS. algardenia.com looks as if it could be WP:RS on some topics, but being in Arabic I find it very difficult to assess. The citation relates to a presentation she gave in 2012 at a forum of intellectuals and artists, describing her career. I don't consider it sufficient evidence of notability even if WP:RS. The corresponding Arabic article has no sources at all. A Google search for her name in Arabic turned up a couple of news items from this decade, but no in-depth coverage. If there are WP:RS sources, they're likely to be printed and in Arabic - but that doesn't get over the hurdle of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Fails WP:NBIO.
Poor presentation of sources may contravene WP:BLP, but is not a reason to delete. If an article meets WP:NBIO, it can be improved. Narky Blert (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mainly because of evidence that they meet GNG. A few comments: This is about the article Elijah Daniel, not about User:Sagecandor. Discussions about whether to repurpose the article to be about a book are more suited for a move request/talk page discussion. I'll tag the article as AfD-cleanup given some quality concerns listed here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Daniel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Elijah Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to change things that shouldn't be on the article per WP:PAPER and you keep adding them. Told you social media and YT aren't reliable sources except in very exceptional cases and you put them again. Told you making a petition doesn't starts anyone's career, you reverted my changes. You don't let anyone change anything. Plus you try to hard to make him notable by adding more ad more content that makes no sense (Reception page is an example of it). Anonpediann (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why, in the middle of a deletion debate, you're actually complaining about expansion and improvements to the article. The article relies primarily on secondary sources now. We can use sources by the subject in the article about the subject himself. Sagecandor (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As if you didn't know, people keep reading this article (i suppose). You're the one creating the reception page and adding content (which is full of WP:NOTPAPER). Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of my research I discovered he won "Best Comedian" at the 9th Shorty Awards. [2] So yes, I'm glad I did my research on this article. Sagecandor (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Means nothing. As if wining that awards automaticaly gives him notability. There are Grammy winner who didn't even have a Wikipedia page. Anonpediann (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Shorty Awards are a notable awards show for which the subject of this article won the award, beating out several others for "Best Comedian", specifically for his comedy and his pranks. [3] If there are Grammy Winners who don't have a Wikipedia page, perhaps you could let us know? They'd likely all also be notable. Sagecandor (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's not enough reliable sources for covering a whole article, why? You are so wrong. Anonpediann (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Shorty Awards is notable. The 9th Shorty Awards is notable. The subject of this article won the Award for "Best Comedian", specifically for his comedy and his pranks. [4]. Much as you may wish, you cannot erase that fact from history. Sagecandor (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That the award has a poory writen article doesn't make it notable. Do you really think that an award with the category "Emoji of the Year" gives him credibility? Don't act like i'm trying to hide he fact that he's so notable and important on this society for wining a trashy award... Call me when he gets a American Comedy Awards nomination.Anonpediann (talk)
It has already been pointed out to you that the current state of quality of a Wikipedia article itself does not have to do with notability of the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But someone needs to be notable to have a Wikipedia article did you knew? Everytime you try to make him look notable with that poor arguments you forget about that current state you talk about true? Too funny. Oh and check this WP:Notability - "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Anonpediann (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and he is notable. As explained to you, by Timothyjosephwood, below. Sagecandor (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What i missed? He said sources plus most of this article's sources are unreliable (including social media). Anonpediann (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean, "what did I miss", not "what I missed". Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, but the point is most of this article's sources are unreliable (including social media). Anonpediann (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources include The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE. Sagecandor (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Hollywood Life, The Daily Dot and YouTube no. And not to say how you try to promote him in this article when a it should be a merely informative page. 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Not trying to promote anyone. Trying to NOT have the page be deleted. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Notable figure? Are you kidding? Tell me something he's done as notable that deserves to be covered on Wikipedia. Anonpediann (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not kidding. I wrote this with text based communications that does not allow for sarcasm. I try to be truthful in all my communications. Please let's all use better tone in our communications here. Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: "In 2013 Elijah created an official White House petition as a prank, in order to make Miley Cyrus's "Party in the U.S.A." the national anthem of the United States". This says it all. Anonpediann (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone who ever tries to create a petition as a prank is instantly not notable in your opinion? Even if that was from an incident from four (4) years ago? And even if later, four (4) years later, they've done other later things that makes them more notable, since then? Sagecandor (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Making a prank is NOT NOTABLE. Not to make into a Wikipedia article. Anonpediann (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but his career spans more than one single prank, as noted at [5]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any prank makes anyone notable. Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not sure what you mean here, but in this case the coverage in secondary sources is of multiple different events over a period of years. Sagecandor (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The current state of the article is not ideally related to the notability of the subject of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just just said above that is a "notable figure" and now you say that he doesn't need to be too notable to get an article? I can't see your point. Naming WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP to get a point when it has nothing to do with the post you just answered seems like you are trying to hard to null people's opinions to give more validation to yours. Anonpediann (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't even understand this comment. The language used by the user is confusing in their posts. Sagecandor (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you really wants to make this article work you should delete most of it. Remember WP:NOTPAPER. Quantity is not equal quality. Making pranks is not an objetive subject to talk about in someone's "Carrer" section. Do you really think he's notable for making pranks or making a petition in the internet? His only notable thing is that "book" (if we can call it that).Anonpediann (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this user's repeated argument about "paper", agree with comment about this by Timothyjosephwood at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Wikipedia:Too much detail. Sorry. Anonpediann (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said the article is "not ideally related to the notability of the subject" are you trying to say with that that he's not notable but anyway it's okay for him to have an article because there's other "subjects"? I don't understand you. Plus what's the point on bringing up WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP when it has nothing to do with what the user you're answering is saying? Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it reversed. I said the current state of the article is not ideally related to the notability of the subject of the article. I have since improved the article itself anyways, so the issue is moot. Sagecandor (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of you really seem to hate this guy, but the widespread coverage of his book asserts enough notability for an article. It really doesn't matter if he's an attention whore or "just another attention seeking internet persona", there are a lot of respectable publications talking about him.— TAnthonyTalk 04:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because "Declined prod" is not a reason for deletion, and looking at the article currently at Elijah Daniel, I don't see any myself. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per... sources? And... maybe a reminder that being a contested PROD in and of itself doesn't automatically mean you can skip WP:BEFORE and nominate with basically no deletion rationale. Just because an editor might personally think someone is largely a waste of good oxygen, doesn't mean they aren't notable. But if we decide some day that that's a valid reason for deletion please notify me because I'll be first in line to nominate every article that ends in or contains the word Kardashian. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Most of the sources talk about his book, not himself. Others are unreliable. Plus WP:NOTPAPER. Please, the page even talks about him making a petition on the internet. Annoying. Anonpediann (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER... You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Because it ain't got nothing to do with notability. Feel free to ping me back if you have an argument that is a valid deletion rationale. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:I meant Wikipedia:Too much detail. Sorry. Anonpediann (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:TMI is essentially an essay, and not a policy or guideline, so it's more of... a suggestion. 2) Even if it was a policy/guideline, it relates to article content in the same way that WP:DUE does, and content issues are basically totally separate from deletion issues in all but very few situations where the status as a deletion rationale is explicit in the policy. These are cases where it is so pervasive and egregious that it renders the article either basically illegal (i.e., WP:COPYVIO / WP:G12, WP:G10) or essentially worthless with nothing of any value worth saving (e.g., WP:G11, WP:G1, WP:A1, WP:A3, WP:A10). An anyway, AFAIK, every deletion rationale that deals with article content is a speedy deletion rationale, and this just... isn't eligible for any of those.
The issue here is whether the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If that's the case, then the article can basically be as poorly written as you can imagine, and still not qualify for deletion, because notability is an existential question about the nature of the subject (see also WP:NEXIST), and not a question of what is demonstrated by the content of the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:Agreed. Unfortunately, Anonpediann seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge and understand your last sentence. "notability is an existential question about the nature of the subject (see also WP:NEXIST), and not a question of what is demonstrated by the content of the article." DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: @Sagecandor: well you're wrong. Even if the quality of the article is pretty questionable, i say "Delete" because i don't consider Daniel a not notable enough as i've been stating in all this discussion. Don't mix things up. Anonpediann (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty nuanced point actually, it just doesn't seem that way after a few hundred AfDs. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:Unfortunately, if the article on Pope Francis was a poor quality stub, it would get deleted from Wikipedia as "not notable". Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's not a vote, and arguments not based on relevant policy don't count for anything. There's a few bumps here and there, but our admin corps understands that. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope you are right. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The case for deletion is that the article is promotional in nature. I still support deletion, even after the changes. Due to previous disagreements I have had with Sagecandor, I am refraining from editing the article myself. However, the lede as written is filled with puffery; a top gay erotica book should not be described in Wikipedia's voice as an "Amazon Best Seller". Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: You have to learn to read the information and put it in a more objetive way. Obviously when a source makes an interview or something they are going to praise the subject. Copy paste is not always the answer. Anonpediann (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonpediann:You wrote, "You have to learn to read the information and put it in a more objetive way." Do you mean the word, "objective", or "objetive" ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Objective. Sorry i didn't know you never made mistakes. Trying to make fun of me says a lot of you as a person. Never said that with a bad intection oh sorry intention. Anonpediann (talk)
Merely pointing out that in the exact same comment where you advised me, "You have to learn to read", you are obviously not taking care to copyedit and proofread your own writings, here, on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly said it in a sarcastic way not even answering to the actual statement. Obviously english isn't my mother language. I do, but when i write a good objective article of a notable subject, something you failed to achieve. Anonpediann (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly insulted my ability to read, while displaying your inability to do same, with your own comments, before you save them. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insulted, not even tried. Just said that you have to put the subjective words of any article in your own words and make them objective. Misspelling a word has nothing to do with my ability to read. Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only route for deleting an article for being promotional is WP:G11. You can certainly try it if you would like, but G11 requires that there is basically nothing in the article that could conceivable be saved, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of G11 here. Other than that, AfD doesn't delete articles for tone, so this is as yet another argument for article improvement, and not for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL4 is "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content"; spam is defined to include "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." I'm not sure what the encyclopedic content is in this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely WP:BLP violations as well ("BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."); but with the level of self-promotion that Mr. Daniel engages in, they are probably all editing concerns and not reasons for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page If it's pure advertising or promotion with no encyclopedic content and cannot be fixed by article improvement, then it should be nominated for G11, because that's basically verbatim what G11 is. Other than that, the type of spam that is referenced by your quote from WP:SPAM is usually when someone writes a book, and then tries to add it as a reference to every article they can think of. ...It... happens a lot.
Overall, tone is an argument for article improvement, and we don't delete articles that need improved; we improve them. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article with this many comments at AfD can't be nominated for speedy deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing preventing an article from being nominated for CSD, PROD and AfD all at the same time. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was already PRODed. The PROD was removed by Spinningspark [8], who then nominated it for deletion, here, at AfD. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about a "hypothetical article". No, it can't be reprodded, but I've nominated plenty of articles for CSD while there was an AfD under way, in cases where the nominator doesn't quite understand CSD, and goes to AfD when it was CSD-worthy to begin with. Having said that, the issue is not that anyone is technically prevented from applying a CSD tag, but that it doesn't fall under CSD to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elijah Daniel won "Best Comedian" at the Shorty Awards. [9] for his entire body of work, not any one particular work. Sagecandor (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good for him. Failed to make him notable. Anonpediann (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The award on its own maybe, maybe not. But the fact is it recognized the entire corpus of his body of work as a whole, and not any one individual work alone. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Shorty Awards seem to have their own problems. Dunno if being mentioned by them is a plus or a minus. Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with much respect for Timothyjosephwood, WP:N makes it clear that a failure of WP:NOT is a legitimate reason to exclude a subject from the encyclopedia even when a subject passes the GNG. I tried to rewrite it because I respected Sagecandor's attempts to improve the article. Unfortunately as written now, it would require a fundamental rewrite to be in compliance with WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NPOV. Effectively all of the content would need to be removed per WP:DON'T PRESERVE, since as it stands, it is written as an advertisement. I think this would be an acceptable deletion under either WP:DEL4 or WP:DEL14 depending on how bad you think the prose is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. Reliable sources including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE -- are not promotional. @TonyBallioni:I've researched and wrote and tried very very very hard over many hours of effort to improve the page. I feel I've demonstrated notability with the significant expansion. I hope you can reconsider and come to realize that any issues with tone are an article improvement issue and not a reason to delete the entire thing and throw away all my research and improvement efforts, please. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for you but you can't demonstrate that someone is notable when he isn't. He hasn't made any productive thing for this society and that may be the reason why. Anonpediann (talk)
Thank you. I've tried quite hard to demonstrate notability with hours upon hours of research, writing, and editing, and expansion of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N and WP:DEL both allow exclusion based on the content of the article in addition to the content of the sourcing, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP is not policy, its an essay. As written now, the article reads as a promotional piece/CV for Mr. Daniel. It would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. That is a reason under the deletion policy to delete the article regardless of sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think you're wrong, but you're not going to hurt my feelings or anything. In the most extreme circumstance, if the subject is notable, and the article needs cleanup for tone, but isn't G11, then reducing to a stub is always a draconian but viable option, and a stub on a notable topic is preferable to nothing. After all, fixing the tone could have probably already been done with all the effort that's been put into this AfD. Since this is looking an awful lot like a no consensus par excellence, probably best to put in effort there, rather than here. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Still a mess. Full of trivia and the unreliable sources still up. If you want to keep it you should make it more simple. This shouldn't be a informative blog about every move this guy makes on the Internet. Feels like you're reading a fanpage or a ElijahDanielUpdates Twitter account, that's why most of us consider it promotional. As i said before quantity doesn't means quality. Anonpediann (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop commenting ad infinitum to every comment I make personally to other people at this AFD page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All the reliable sources used in the article are about the book Trump Temptations, and not the person himself. Shouldn't another article be created? The person is not notable by himself. Article is nothing but trivial facts that are all about that book. He won some sort of award for being a comedian, but I can't even see an independent separate source discussing it. Mymis (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. He's most well known for his book, but there has been some other coverage. If the book article had been created first then there would likely be a good argument for not having an article for the author, however the author's page was created first and it's not uncommon for there to be an "either/or" scenario with authors and their book. It's not uncommon for editors to opt to have an article for the person rather than the book, especially if the person has received coverage for other things that almost but may not entirely justify an independent article. Having the author's page can sometimes make it easier to have a more complete overview of everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Casper

[edit]
David R. Casper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

referenced and a claim of notability but in my opinion just a bloke doing a job. TheLongTone (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sepia Tears ~midwinter's reprise~

[edit]
Sepia Tears ~midwinter's reprise~ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was dePRODed once with no reason given. A search for sources reveals none from reliable sources, at least as recognized by Wikiproject Video Games, and it has no Metascore or recognized official critical reviews. It appears to be completely non-notable and fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not turn up a single RS on this one--just a single obscure and short blog post, obviously insufficient to establish notability. The links currently used to source the article are all commercial or development pages, not reliable sources, and not independent of topic. Snow let's rap 12:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did find two articles by Hardcore Gamer and Siliconera, but not enough to meet the GNG.--IDVtalk 10:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. The merge result from the prior AfD was never carried out. If a merge (presumably to List of Marvel Comics characters: A) is still desired, individual editors can be bold and simply do it. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angar the Screamer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Angar the Screamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional character article has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it seems I was the nominator of the previous AfD for this article but I have forgotten in the meantime that the result was merge. Not sure how to withdraw the AfD. AadaamS (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Non-commissioned officers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Talbert

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Floyd Talbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Floyd Talbert was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (first sergeant) or his highest award (bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. After the war he attended college and worked in a number of positions. He was described as a drifter and alcoholic in Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose but his family took exception to that description. He died aty age 59. Nothing in his post-war life makes him notable under WP:GNG or qualifies him under WP:SIGCOV Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another good serviceman who did his bit but nothing outstanding from his thousands of contemparies. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another who is not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He would not be notable for his military service, except that he was one of the soldiers covered in the Ambrose Band of Brothers book and HBO miniseries. The book, miniseries and related coverage provide sufficient sources to meet GNG and to write a decent encyclopedic article. Another option would be to combine all the "Band of Brothers" soldiers into one big article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Band of Brothers miniseries does not confer notability: it's a fictional portrayal. The book does not confer notability either, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Is a notable figure, in that he has been the subject of substantial coverage in the range of non-fiction books covering this unusually prominent company, including Ambrose's Band of Brothers, Dick Winter's Beyond Band of Brothers, and Marcus Brotherton's A Company of Heroes. I would also comment (this isn't an argument for keeping or deleting) that the majority of members of the company have their own pages based on a similair degree of notability, and that if this is perceived to be insufficient those will need to be revisited. The cumulative quantity of each of these articles seems too great to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to E_Company,_506th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Non-commissioned_officers per WP:ATD-R. Lack of stand-lone notability does not prevent redirecting. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet2.com

[edit]
Yet2.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

corporate spam! Light2021 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Renzl, Birgit; Matzler, Kurt; Hinterhuber, Hans, eds. (2005). The Future of Knowledge Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 150. ISBN 0-230-37189-2. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
    The book notes:

Yet2.com was founded in 1999 in Cambridge, Massachusetts and in a short period of time it became the biggest worldwide market for patents. Specifically, it has extensive experience in matching demand and supply for intellectual property assets: from patents to complete packages of technology and know-how. The purpose is to allow all parties to maximize the return on their investments. Whether the users are working with a team of their licensing experts or they are using the virtual technology marketplace, Yet2.com offers companies and individuals the tools and expertise to acquire, sell, license and liverage valuable intellectual assets. In 2002 Yet2.com was bought by Schiper Plc, a British company leading in patent-and product-licensing across Europe. With over 800,000 users, in December 2004 Yet2.com represented more than 30 categories, from chemicals to new materials, from electronics to consumer goods. As a technology marketplace, the company is a traditional many-to-many operator, where seekers of specific technologies may find sellers of patents. Sellers can remain anonymous until they have qualified a buyer and they can set restrictions, exercise listings at any time and accept only the introductions they consider adequate. Potential buyers can be supported in their search for a specific technology by services such as the 'Free patent search', which allow users to save, manage and organize their patent search, and 'Consult with an expert', which provides professional consulting and expert witness services from over 10,000 industry experts covering 30,000 areas of science, engineering, regulation and business. Seekers of specific technologies can remain anonymous, but they have to provide some information such as company type, annual revenue, years in business and geographic area of their activity. The TechNeed Challenge periodically highlights TechNeeds that individuals and their organization may be able to meet. A description of the required technology is provided, together with a desired timeframe, the field of use and intended application and the desired outcome. Among the customers that sponsor and use the website are large companies like 3M, AlliedSignal, The Boeing Company, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, P&G and other international companies such as Toyota Motors and Bayer.

  1. Dodgson, Mark; Gann, David; Salter, Ammon (2005). Think, Play, Do: Technology, Innovation, and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926808-8. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
    The book notes:

Yet2.com

To further its C&D strategy for patents and licensing, P&G has partnered with Yet2.com, another Internet marketplace for technology. Yet2.com was founded in 1999 by senior managers from Polaroid and Du Pont. Its founding sponsors included P&G, Bayer, Siemens, Dow Chemicals, Caterpillar, and Honeywell. Around 500 companies, including 3M, Microsoft, and Philips, use Yet2.com.
Yet2.com helps 'seller' companies realize the value from their intellectual property and technology and 'buyer' companies find intellectual property and technology to enhance their resources or to fill gaps. It brokers existing technology and intellectual property. Typically, deals are made between large and small companies, whereby large companies sell technology they think has too small a potential market to interest them or buy technologies from smaller firms that do not have the resources to commercialize them. Yet2.com posts functional abstracts about the technology, which are written as plainly as possible and often speculate on applications of the technology that may not currently be on the market. Yet2.com postings include reference to groups of associated patents. Yet2.com charges a $5,000 commission for its introductions. It is already a significant marketplace, with over 800,000 users.
P&G is an extensive user of Yet2.com. In one instance, Yet2.com marketed a technology from its beauty care division to one of its (unnamed) competitors, and the royalties from this were estimated to have paid for P&G's entire investment in Yet2.com

  1. Weber, Larry (2011). Everywhere: Comprehensive Digital Business Strategy for the Social Media Era. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 172. ISBN 1-118-01629-7. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
    The book notes:

That's where entities like yet2.com come in. Yet2.com helps companies leverage and extract value from their intellectual property through both consulting and an online licensing marketplace, maximizing the return on companies' initial development expenses. (Obviously, their marketplace also assists companies with the inverse: sourcing IP.) Over the past 10 years, yet2.com has completed more than 100 licensing deals on four continents in fields as diverse as biotech and materials. Sony, Panasonic, DuPont, P&G, and a host of other well-known companies have succesfully worked with yet2.com.

  1. Harrison, Suzanne S.; Sullivan, Patrick H. (2006). Einstein in the Boardroom: Moving Beyond Intellectual Capital to I-Stuff. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-470-00742-7. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
    The book notes:

In 1999 P&G joined a select group of other Fortune 100 companies as an initial investor in yet2.com. Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, yet2.com provides intellectual property consultancy and licensing services to world-class international clients. yet2.com and its online marketplace promote technology licensing and transfer. Its clientele consists of over one-fourth of the Fortune 1000. yet2.com draws on its global network of technology leaders in thousands of companies across all industries, to establish productive dialogs quickly. In addition to being an investor, P&G has utilized yet2.com services for both bringing in and taking out technologies. This has resulted in profitable connections that otherwise might not have been made.

  1. Malik, Om (2000-02-07). "Technology's clearinghouse: Yet2.com". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
    The article notes:

    Why would a scion of one of America’s richest and best-known families even bother with starting a business-to-business electronic commerce company?
    “Pure frustration with the existing processes led me to start this company,” quips Ben DuPont, president and cofounder of Cambridge, Mass.-based Yet2.com, a startup that aims to become the clearing house for technology developed by individual inventors and corporations.
    Yet2.com opened for business today, after operating in stealth mode for more than 12 months. The company has raised almost $24 million in three rounds of financing from the likes of Venrock Capital, Proctor & Gamble pg , DuPont dd and Honeywell hon
    About 12 months ago, Ben DuPont, a 14-year veteran and business development executive with DuPont, was trying to get other corporations to license a hot new polymer technology developed by DuPont. “There was no easy way to do it,” he said.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yet2.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mockery of every AfD. Again the same way of misleading AfD and discussion, unnecessary making it long copy paste job without reading its a routine coverage and nothing else. this way this whole AfD gone wrong as such lengthy way makes it highly confusing, what is the point of all this? On every AfD its been done by Cunard. just go to link and copy and paste it here.Light2021 (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promo given the first one has a clear search for a specific technology by services such as the 'Free patent search', which allow users to save, manage and organize their patent search, and 'Consult with an expert', which provides professional consulting and expert witness services from over 10,000 industry experts covering 30,000 areas of science, engineering, regulation and business. Seekers of specific technologies can remain anonymous, but they have to provide some information such as company type, annual revenue, years in business and geographic area of their activity. or the following Yet2.com helps 'seller' companies realize the value from their intellectual property and technology and 'buyer' companies find intellectual property and technology to enhance their resources or to fill gaps. It brokers existing technology and intellectual property. Typically, deals are made between large and small companies, whereby large companies sell technology they think has too small a potential market to interest them or buy technologies from smaller firms that do not have the resources to commercialize them. (This is a clearly business guidebook), or extract value from their intellectual property through both consulting and an online licensing marketplace, maximizing the return on companies' initial development expenses. or yet2.com draws on its global network of technology leaders in thousands of companies across all industries, to establish productive dialogs quickly. In addition to being an investor, P&G has utilized yet2.com services for both bringing in and taking out technologies. This has resulted in profitable connections that otherwise might not have been made. (Also guidebook) and, the last becomes no better: The company has raised almost $24 million in three rounds of financing from the likes of Venrock Capital, Proctor & Gamble pg , DuPont dd and Honeywell (immediately violates WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP). To actually see the similarities between them all, there would be no doubting the company would involve and clearly supply its own finances (no one else knows it better) thus unable to qualify GNG. To summarize, this was accepted in 2010 before WP:Paid was established and considering the one heavily-involved account highly showed employee-behavior. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading what the sources say, this company is clearly notable. WP:GNG is clearly met. Dream Focus 21:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per coverage in book sources, which includes, but is not limited to: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All the sources above are guide book and therefore are unacceptable by WP: Wikipedia is not a guidebook and WP:Not webhost, information from the books: "Think, Play, Do: Technology, Innovation, and Organization" is an instant guidebook for the specific field therefore unacceptable for WP:ORGIND since it says "Anything where the material is direct or indirectly involved or by the subject", as is the case with the next: "Everywhere: Comprehensive Digital Business Strategy for the Social Media Era – Put digital business strategy at the center of your business" (instant sign it's an unobjective guide), then also "The Future of Knowledge Management – field of Knowledge Management", then also "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything – updated edition of the national bestseller?now with a new introduction and a new chapter" (in fact the first paragraph says A brilliant guide, also "E-Business Management: Integration of Web Technologies with Business Models (this says " a collection of articles" therefore guide), "Einstein in the Boardroom: Moving Beyond Intellectual Capital to I-Stuff" (" Capitalize on Your Company's Intangible Asset" is guide-like), "Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation Networks" ("combines concepts and theories from the fields of urban development and planning, innovation management, and virtual / intelligent environments" is a guide). Because GNG is clear coverage must not be founded or otherwise based in primary information, it's unacceptable. In terms of depth, if would also be questionable by our policy WP:V. SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, the first source I posted above is a not a guide book at all. Note that the book is actually about: "The book reports in-depth studies from a number of companies and sectors. Major case studies of Proctor and Gamble and Arup Partners are presented. It reports on the use of innovation technology in a range of other companies and organizations, from pharmaceuticals in GSK, to engineering design in Ricardo engineering, and welding in TWI." (See: link). North America1000 03:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that same source also contains "Yet2.com helps 'seller' companies realize the value from their intellectual property and thechnology, and 'buyer' companies find intellectual property and technology to enhance their resources or fill gaps" which instantly violates policies WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to and WP:Promo, given it's not only a sales strategy but how they use on clients; there's no instance of that being acceptable here, regardless of whatever information the book itself says, since it wouldn't actually be independent. Sales strategies only belong on company websites, and especially not a guide book that literally "helps" clients. Along with this, I'll actually post 2 other examples from that book: Yet2.com posts functional abstracts about the technology, which are written as plainly as possible and often speculate on application of the technology that may not currently be on market. Yet2.com postings include reference to groups of associated patents. Yet2.com charges $5,000". (violates every single policy including suggestive guidelines such as GNG with that pricing quote}} and then also In one instance, Yet2.com marketed a technology form from its beauty care division to one of its "unnamed" competitors" and the royalties from this were estimated to have paid....for investment in Yet2.com". With these highlighted alone, policies violated are WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Webhost and WP:Promo. What this suggests is that it's actually in-depth because the company naturally supplied its own information about its own specific finances and trade deals, not because the book itself either guessed it or knew it. When I actually examined this, it's a clear guide because of the fact they're all columnized for each different company and the relevant information about it, that instantly violates policy WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, since we're not here to influence the company's publicity. Therefore a label case study never matters if the content weighs are in fact puffery. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Ben duPont, the company founder & CEO. The target article has extensive content on yet2, and in a more NPOV fashion. I agree with the nom and the "Delete" voters that the current article is too spammy and of marginal notability, if any. The page acts as a replacement for the company web site, with content such as:
  • yet2.com has six product areas: Tactical Targeted Search, Strategic Dealflow Service, Out-licensing Technology Marketing & Business Development, Patent Transactions, Submissions Portals and Venture Capital!
Etc. No content would be lost via a deletion as the sources currently present in the article are inadequate. There's no need for two Wiki article that discuss essentially the same subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2005 Palgrave Macmillan–published book says, "Yet2.com was founded in 1999 in Cambridge, Massachusetts and in a short period of time it became the biggest worldwide market for patents."
    The book further says, "Among the customers that sponsor and use the website are large companies like 3M, AlliedSignal, The Boeing Company, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, P&G and other international companies such as Toyota Motors and Bayer."
    A 2006 John Wiley & Sons–published book says, "Its clientele consists of over one-fourth of the Fortune 1000."
    A 2011 John Wiley & Sons–published book says, "Over the past 10 years, yet2.com has completed more than 100 licensing deals on four continents in fields as diverse as biotech and materials. Sony, Panasonic, DuPont, P&G, and a host of other well-known companies have succesfully worked with yet2.com."
    This is clearly a very major company that passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, any NPOV issues in the article can be addressed through normal editing instead of deletion.
    Cunard (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately; but the sourcing clearly demonstrates a degree of depth and persistence of coverage probably sufficient to suggest notability. Incidentally, I've removed the most blatant advertising from the article; although some of the remaining prose could be tweaked for linguistical tone, it is no longer blatantly promotional. — fortunavelut luna 08:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because all the posted sources are simply firsthand or secondhand promotional announcements, see 1-8 including minor changes as not to sound completely the same, and the ones above aren't different because the highlighted detailed quotes (which I agree with) only make it clear they're from the company, so it's not independent, no matter what the headline, front page or bookcover says. No amount of copyediting or changes helps us remove clearcut promotionalism and the only lasting solution is deletion. Even if an article is still not blatantly promotional, it can still be and it would only be sugarcoating by not acknowledging it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. half the article is self-serving quotes from the company. There isn othing here that can't be found equally well on their web site, or searched quickly in a suitable directory, such as google. Google is a directory,but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All promotional material should be removed from here; if blatant , via speedy, if essentially promotionalism but not blatant or outrageous, by Prod or AfD. If they are really notable , some highly skilled volunteer like Cunard might be able to write a proper article, but the first step is to remove this one. We need more skilled volunteers in this area, but they should be writing good articles from the sources, not rewriting promotion or -- even worse--defending it here. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM

[edit]
Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable device among thousands of other devices. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue, or shopping brochure. Kindly see WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In a world where 2.8/24-70mm 24x36mm-format zooms can be had for 100 USD, this 2200 USD lens is eons away from WP:MILL and WP:ENN. Stating it would be "a device among thousands" is untrue. This isn't a lens for a (D)SLR, but for a full-frame mirrorless cameras. Lenses in its class can be counted on one hand.
This is a high-performance lens by one of the established manufacturers of photographic equipment. It is discussed in dozens of photographic outlets. It is clearly notable.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G

[edit]
Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable device among thousands of other devices. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue, or shopping brochure. Kindly see WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This high-performance lens by a major player in digital photography is (and will be even more in the future) covered in various magazines, and is notable beyond any doubt. WP:MILL and WP:ENN don't even remotely apply to this 1800 USD lens, and stating that it would be "a non-notable device among thousands of other devices" clearly shows that the nominator grossly lacks knowledge in physics and technical photography and didn't even do his homework before nominating this. I'm deeply worried about careless mass-nominations such as this one - they unnecessarily bind energy and time and drive away contributing editors.
For decades it was thought to be impossible to design a 12-24mm zoom full-frame lens for a (D)SLR, even more so one with fixed aperture. A few designs have been shown in the more recent past, but it is only the advent of mirrorless full-frame cameras with ultra-short flange focal distances just a couple of years ago now making it possible to introduce novel lens designs such as this one.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: Ironically, it is your definition of notability that is flawed. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate how. Samsara 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rayge DeMarco

[edit]
Rayge DeMarco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician lacking no-trivial, in-depth, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Bytes

[edit]
Beyond Bytes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable defunct company. External links in article are all local coverage. Nothing outside that area and nothing recent to indicate ongoing or sustained coverage. Ineligible for PROD - de-prodded by creator in 2006. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 05:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. R. Manohar

[edit]
C. R. Manohar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. All the non-passing references found on internet are about him as a candidate for election, not as a producer. Fails WP:ANYBIO as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: An article with a similar name by the same creator was deleted through PRoD. The talkpage notice can be found here. Possible COI. Subject's photo is uploaded by creator as own work. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is defintely in dire need of cleanup, but he's not just a candidate for election — he has won, and holds, a seat in the Karnataka Legislative Council (the upper house of a state legislature) and thus passes WP:NPOL #1 — and because it's India, the good sources are far more likely to be in Kannada (that's an Indian language, not a misspelling of Canada!) rather than English. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I don't think he is an MLA, neither MLC. Could you please provide any source for that? I tried, but I couldnt find. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly he appears in the list of members on the Legislative Council's article (and has appeared there since December 2015, so this isn't a recent bit of vandalism). And secondly, sources like [17] and [18] do contain references to "C. R. Manohar MLC". I'll grant that those are namechecks which aren't brilliant at supporting notability, but they do demonstrate that the base claim is true. And, of course, I have little doubt that a lot more sources about him would be found in Karnataka's own dominant language than in English per se. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Although I had performed a WP:BEFORE I came across the result that Bearcat found; in that particular result, I mistook "MLC" as a person (a common practice in south Indian states, like person NTR). A very time-consuming search, and after many keywords, I found a Deccan Chronicle article that confirms the subject being an MLC. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riordan Clinic

[edit]
Riordan Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - athough there appear to be some mentions in sources - mainly around fake vitamin C cancer cures - I can't find any significant coverage of the clinic itself Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But these are passing mentions as stated in the nom. Did you find any "significant coverage" as GNG requires? Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of passing mentions as mentioned already. Did you find a single piece of significant coverage in independent sources? Would be interested if so .. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean besides the hundreds of articles in the links provided?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as GNG requires. Is there even one source which does this (other than stuff churned from Riordan press releases? We need independent coverage too.) Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds, it seems. All you need to do is click on the links and read. However, here's some more from High-Beam in addition to those already posted above:
  1. Dr. Ron Hunninghake of the Riordan Clinic Inducted into the 2013 Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame: Townsend Letter, August 1, 2013
  2. Riordan Clinic research Institute publishes Chelation Therapy study: Townsend Letter, November 1, 2011
  3. Riordan Clinic: Vitamin C Helps Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Manufacturing Close-Up, December 14, 2012
  4. Research Roundup: Recent Highlights Involving Nutraceuticals from Scientific Journals: Nutraceuticals World, April 1, 2013
Here's a solid list from Google Scholar of academic papers:
  1. The effects of a primary nutritional deficiency (vitamin B study) HD Riordan, N Mikirova, PR Taylor… - Food and Nutrition …, 2012 - [biomedcentral.com]
  2. Clinical experience with intravenous administration of ascorbic acid: achievable levels in blood for different states of inflammation and disease in cancer N Mikirova, J Casciari… - [medicine.biomedcentral.com]
  3. Effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on inflammation in cancer patients N Mikirova, J Casciari, A Rogers… [medicine.biomedcentral.com]
  4. The Orthomolecular Correction of Metabolic Imbalances Found in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Retrospective Analysis in an Outpatient Clinic. NA Mikirova, JJ Casciari… [search.ebscohost.com]
  5. Treatment of cancer using lipoic acid in combination with ascorbic acid JJ Casciari, NH Riordan - US Patent 6,284,786, 2001 - [nih.gov]
  6. Effect of high dose vitamin C on Epstein-Barr viral infection Nina A. Mikirova A, C, D, E and Ronald Hunninghake A. Bio-Communication Research Institute, Riordan Clinic, Wichita, KS, USA. [biomedcentral.com]
  7. Intravenous ascorbic acid to prevent and treat cancer-associated sepsis TE Ichim, B Minev, T Braciak… [medicine.biomedcentral.com]
  8. Intravenous high-dose ascorbic acid reduces the expression of inflammatory markers in peripheral mononuclear cells of subjects with metabolic syndrome N Mikirova, RC Scimeca Journal of Translational Science, 2016 [oatext.com]
  9. subjects with metabolic syndrome Nina Mikirova*# and Ruth C Scimeca# Riordan Clinic, 3100 [nih.gov]
  10. Modulation of cytokines in cancer patients by intravenous ascorbate therapy N Mikirova, N Riordan, J Casciari - Medical science monitor: …, 2016 - [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Just click on the "news" link above and you get hundreds of references, if not thousands. Please review WP:BEFORE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourcing 101. Just taking the first source above it simply does not address the topic of The Riordan Clinic "directly and in detail", but is about some guy getting an award. Furthermore, this appears to be just a churn of the clinic's own puffy press release.[19] and is not independent coverage as we require. This is quack medical types hyping each other (The Townsend Letter is a fringe source) and not useful. You need to review our core sourcing policies before advancing an argument which amount to little more than WP:GOOGLEHITS - but the closer will see this ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON there is no need to keep repeating your argument. Repeating it more doesn't give it more weight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but looking at the substance of the arguments is instructive. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that we disagree. Please don't try to play a WP:SENIORITY card.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G5 by Ponyo —SpacemanSpiff 04:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Chhetri

[edit]
Sandip Chhetri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence that the subject has played a major role in any of the films listed in the article. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Friendly

[edit]
Phil Friendly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahaguru

[edit]
Mahaguru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for notability for 9 years. I was unable to verify that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AND WP:INDAFD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Rossetti Cashmere

[edit]
Raffaele Rossetti Cashmere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that makes zero claims of significance beyond existing. No sourcing can be found after doing a WP:BEFORE search and it is currently only referenced to the companies own website. Clear failure of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A7 has nothing to do with notability Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant importance. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UKstreetsounds

[edit]
UKstreetsounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant coverage in reliable sources not found. Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged since September 2008. The article was proposed for deletion by Menaechmi without providing a reason. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry about that, I could have sworn I left a rationale along the lines of: A music streaming company that went defunct before it could become notable. No coverage in any media streams, and the only provided sources are no longer accessible. Not related to Street Sounds, a separate UK recording label. menaechmi (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nobody has expressed an interest in keeping the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development and Communication Morphosis

[edit]
Development and Communication Morphosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book which fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The page was created by the author himself, who has since been blocked as a Sockpuppet. Was deleted earlier as WP:G11. Jupitus Smart 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because media did not get this book covered does not mean this book is non notable. Google books shows this book. Also, National Institute of Mass Communication & Journalism, Ahmedabad ( Recognized by Gujarat University ) has this book in their Library. see link: http://nimcj.org/library/View_bookdetail.php?book_id=Development%20and%20Communication%20morphosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.41.150 (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, Quack. Jupitus Smart 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the anatine reasons mentioned in the nomination.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Land Emergency Resource Team

[edit]
Air Land Emergency Resource Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found in underlinked backlog. There's only two sources for this article about a religous boot camp in East Texas: one is a deadlink and the other is an in-depth profile, but it's from a regional TV station. There's no evidence of notability here, at least not the sustained independent coverage that WP:ORG would demand. If kept, the article needs a major cleanup for tone and removal of unsourced material. A Traintalk 15:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Even if multiple reliable sources did exist, the current content looks less like an encyclopedia article and more like a promotional piece and/or misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. --Kinu t/c 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Atlantic Film Festival. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Partners

[edit]
Strategic Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CloudPay

[edit]
CloudPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this company is notable. Searches revealed very little else. Sources are own, affiliated or directory listings. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus stations in Singapore

[edit]
List of bus stations in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of these terminals have been deleted at various AFDs so someones now decided to just merge and create one huge article - great idea however A) It goes against consensus and B) The article fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)(updated 17:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

  • Withdrawn - I don't agree one bit this should be kept however the community wants it kept so so be it, Anyway can't close as delete !votes present however regardless I still withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion inregards to "AFD Gaming"
  • The consensus of those that are currently at AFD, Sure some haven't actually been deleted yet however consensus is going that way, If consensus was delete those individual ones then yes it does go against consensus, My search parameters were all terminals listed. –Davey2010Talk 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately we edit conflicted - I personally believe it's GAMING AFD in some respects but regardless of all that if sources can be found I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010Talk 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it is gaming. A list may be legitimate when individual stubs are not. On the other hand, just because it is a list does not prove that it is notable or appropriate, sources about the bus stations as a group or enough of them individually must be found. To be clear, i am not (yet) favoring keep or delete here, i am merely pointing out that the parameters for such a list are different from tjhose for an individual short article, and that we have a number of "List of" bus station articles. This last is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and so of limited weight. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) fails to make a claim for notability in the article's lead. (2) fails the general notability guidelines for lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. (3) fails GEOFEAT as a man-made place for the same lack. Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. It is in the nature of bus stops, and metro stops, to be verifiabile but not notable. The same is true of lists of such stops/terminals. (4) It fails Stand-alone lists for lacking reliable sources that treat this topic in a non-directory manner. (5) Lastly, the policy at WP:NOTTRAVEL indicates that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Bejnar (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how this article is different from List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London. I just started working on it a few hours ago and I am still improving it. But all of these articles have the same problems that you have mentioned. Do you think these should be deleted as well?--DreamLinker (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer that absolutely without looking at each individual article in particular, but the same principles would apply in analysis. --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a list of Bus Terminals and interchanges (not regular bus stops) in Singapore. I incorporated information from the individual articles, all of which were nominated for deletion (see list of articles here). This is helping to preserve the content (WP:PRESERVE). I just started working on it today, so it will take me a bit of time to clean up and add more references and organise the information. I can understand that Wikipedia shouldn't have a list of bus stops as it is not a travel guide. But bus terminals are typically more significant and used by more people. This article is similar to List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London. I searched an I am able to find decent references for some of them (and I am continuing to add them). I am pretty sure there would be more which is not available online.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are references available about bus terminals/interchanges as a whole and also about individual ones.
I am also finding that similar articles about bus stops in Europe/America/Australia seems to have been kept. For example, Silver Line (MBTA) seems to have a list of all the bus stations, even though these are ordinary bus stops in a BRT line. Some of the bus stations seem to have their own articles as well Melnea Cass Boulevard (MBTA station), Lenox Street (MBTA station). I am not sure how many of these actually have a lot of references.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the straitstimes.com one none of these work - It just redirects me to the homepage so these cannot be used and plus judging by the title here these are just passing mentions and not indepth coverage, Also as noted by Charles OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument to make either, Anyway as I said judging from the titles these seem to be just passing mentions, I appreciate you want this article saved however inshort there is no notability and it was noted in the individual article AFDs there were only passing mentions found (which I'm assuming were the above ?).... –Davey2010Talk 22:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give me an example of which one doesn't work? There is only 1 link I wasn't able to access. Every other link works. I am not able to understand why are these passing mentions. In quite a few of the sources I quoted above, the entire news article is about bus terminals (not bus stops).--DreamLinker (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main argument for keeping is that there are enough sources (as I listed above, and as I am continuously adding to the article). Many of these sources are full length news articles. I would be happy to learn why these are not suitable. I believe these sources provide significant coverage. If you could point out what is wrong with each source, I would be happy to try and rectify it.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the point in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I understand that it is not a good argument. But that said, I feel it is unfair that London (a city in UK) has so many articles on bus stops Category:Bus stations in London and many of these are not sourced or have much fewer sources than this article. There are entire articles on bus routes Category:Bus_routes_in_London with few sources. List of bus routes in London has so many links to bus stations in London. Yet, these are allowed to exist. I am pretty sure no one will tag these for deletion. There are even articles which are very similar to this list, such as Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations, an article which lists various bus depots and a bit of their history.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whois XML API

[edit]
Whois XML API (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are either self-published or superficial mentions. I wasn't able to locate any mention of "Whois XML API" in the two book references provided. The article has the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Rentier (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While I would have ideally liked to see greater participation here, there is a clear consensus to delete due to WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY. There is, however, some feeling that this is a potentially legitimate topic for an article, but such an article would require a complete rewrite and better sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Web

[edit]
Physical Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May-be it has got some prospectives.But as things currently stands, with a dearth of adequate sourcing et al, this fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: 13 sources are given in the article so your claim of unsourced is untrue. Do you want to try again? ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "largely" above to clarify. Here are samples of unsourced content:
  • The primary starting point of the Physical Web is that although the web makes browsing and search very easy regardless of the physical location of the content, discovering content that is relevant in the space and time is actually very difficult on mobile in general. This shift has primarily occurred as more and more of the content of the Internet was consumed on mobile devices as opposed to PCs.
  • For example paying for parking on a smartphone could be a very easy way to handle the transaction but current information and communication channels on mobile present the user with a great deal of friction: either a mobile application has to be downloaded on the user’s device or a QR code has to be scanned or even worse a URL has to be identified by a user and has to be typed into a mobile browser.
K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the article. It was a recent submission and has not yet received much love. The problems can be fixed by improving the article. Unless you're going to try to make a WP:TNT arguement, this is not justification for a Delete !vote. ~Kvng (talk)
WP:ADVOCACY is part of WP:NOT, which is a policy. That's a perfectly good reason for advocating deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I gather you don't see a notability issue here. How does your delete position square with the idea that we should improve flawed articles on notable subjects, not delete them? Articles are often started by motivated editors. Because of their background they are unable to resolve NPOV issues in Draft: space. It is a lot less work to address NPOV issues in these articles through editing than by starting over. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is far away from Wikipedia style, blatantly promotional as noted above. It seems a neologism to some extent, or perhaps marketing buzzword, which might not disqualify it, while needed to have a bit more sources before meeting notability in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive the sourcing is solid enough to demonstrate there is no WP:NEOLOGISM issue here. Please see my WP:ADVOCACY discussion with K.e.coffman above and weigh in if appropriate. I'm pretty confident that style doesn't play a role in delete decisions. This article is an AfC submission I accepted and if there really is a solid delete argument to be made here, I will adjust my AfC behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree that it is better to improve bad articles instead of just deleting them in general. However, it is still not clear to me what this article is about. It uses capital letters, refers to a Forbes article on marketing and words like "solution" which is a red flag to me indicating it is promotion for marketing buzzwords. But the capitol letters might also imply the proper noun referring to the specific github project? If so, it should say that up front. World Wide Web and Internet of things are concepts I can understand. But "expanding the Web into physical environments" is quite vague. The Web already is in a physical environment. Reading the github page, perhaps the distinction is that you do not need to load an "app"? But that is just the World Wide Web. And Internet of things is the idea of putting billions of tiny servers on it. I do think having a higher AfC threshold might make sense: format correctly, avoid inline URLs, etc. but do not feel strongly about this specific article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 15:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Crasto

[edit]
Tanisha Crasto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. She has received some routine local coverage for winning one local tournament, but isn't yet a notable sportsperson (won a level 4 tournament in doubles, highest ranking in singles or doubles not in top 400, ...) Promising youth players in many sports often get articles in local sports sections, but in general we don't write articles about them anyway until they go beyond that level (the number of young soccer, tennis, ... players we could write articles on based on this type of coverage would be enormous). Fram (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meet WP:NBADMINTON #3 Stvbastian (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate, as I don't see it. She has medalled at some small tournaments for clubs, that's it. Fram (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBADMINTON #3 said that "Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country. (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International)". She was the doubles gold medalist at tha Bahrain International. Bahrain International was the highest badminton tournament level at that country and same with Slovak International level.Stvbastian (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you may be right, although that isn't really clear from that article. I'll wait until this AfD is finished, but I don't think such level 4 tournaments (what's next, the Andorra open?) should be considered to give automatic notability at all. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I still don't believe she is notable and the tournaments are in my opinion really minor, but I can see what the "keeps" base their opinion on and it isn't as clear-cut as I first thought. Fram (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I personally would tend to strongly support the keep !voters (it almost looks like an open and shut case), I am relisting this Afd given Fram's subsequent comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ...and once more...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of Bahrain International. Florentyna (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Delivery Organization

[edit]
Healthcare Delivery Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "healthcare delivery organization" is not a phrase or a dictionary terminology, so we can't apply WP:NOTDICTIONARY as a standard. It is more a concept in healthcare delivery and seems viable as an encyclopedic term. Specifically looking at the significant Google Books and Google Scholar links (apart from the significant links on Google Search) about this subject, I would say this is a Keep for the benefit of the encyclopedic reader, who wishes to understand what are the facilities that a healthcare delivery organization offers. Thanks. Lourdes 09:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands it doesn't do that. Is Healthcare Delivery Organization a term with an agreed definition in common use? It seems to cover all kinds of things. Rathfelder (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article can be improved if it doesn't do that. But sources are quite clear on describing the concept of healthcare delivery organization. For example, the following scholarly sources talk quite descriptively about various aspects of a healthcare delivery organization:
  1. How clinical engineering adds value in healthcare delivery organisations
  2. How to transition to becoming an integrated healthcare delivery organisation
  3. Pharmacist systems in healthcare delivery organisations
  4. Human and behavioural dynamics in healthcare delivery organisations
  5. Knowledge Management in healthcare delivery organizations
  6. Why healthcare delivery organizations are professional bureaucracies
  7. How healthcare delivery systems in healthcare delivery organizations are organised
  8. Board of trustees in healthcare delivery organisations
Importantly, these sources and numerous more contain considerable descriptives of the concept of healthcare delivery organizations. Therefore, in my opinion, we can't dismiss this concept as a dictionary definition. If the article is not well written, we need editors to improve the same. Thanks. Lourdes 14:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lourdes 17:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 15:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goma people

[edit]
Goma (people) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very narrow topic for separate article. Possibly merge with Goma. Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the people connected with the city in any way? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is an ethnic group of reasonable size with its own language, we should certainly have an article on them. I think there may be a problem with searching because of how bantu ethnonyms, language names and so on are often constructed through prefixes. There is one ethnic group called Goma but also referered to as Wagoma (Google Books search) -- are they the same? Regardless of what happens to the current article, that shouldn't create precedent against a better article being created in the future. How about moving this to draft space? --Hegvald (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflats (blog)

[edit]
Mudflats (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 of the sources are of itself, the other 2 are Huffington Post blog posts, one of which appears to have a connection with the subject, the other only notes the site as being in the news for one thing. FailsWP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, the blog seems to not meet WP:NOTE criteria. The subject matter and format of the blog likely precludes it from becoming more notable in the future, and as such it cannot further the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Really, crap like this is what Wikipedia deserves for so thoroughly pushing the POV that today's trending topics on the web = the only notable topics the encyclopedia need concern itself with, especially in regards to chronically underrepresented topic areas like Alaska. Note that numerous other Sarah Palin WP:COATRACK articles which were kept in years past are meeting with a different consensus as of late. Also note that regardless of the outcome, the existence of this article right this moment has been used for years to justify undue weight over at Mike Doogan. Doogan has been a public figure in Alaska for 40+ years, so it's ludicrous to assert that his notability is dependent on this topic in any way whatsoever. That is what Wikipedia deserves for having so little desire to go out and find real sources as opposed to scavenging low-hanging fruit off the web. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 15:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech Radio News

[edit]
Free Speech Radio News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on itself for sourcing, no WP:RS demonstrating its significance Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here, but WP:NMEDIA does not grant radio shows an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, if the only sourcing that can be shown is their own self-published content about themselves. It takes reliable source coverage about it, in media independent of it, to clear our notability standards, but none is being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ivan Villafuerte Calayag

[edit]
Carl Ivan Villafuerte Calayag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Only 45k subscribers and not known much outside YouTube. Barely any coverage as far as I can see. scope_creep (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 01:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, in that he is associated with ABS-CBN, both on TV and a large YouTube channel, which is ostensibly very big. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the latest !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no evidence he associated with ABS-CBN. I had a similar case with another vlogger, who was running a YouTube channel, but who was associated with HBO, which was considered notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America1000 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B̤ē

[edit]
B̤ē (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no claim of notability and the article relies of self-published sources. None of these should exist; if the content was useful it should be at Saraiki alphabet or Arabic script in Unicode but not in standalone articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also additional letters and insufficiently sources with no claim of notability.:

ݙ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ڄ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ݨ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gueh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably more useful to merge/redirect to Voiced bilabial implosive, and similarly for other articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voiced bilabial implosive and the rest are phonetic articles and it's not customary to load these with any sort of orthographic details. If a merge is to be done I'm not sure I see a good target. The letters are used in more than one language orthography so redirecting to an article about one of the alphabet rather than the other isn't appropriate. A target like Arabic script in Unicode is both too general (all of the Arabic scripts) and too specific (only with regard to Unicode) to contain any meaningful content about individual letters. If there's problem with the current sources, then it's a trivial task to find more reliable ones. – Uanfala 23:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phonetics articles typically include a list of examples with transcriptions in the appropriate script, although it would be confusing to people who can't read Arabic. There are similar articles with Arabic-character titles such as ڄ and ݨ but I don't know if moving to ٻ is in order (currently that redirects here). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Note that while User:Sand79975 has not included a "keep" !vote in bold, their commentary is obviously aligned with notions for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Brickler

[edit]
Tyler Brickler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently appears to fails WP:GNG per mostly WP:ROUTINE sources. Best source appears to be this interview from 2015 about him trying to make the 2018 South Korean Olympic team. That gives us one source assuming the paper is independent and reliable. The rest are all stats pages and game coverage or brief mentions. He also currently fails all WP:NHOCKEY criteria by not playing in a high enough league or winning any awards. As he has not made an IIHF top level or an Olympics appearance, it is WP:TOOSOON to assume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: After revising the above claims, editing was completed and corrections were made. In detail, WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE are now credible by adding WP:IRS updated sources such as this interview from 2017 and others. The original source from 2015 is reliable and comes from South Korea's largest news agency. Stat pages have also been updated and added. He now fulfills the high enough league criteria by satisfying Criterion #4 the Elite Ice Hockey League. Source 1 explains his decision to move out of his current league and source 2 gives even more detail and notability of playing in a higher league. The debate to delete the entire article, rather than fixing minor errors and editing necessary parts, shows that this user clearly fails in his attempt to try to remove this article. Sand79975 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sand79975: I am not "attempt(ing) to try" to delete an entire article just because of errors (I will often fix those). I am merely questioning the subject's notability. It is not something to take offense to, it is standard procedure. I looked over your added articles and most still seem pretty WP:ROUTINE. You added a NYTimes article (the 2017 interview you mentioned) where he gets two paragraphs of coverage (borderline significant?), two tryout rosters (fully routine), an NAHL article where he is not mentioned (there to verify the team's final placement), and one from a Rochester newsite (semi-local). I cannot open the Sun Journal article as it is behind a paywall, but it appears to be some routine coverage of the Div III frozen four game where he got a hat trick. If the subject is deemed to meet WP:GNG per the sources found, then I have absolutely no problem with that. Just as of right now, I feel it is a bit WP:TOOSOON.Other reviewers will come and check the page to hopefully give some decision. Until then, keep improving it (and perhaps read WP:BAREURL to prevent linkrot).

Also please read NHOCKEY again, he has not won any awards in the EIHL, nor even played in the EIHL, to have been able to meet NHOCKEY #4. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: The notability of this article hasn't ever been questioned once, until now. It's been active for over a year, with different users adding and updating it. Your feedback is solely your opinions on how you view the material and nothing else. You are aware that you can edit the article as well and are free to do so. Thank you, Sand79975 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sand79975: How long it has existed has no meaning towards notability, in fact, the appearance that you are the only editor to actually contribute content means it has probably just existed without anyone really noticing it (and could be used to argue against its notability). The other editors that put minor edits into this article may not actually be reading for notability purposes, just content, errors, and categorization. There have been pages deleted that have existed for nearly a decade before being found by a notability editor. (read User talk:Dolovis for a long list of hockey players that have been deleted, most of which were created between 2011 and 2015 and are still being found and filtered out). Again, this is not a personal slight, just a procedural discussion on the notability of the subject. (Which can be sometimes subjective on the interpretation of various guidelines and sources. So if you want to call it an "opinion", then it would be somewhat true according to my interpretations.) Yosemiter (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: Nonetheless, I appreciate all your opinions and feedback. By adding updated WP:IRS sources, other reviewers will come and check the page to hopefully give their decision on this. Thank you, Sand79975 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I still feel the NY Times "interview" is not very significant coverage (the subject of that article is about the Korean team and how it is recruiting players for the Olympics, of which Brickler was briefly interviewed for about two comments, but Brickler himself was not the subject). I will contribute this semi-local article which appears to be more significant in coverage of the person. So by my count, there is one reliable source and significant coverage article, one reliable but very borderline in significance (IMO) in the NY Times article, a couple of semi-local but significant coverage articles making it borderline routine, and several stats pages (which are good to have but to not contribute to notability. Take this info as you will. I am trying to determine which side of notability this subject lies based on analysis and consensus. Yosemiter (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::@Yosemiter: Brickler's photograph and name in the byline on the very first page of the New York Times is significant as it satisfies WP:GNG sources and notability. In addition, two paragraphs of quotations from him make it credible. The fact that he was mentioned and quoted, two different times, by two different authors of the New York Times is doubly significant, as shown in source number two. In addition, this USA Today article that was added represents the third significant source. Your addition of the local article that you contributed represents source number four and the original article by the Yonhap News Agency, represents a reliable fifth source. Sand79975 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second NY Times article is better than the first in significant coverage with a couple more paragraphs (about five), but it is still primarily about the Korean team and not Brickler. (I am not questioning the credibility of the source, and I never did. And by "significant", I mean the depth of the coverage on the player himself, not the subject of the article, which is the team.) As I said, significance is somewhat subjective. User:TonyTheTiger seems to feel that two paragraphs is enough and I do not, and that is why we have these discussions. It is not about being right or wrong, just having quality articles. And FYI, the USA Today article is just a reprint form its Rochester-based affiliated newsite, the Democrat and Chronicle. Yosemiter (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article establishes a greater and more reputable source with added "significance." It is clear that I support the findings of User:TonyTheTiger (TTT), therefore believing the article is significant. So I guess you and I can agree to disagree. In fact, TTT and I believe the sources are GR-R-REAT! Sand79975 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TMG Motorsport

[edit]
TMG Motorsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single-sentence stub with only a basic statement as to what the organisation does. No references, and a search will only reveal information concerning the similarly named but unrelated Toyota Motorsport GmbH. QueenCake (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Quintus

[edit]
Kang Quintus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A reluctant nomination since articles from Cameroon are relatively rare and the country is under-represented here. However, despite a reasonable period of grace, it still fails WP:GNG by a long way. The Award referred to is not a significant award for a film maker and nothing else gets anywhere close to notability. We need more representation from the African continent, but regrettably, this doesn't seem to be a good start.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bellino

[edit]
Ray Bellino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former minor league baseball player, manager and scout. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ELOT 927

[edit]
ELOT 927 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as a non-notable character set. It was prodded for that reason but was challenged after deletion by the article's creator. The article should be deleted as it is not notable (as mentioned). This is because the only reference is a text file of the characters (which is not enough to prove notability) and a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. ELOT 927 is a notable character set supported by many dot matrix and line printers as well as terminals (like DECs) in the past. It is still mentioned in various places today. Even support for it can still be found occasionally today as in protocols like Kermit or languages like Perl. I have added some info and improved some refs, but would certainly be able to throw in at least a dozen references with a bit of research (if I had the time). I find it ridiculous that notable topics get nominated for deletion on the grounds of "I don't know it" or "I don't care about it" and a quick Google search. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such we have a duty not only to document current mainstream topics, but also to preserve notable historical information like this one. This is relevant for implementors of drivers and data/code conversion tools as well as for historical research. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Matthiaspaul: The sources provided do not seem to make the article notable. [1] trivially mentions the subject, [2] just has a character table and a short description which is not significant coverage, [3] is also not significant coverage (just the character table) and [4] is also not significant coverage (just the character table). Since the sources don't cover the subject with significant coverage, the subject is not notable and should still be deleted. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://vt100.net/docs/vt510-rm/chapter7.html
  2. ^ http://search.cpan.org/~guido/libintl-perl/lib/Locale/RecodeData/GREEK7.pm
  3. ^ ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/charsets/elot927.txt
  4. ^ http://fiddlybits.org/charsets/elot-927/table
First of all, notability is a property of a subject and not dependent on the current state of an article about it. The property can exist even though an article may still be unreferenced for as long as sources could be brought by. In this case, the article already has some top references even though it is still a very new article. The fact that they contain a character table and/or short description is significant coverage. If it would not be important, it would not have been included in these references.
As I said, we (and that includes you, the nominator, who has the duty to do your homework before nominating articles for deletion) could bring by many more references, for example most printer manuals of printers supporting the character set will discuss it. We just need someone owning one of these printers or checking a library. But it is not really necessary, as in general all character sets used in mass-produced computers or devices and all character sets that are or were used in significant machines (for example in solitaire computers of the main-frame era) are encyclopedic information of current and/or historical relevance, thus notable. They are sought after by implementors of system drivers, to carry out data/program conversions, and for historical research. Wikipedia is expected to have information about them and we have a long-time project going on to cover them here and are happy for any knowledgeable editor in this area. Your actions of WP:HOUNDING the creator of this article by nominating virtually anything this new editor created for deletion is working directly against the goals of this project. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meanwhile added a bunch of more sources. Even some current printers still support the character set. The nominator clearly didn't invest the necessary energy to search for sources before nomination. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Tones

[edit]
Soul Tones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from the talk page) was "fails wp:n (not enough reliable sources)". On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of asanas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwipāda Viparita Dandāsana

[edit]
Dwipāda Viparita Dandāsana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from the talk page) is posted verbatim below. On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent variation of a main asana. theyogaposes.com is not reliable.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

means nothing if they are passing or not in depth68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Arenas

[edit]
Elena Arenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are more than just results from meets she has competed in or "about" pages on this subject. I did a little searching and did not find much reliable sources out there that strictly talk about this subject, so for now I do not see this subject being notable for Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not seeing enough reliable coverage on this individual to warrant keeping the article or being able to significantly expand it. Andise1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. Imma full protect as well, as people should go to WP:DELREV for this Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wheelie (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to a quick Google search, only a very small number of reliable sources mention this character at all. Those that do only mention him briefly (three or so paragraphs on average) on a list of negatively received characters. As the character has not received significant coverage, I think that the article fails WP:GNG. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transformers-related deletion discussions. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - barely notable in the fiction. I would say redirect to List of Autobots or other appropriate venue, but an IP recreated the page two months after the last AfD was closed as delete. Anyone knowledgeable enough about the Transformers fiction will be able to find the information they want here or elsewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: Rather than salting the article, would making it become a permanently semi-protected redirect solve the problem? Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be ok with that as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Josh Milburn: What is your opinion on the possibility of turning the article into a permanently semi-protected redirect rather than deleting and salting it, as discussed above with Argento Surfer? I think that this would have the advantages of deleting the article (not keeping a non-notable article); at the same time, it would allow readers who search for the term to get a result (as opposed to getting nothing at all), avoiding the disadvantages of deleting the article. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki. I'm not actually up on the transwiki process, so I'll depend on somebody else to come along and perform the actual transwikification. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosophy

[edit]
Psychosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definite WP:NOTDIC violation, potential WP:GNG violation, the article describes the word word, rather than the concept it describes. I would personally suggest moving some of the content in the article into Wiktionary. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Wiktionary This is an overview of the different people who have taken the word and run with it; it is not an encyclopedic article on the subject, primarily because there does not seem to be a central subject definition to build anything on. Better suited to Wiktionary, presumably with some shortening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or transwiki?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki It's a dictionary definition, with almost nothing of an encyclopedic nature: there's a list of where it was used and some quotes. The stuff on Scott Hamilton could be moved into a separate article if Hamilton or his ideas were notable, but I'm not convinced they are, and therefore should be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Thrower

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dalton Thrower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE coverage (most of the sources listed before seem to either be less independent or not very significant in depth of coverage). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough, no awards, and not drafted high enough. Yosemiter (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable hockey player who only got routine coverage. Hockey players either have to meet the notability for hockey players, or pass GNG in a way not related to hockey, neither is passed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was no appetite for redirecting in the final week of the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firecons

[edit]
Firecons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 01:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the preferred merge/redirect target no longer exists, where to now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named after places

[edit]
List of places named after places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and unsourced trivia. Woefully incomplete if we really wanted to discuss historical toponymy. As is, serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever. — JFG talk 06:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If complete this would cover most places in the Americas, Australia, NZ etc. Also very difficult to define and source. Seems indicriminate and pointless.Charles (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great point about James, Duke of York! — JFG talk 12:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments were basically variations of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Active Collab

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Active Collab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Corporate profile, Press coverage or Blog articles combined into one Wikipedia Article. Corporate Spam by nature and non-notable by standards. Light2021 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Be Deleted -- The company exists since 2006 and develops one of the oldest online project management tools. Also, ActiveCollab's last open sourced release was used as the initial code base for Feng Office and as such is relevant to the history of web based project management software. References were used from other online sources as well as from university textbooks. Any suggestions on how to make it less biased and not promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar olic (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. one-third of the article is devoted to details of purchasing the software. Unfortunately, removing it would also remove many of the references. Several of the others are just mentions. A list of "Best tools for XYZ" in a computer magazine is not coverage for notability & doesn't really imply a judgement of "Best" --it's just the conventional title for a very brief checklist of recent software. It's not a full review. DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete per DDG, removing the promotional material found in the article would also strip it of many citations. The page would require a fundamental rewrite to improve.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously placed here as a means of promotion with mundane and routine information to tout a product WP:NOTSPAM. Coverage does not demonstrate notability and mentions in lists are not significant coverage per GNG nor demonstrate CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Be Deleted -- Yes, Wikipedia is not a replacement for company web site or a free means of promotion, but this article isn't placed here as a means of promotion with mundane or promotional information. In fact, the article is written in the same vein as wikis for other project management software. You can take a look at some well-known solutions like Basecamp, Teamwork_(software), Asana_(software), and Wrike, or even obscure ones like AceProject, Ubidesk, and FusionForge, and see how similar they are. Also, there are over 150 entries of project management software and a good deal of them have fewer citations and demonstrate less notability than Active Collab. The article shouldn't be deleted but instead be rewritten so it conforms better to Wikipedia standards. As previously mentioned, Active Collab used to be open-source and it was used as the basis for other solutions. Thus, it demonstrates both historical as well as current significance (here are some of the most notable and latest independent reviews 1 and 2). Aleksandar olic (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agantty

[edit]
Agantty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical startup Press coverage. Notability is highly questionable. Just used Wikipedia as product directory or profile creations. Light2021 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaswini Kolhapure

[edit]
Tejaswini Kolhapure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable as an actress and/or model given the totality of her accomplishments to date. Maybe too soon. Quis separabit? 16:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is covered over time as an actress in Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Hindu and the Deccan Herald. She certainly passes GNG and most likely NACTOR for having major roles in notable films, short films and others. I added sources to the article and did a little clean up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 adult contemporary singles of 1961 (U.S.)

[edit]
List of top 10 adult contemporary singles of 1961 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Top ten lists for secondary charts such as this are arbitrary cut offs with no discussion of such minute details such as entry date, peak date, peak, weeks in top ten available in anything else but the primary source. These fail notability requirements for standalone lists and the data provided is WP:IINFO. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the articles have a lot of useless trivia, but it does serve as a list fairly well. The topic doesn't seem too specific. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get it, then why not create a list that includes every song the entered the top 40? These are accumulated simply and only by an individual going through each and every chart and creating these lists on their own without anything else to go by except Billboard's archives. To me, the lists of number ones of these types of charts should be sufficient for an encyclopedia. If this one is OK, then each and every chart has a list of number ones is going to have a list of top tens, when coverage of some of these charts (much less what reaches the top ten in them) receives minimal to zero coverage in 3rd party sources. Per WP:LISTN, the top ten of charts such as this simply aren't "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A cursory examination suggests that most of the songs that reach the top-10 on this chart are notable; but many songs that reach the top-40 are not. This is a List article; as long as it is a clearly-demarcated way of grouping similar notable pages (in this case, "adult contemporary songs"), it should probably be kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This suggests that any published list is worthy of a place in Wikipedia simply because it contains a list of notable items regardless of any third party sources discussing the contents of the list. WP:NOTINHERITED. There are some notability requirements about such lists. WP:LISTN. Also, top ten is arbitrary. It could easily be top 5, top 11, top 20 - all of which would contain fairly notable songs. Wikipedia cannot make these determinations. Lists of number 2 songs have all been deleted in AfD (eg. WP:AFD/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.)) and if something reaches number 2 it must be notable if most top 10 songs are notable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't made up my mind on this but leaning keep. I don't agree that top ten is arbitrary. It is fairly common to discuss artists whose songs have reached a chart's top ten (or top twenty or top forty), but not top 8 or top 17 or other numbers that are not factors of 10, except #1. Top forty tends to be used in terms of broader charts, but top ten, being the lowest such denomination seems to make sense for the more specific charts. And ads like this that Billboard used to run in the 1980s further indicate that the top 10 of such charts had a particular importance. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But who talks about the top ten of the adult contemporary chart in reliable third party sources? Is an ad by the primary source targeting a specific demographic of chart buffs and radio programmers considered an independent source? All this is going to do is lead to other top ten lists for subcharts that can only be compiled by going to the primary source and going through their archives of charts week by week, and which such lists are never discussed in independent sources "as a group or set" (WP:LISTN) If top ten is OK, there's no reason to continue all the way to top 40 since that info is just as easily available. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Top ten" is a common cutoff for determining a single's success. This is not arbitrary on Wikipedia's part, but on the music industry, and is a simple recognition that there must be a cut-off somewhere. Issues with sourcing should be dealt with as with any other sourcing issue. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. If people would prefer a redirect, that can be done by ordinary editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aayat (song)

[edit]
Aayat (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Merge and/or Redirect to film article sought.The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS sections but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Bollywoodlife, Movie-preview etc. are non WP:RS.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades Godric 17:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Typical WP:MILL covg.How can't this be covered at the film article?@Atlantic306:--Does every song covered in the Ind. Exp. music review get their own article?Winged Blades Godric 03:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:US songs with this amount of coverage get an article so its only fair Indian songs do as well Atlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Artw:--You are asked to re-consider!Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 04:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing coverage of the song in context and as an individual song. TBH this mass nomination of songs seems a bit hasty and cut and paste, perhaps you needed to do more WP:BEFORE? Artw (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Artw:--Can you please provide the sources?Winged Blades Godric 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google links are provided at the top of the AfD article, you'll see the top result is actually the first ref in the article and is specifically about the song. Artw (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly passes WP:GNG!Winged Blades Godric 05:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my considerationt passes GNG and has material for a standalone article, and I'm afraid the rapid fire mass AfDs seems very WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I would consider withdrawing all of them. Artw (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's gently dis-associate and wait for others!I don't find any problems with the nominations irrespective of their rapidness.Your !vote probably does not conforms to WP:NSONGS.Winged Blades Godric 05:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read all the references in the article and even searched for more. Here are some of what I found
  • Indian express article is actually about the entire soundtrack itself and not solely about Aayat. There is only one sentence about this song.
  • The DNA article is about the song trailer released before the movie.
  • There is a review of the entire soundtrack in the Hindu. But this is again of the soundtrack as whole.
  • Bollywood life and Movie Review Preview are not news sites. The first is a gossip site and the second is one of the numerous blog-type websites which have sprung up in the Indian web.
Aayat was also not as popular as Deewani Mastani and unlike the latter (which managed to win multiple important Indian film awards), it did not win anything among the major awards. So I think a mention in the soundtrack article is good enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. There are a couple of childish, utterly non-notable YouTube videos with this title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toontastic The Movie

[edit]
Toontastic The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFILM Comatmebro (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article was improved significantly during this discussion, and that caused opinion to change from several participants mid-way through towards retention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Gabriel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mark A. Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A convert from Islam to Christianity who claims to have been tortured. All but one reference is his own published account and the remaining ref is an advertisement for his book. He is probably a most worthy individual , but he fails to make WP:GNG by a mile.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to forestall the inevitable re-analysis of past AFDs. Yes, I have looked at them. Yes I have no doubt "his" books are in Libraries. Yes I have no doubt that standard listings include his name because it is is written on the spine of some books. But..... that doesn't mean he exists or has had the life experiences claimed or, in fact, anything notable. I have read and re-read this and I am always left with the strong suggestion that this person is a convenient name to attribute to this type of book, possibly produced by more than one ghost writer. If the story were true, there would be reputable newspaper coverage - it would be like gold-dust - but there doesn't appear to be anything.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what have you found in your WP:BEFORE searches? Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens and E.M.Gregory I would re-direct you to my comments above, to my editing record of over 11 years here, and perhaps also to WP:AGF  Velella  Velella Talk   16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My inquiry wasn't meant to take anything away from your investigation into the previous AfDs, but to query what other independent searching you had done. You mention a lack of reputable newspaper coverage, but don't mention how you came to that conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This article is egregiously bad and is a WP:BLP. I think some fictional content he wrote is being falsely presented as his own personal biography. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Middle Eastern Forum seems to think he's real. So does the U.S. Defense Technical Information Center (open the full text PDF, search the references). His books certainly have been published and appear to be reasonably popular and widely held, as we can see from the past AfDs. There are other references, so I'm not even sure why this was nominated. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been worried about this article for some time but haven't researched it much. The book uses as the main source appears to be self-published. Amazon.com says it was published by the " International Evangelical Resource Centr" (sic) while another website with a copy of the book says "International Academic Centre for Muslim Evangelism", neither of which seems to exist outside the book. His supposed home page[35] and other pages are all full of advertising between mentions of him, even the contact page and the invite me pages have no way of contacting him or inviting him. I've removed the addition of a 2016 PhD by someone with a similar name as there's no link between the two other than the name and an interest in Islam and also because a number of pre-2016 sources call him Dr. - this is a BLP after all. As for Middle Eastern Forum, that's a book review - we know the book exists, that's not in question. It doesn't confirm the existence of the author, odd as that might sound. Ditto the other source, which only mentions his book among a lot of others, which doesn't make him notable. The first AfD, in 2005, was basically "he's written lots of books" with a bit of "but we can't verify the facts about him". The second AfD only had 2 votes, neither giving a policy based argument for notability and the 2nd keep !vote cited 4 source, of which 3 were self-published and one an M.A. dissertation(link for this is [36]]. I think as a BLP it fails both BLP and VERIFY. Find some news sources showing he's real and you might convince me, but I've seen nothing that I think shows the article meets our notability requirements. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to Keep - whether there is a real person with this name or not, I agree that the works with his name are notable. I agree with the latest comment that " Pseudo-Gabriels's influence in evangelical circles around the world is pretty clear from the sources. The current article is a farce, but a good WP article (apparently it got worse with time) highlighting the dubiousness of Gabriel's claims would be genuinely encyclopedic.". Doug Weller talk 09:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the fact that an author's book gets reviewed in does contribute to notability of the author. And that assertions that he a fraud could make him notable all by itself. Doug Weller, Have you had any luck finding additional sources, I mean other responsible people, media, or organizations alleging that he invented the bio It certainly sounds like a it could be a dramatically inflated bio)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Odd situation. There are suspicions that this author may have invented a dramatic back-story/biography for himself; he claims to have taken a new name upon conversion to Christianity, which makes it pretty hard to verify his claim to have once taught at Al-Azhar University. And his books were vanity-published, although at least one was then translated into Norwegian, and that was paid for not by Gabriel but by a Christian Missionary outfit. Moreover, his books not only sold, they, and he, appear to have had a significant following, among Westerners concerned about Islamist terrorism and among those who enjoy hearing about a Muslim who has converted to Christianity. He is certainly on the Christian Evangelical speaking circuit. I have begun sourcing the article. Beware! presentism; he seems to have been getting more press in the years shortly after 9/11.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN. I was prompted to take a closer look after clicking on that first AFD - and the 2nd. If nothing else, they were a strong indication that sources must have been out there a decade ago. I have now sourced some of the books to reviews in reliable places, including a review by Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs. Added 2 WP:RSes addressing Gabriel's impact. Also added newspaper interviews. More can certainly be done. However, I think all stated objections in delete votes above have been addressed by the current state of article and sourcing. I do worry about the assertion/rumor that Gabriel is a fraud (as opposed to a guy who changed his name to hide his identity after converting from Islam to Christianity. this assertion encounters BLP issues, especially since all we have is an assertion - more or less a report of a rumor. Unless someone can locate additional WP:RS. I have looked and can't find a second source for this the assertion of fraud that looks at all reliable (just fake news and rumor). Note that I am not asserting that Gabriel is either a good scholar or a reliable one; only that he is (or was) notable. And WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but modify per here "The books exist, but I can't verify the claimed biographical facts. So I propose that the article should be rewritten to stress that these are unverified claims". As stated in that first AfD, the books exist, they make certain claims about the author, some claims have been disproved, many questioned, few - if any - verified. Further doubts here, we should treat this name as an 'anon', and unverifiable nom-de-plume, though I don't know what protocol is for that. There are sufficient reasons to be very sceptical about this person being who they say they are, but no way of knowing who they truly are. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A person who self identifies as Mustafa and who asserts in "his" book that (he was an )

Imam in the mosque of Anas Ebn Malek in the city of Giza.

 is really hiding his history ? I think not.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having a great number of sources is not the same as demonstrating notability. I don't have access to the first two refs but the remainder simply regurgitate the life story told by "Mark A Gabriel" . Not a single reference provides any evidence that he exists of ever has existed. We know that a person claiming that name turns up at speaking engagements in the US but as far as the refs go he could be Walter Mitty , or a close cousin. The biography section inextricably links the name with the history that he recounts, yet there is not a shred of evidence to link the two. If his claim was that he had written a piece of fiction about what it might be like to change religions in the Middle East and had become a significant author selling such books, then he might well be notable, but he claims it as truth and no references back up that claim.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christoph Luxenberg is unambiguously presented as an anon nom-de-plume. We normally allow self-sourced info for authors of a trivial nature, this is not trivial. This is a person claiming to be an expert on Islam, claiming to be a convert from Islam and claiming to be unable to provide anything verifiable because of fear of retribution. If any one of those claims is substantially exaggerated, the whole edifice collapses. The only biog info is provided by him or those with a clear interest in promoting his story. An alternative strategy might be to present the writings as article subject, written by an anon nom-de-plume. ..... Walter Mitty? Surely not? Pincrete (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pincrete, you fail to understand how Wikipedia works. We have hundreds of Category:Pseudonymous writers. Many of these were not identified until long after their deaths. Others have never been identified. If the work of a writer working under a nom de plum for whatever reason is notable, we can have an article on the writer or on the work. Ibn Warraq is a very close parallel. In this case, the article does not rely on citing Gabriel to his own work, it cites sources like a book review in Foreign Affairs written by Walter Russell Mead and is carefully worded, e.g., "In an long interview in Tulsa World, Gabriel claims to have fled..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note subhead Use of pseudonym in Christoph Luxenberg is sourced to Die Zeit, the New York Times and other WP:RS. Certainly we can add such a section, but ONLY If someone can source it. What we cannot do is to violate WP:BLP by editing an article according to the personal opinions of editors or the the report that there is a rumor about Gabriel's "true" identity, which is all that we have in the now. Please, please, PLEASE somebody find some WP:RS. Because we can't edit an article according rumors and to the personal opinions of editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Christoph Luxenberg has been an article since 2005 and that a tentative identification of the author was only added to the article years later. another example is Ibn Warraq. Pincrete, Velella, I get that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, just, that's not a reason to delete or make sweeping unsourced assertions of fraud on a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My likes are irrelevant and have never been mentioned here. Please don't resort to ad hominem arguments by suggesting that this is somehow a personal issue. This is a very simple matter - there are no sources which demonstrate notability of the person that this article is supposed to be about. Period. I have no opinion on its likeability and Wikipedia similarly does not make such judgements.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Velella DO NOT alter comments on talk pages after the discussion has moved on. proper protocol is to add or strike comments you wish to change - MARKING all additions and deletions.(I apologize, I mistook this edit, misplaced in the timeline, for a reworking of a comment. My error). That said, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is applied to nominations of articles for deletion and comments that, like yours at this discussion, express strong opinions without, for example, giving evidence of having followed WP:BEFORE. I know nothing of your "editing record" or personal "likes". But when you assert that "there are no sources which demonstrate notability of the person that this article is supposed to be about" it reveals that you not only started this nomination without searching for sources, you continue to make express strong views and even to make assertions about sourcing that fail to encounter the actual sourcing that is now in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RS you call for need to support that the person exists, not prove that they don't and they need to be independent of the subject. There are few pseudonymous writers writing 'memoirs', nor writing books claiming expertise about a subject, having only self-sourced claims that they actually know anything about that subject. Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or perhaps you were referencing Leo Africanus. There is a long tradition of writers on Islam whose biographies are entirely self-sources and who claim to have been born within Dar al Islam, to have converter, and to have migrated into a Western country. Gabriel is part of a long tradition. Note however, that this BLP is now solidly sourced and that it describes Gabriel's past as based on his own account.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those names are acknowledged nom-de-plumes, the third is a writer of fiction. Whether the BLP is adequately sourced and whether it sufficiently acknowledges Gabriel's account as being self-sourced, is for others to decide. A viable alternative is to base the article on the books, given the lack of info about the author. Pincrete (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because we have a usual way of handling this sort of thing: (And Note that Christoph Luxenberg and Elena Ferrante pages existed for many years before sourced guesses about their identity was found. Here's [37] what the Luxenberg page looked like before sourced speculation about his identity was added.) As I have said before, we can certainly add something similar to the section Christoph Luxenberg#Use of pseudonym, Elena Ferrante#anonymity, but ONLY if WP:RS can be found. I have searched and not found any, but hope that someone coming here will know of such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I was not able to find sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, or meaningful reviews of his works. The sources listed are interviews or trivial mentions, such as The Foreign Affairs source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has been extensively copy edited after the nomination for deletion occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's discussed in some depth, albeit negatively, in this German review of a Susanne Hirzel interview, where his influence on evangelical circles is mentioned. An apparently outdated version of the "quite friendly" English WP article is cited too ("Mustafa/Gabriel’s life story is retold with number of discrepancies (for example, that he awarded a doctorate by Al Azhar) and various additions, including accounts of miraculous events"). The author of the review is Rainer Oechslen, a well-known theologian and the commissioner of the Bavarian Lutheran-Evangelical Church for interfaith dialogue. This may confirm the notability of Gabriel's work, regardless whether his bio is accurate. Moreover the UCT graduation report listed among the article sources contains the following.

Mark Abraham Gabriel Thesis title: "Reforming Hudud ordinances to reconcile Islamic criminallaw with international human rights law". Mark Gabriel is a graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and former Lecturer of Islamic Studies. He holds a master‘s degree in Religion from SES in North Carolina and a second master’s degree, as well as a PhD in World Religion from FCU in Florida. He has been advisor on counter terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs to the FBI and has taught coursesin different universities in the United States of America and across the world.

I doubt that we're talking about a pseudonym here. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT looms large. Like it or not, this is detailed information from a routinely reliable source. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hatfield

[edit]
Gene Hatfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. The sources that can be found point to a man who was known and respected in his community, but not beyond. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alvira Khan Agnihotri

[edit]
Alvira Khan Agnihotri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except from the relative of someone, nothing significant is found in Media to create Wikipedia page. Light2021 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even the most cursory of Google News searches demonstrates that her and her activities are constantly the subject of attention of a variety of Indian papers. Per WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".Landscape repton (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America1000 06:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored

[edit]
Project Censored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly every single cited source is of itself or related to the source, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only policy-based reason for deletion mentioned was WP:BLP1E (and WP:BIO1E as well as WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BREAKING) but it has been established that the subject was covered before the current allegations, at least back in 2015, if not already long before, so this policy does not apply. SoWhy 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Akhmetshin

[edit]
Rinat Akhmetshin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP1E. He's a news blurb known for a single meeting. Every notable detail is part of the meeting where he said he had evidence that the Clinton Campaign was accepting illicit funding from the Russians. DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason to delete is because of the basic premise of why we have the policy. Bios that form out of scandal, where the impetus of creation is the scandal, become coatracks of negative information. The biographies become the "infamous Rinat Akhmetshin" rather than a neutral portrayal of his life. We have plenty of coverage of the meeting and the underlying tone of its nefarious nature. We don't need a villain biography. As of this comment, the largest portion of his article is titled "Allegations." It's clearly a coatrack and should be removed immediately. --DHeyward (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BREAKING. — JFG talk 06:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We're at the beginning of this scandal unfolding, let's wait and see if this person is getting notable. Re-evaluate this AfD in maybe a month from now. --bender235 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I support Bender235's view. For now, it does seem to deserve its own entry. Deleting it would prevent people from finding good sourced information on an important topic, and the editors seem to have been quite thorough and neutral. I second the motion to re-evaluate in 30 days or so. Ebacci EN (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait He is one of a small number of people involved in a major political event as well as multiple minor ones. More information on this meeting keeps coming out. If Frank Willis is notable enough for his own page Rinat certainly could be a major historical character once this all unfolds.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As WP:1E says, "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." This is the case here. A simple google search reveals article after article digging into who this person is. That is an indication that he is notable and not simple the event as the articles about the person clearly meet the standards of WP:N.Casprings (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ongoing involvement in a historic political controversy in American politics, involvement in multiple lobbying and politicking events. PvOberstein (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I Nth the motion to re-evaluate in 30 days or so. Twang (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wait and see if article is worthy isn't really part of the deletion process. When people are voting wait, are they saying keep article up and wait to see if it's notable? Or are they saying redirect somewhere else and wait and see if subject deserves its own article afterwards. So far it seems the former is what the current wait votes want, but imo thouse should be a keep vote, because no article should be created that might be in a month might be thought of having never being notable enough to create. He is either notable now or he isn't. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the people who voted "Wait", I would like to clarify that my vote is, indeed, a vote to Keep. Your comment is quite valid, and the amount of information coming through the last two days reinforces my view that the subject does indeed meet WP:N criteria. Ebacci EN (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Rather unclear how notable this person may turn out to be. He may not turn out to be especially notable but there is reason to speculate that he may. As long as the article has been created, might as well give it a few weeks and see what turns up in the media reports before deciding. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:6DB3:525C:4CE:A3BE (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , not a BLP1E, subject was previously notable for 1990s work, 2015 allegations. Darmokand (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. I'm neutral on whether a standalone article is called for (I suggest wait for the reasons suggested above), but deletion is clearly not proper here since this is a plausible search term. Neutralitytalk 23:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is the only neutral source for this person who plays a role in a critical political controversy Jasoncward (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- has substantial coverage prior to this months revelations; sample: this 2007 book The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea. Not a WP:BIO1E situation for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wide coverage and as noted by K.e.coffman this has included over ten years ago as well. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is more than enough biographical material available in reliable sources to justify an independent article.- MrX 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the argument that we should "wait": Shouldn't notability precede the creation of an article? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's tons of info on him in a large number of reliable independent third-party sources, so he easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Definitely not BLP1E because he's been in the headlines since at least May of this year, as the citations attest. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he's a one event "wonder" and it's still unclear what role he actually played. I hardly consider 20+/- minutes in a meeting with Trump Jr last year to be encyclopedic, much less notable. He was there, and that's about it other than he may have been lobbying for his cause to the wrong people. Nothing came of it beyond a lot of bait-click $$ for the news sources. Don't forget, the whole meeting was initially setup under the pretense they had info that would expose Hillary Clinton for her alleged dealings with the Russians. Makes me feel like we're being duped all the way around by the Russian government who is sitting back enjoying a big harty-har-har at the frenzy they created in the media. Hopefully people realize how the MSM plays stories like this and milks them as long as the bait-click feature is driving traffic. When that dies down, they turn their sensationalistic propaganda to something else. Atsme📞📧 18:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trump campaign-Russian meeting, the one event for which he is known. There is already some basic biographical information in the article. There is a lot of press coverage about him right now, but all of it dates from July 2017 when his name became linked with a highly notable event and reporters started digging into his past. (Correction: there is one reference about him from May 2017, but hardly enough to have made him notable at that time.) Before that nobody had heard of him. If (which I doubt) he later becomes notable for something else, or is thrust into a more prominent role in this situation, the redirect could be expanded back to an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On a quick search, I've found this article dated May 2016. On the article itself, it is mentioned an earlier 2015 article by the NYT which already described Rinat's interests. I believe that the fact that most sources are from July 2017 can be explained by the fact that this is a new article, so editors have picked the easiest sources they could find. I don't think it's the case though, that older sources simply don't exist. They are there, and if applicable to this entry, they should be added to provide depth on the subject-person, specially if it is related to something other than the Trump campaign or the Magnitsky Act. Ebacci EN (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, press coverage dates back to 2015 in the NYT, and includes abundant coverage well prior to the recent news about the June 2016 meeting. This is easily verified by a Google search for results prior to the recent uptick. See some sample news coverage on the talkpage of the article. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Talib Kweli#Javotti Media. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javotti Media

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Javotti Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. BJPlaya10 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Chamberlain

[edit]
Jill Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerns about subject notability. Article is largely promotional. Sources are problematic. Ditch ∝ 02:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When a subject's top published work is a red link, that's probably a sign they don't pass WP:AUTHOR. As nom stated, refs are not great either, many seem self-promotional. South Nashua (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cervantes

[edit]
Alan Cervantes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Navy

[edit]
Future of the Bangladesh Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fictiois article. Doesnot have enough source to back up the future plans. It goes against WP:CBALL. SRS 00t@lk, 01:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Resto

[edit]
Jeffrey Resto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOX—never won any world or regional titles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Locksmiths of America

[edit]
Associated Locksmiths of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines and (much like the also up for deletion Master Locksmiths Association) is promotional in nature, serving to only list the organization's offerings. No independent reliable sources that indicate notability are offered, the offered sources being what seem to be spam websites or how-to pages, without indicating how this organization itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would want to see a lot more robust, independent sourcing before I was sure that this is a WP:NOTABLE trade body. It's very easy to start a trade association, but is this the important one for the US? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, given recent work, I'm happy that this stands up as the trade association, not merely a trade association. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Organisation has many notable sources:

NBC http://www.nbc-2.com/story/34018402/locksmith-scam-targeting-vulnerable-residents AARP http://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-06-2012/locksmith-scams-on-the-rise.html

--Key lock01011 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Key lock01011: Those are just name drops that don't go into how the organization itself is notable. Is there a reason (as Andy Dingley alludes to) that this organization is considered an authority on locksmithing or otherwise a notable trade association? Name drops and the sources in the article currently don't do that. The article itself would also need to be drastically rewritten, to the point where I think it would be better to just start fresh. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- 331dot If your going to stay "Those are just name drops" that could be said for 99% of articles on wikipedia. Why don't you delete this article National Safemans Organization and [[47]] etc...

@Key lock01011: So you have read 99% of the over 5 million articles on the English language Wikipedia to know that? Most articles on Wikipedia go into how the subject itself is notable. Merely being mentioned in consumer stories about locksmith scams means little in terms of notability. The notability guidelines for organizations state "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and that articles have deep coverage which "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The sources given do not do that. Why is this organization notable? Do they have a long history documented in independent sources? Have they influenced laws or policies? Things like that. The page right now just states "they exist and this is what they do". We need more. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the sorts of source I would expect to see. Are those sources robust in themselves? Do they give significant coverage to the ALOA? I'm looking for things on the lines of, "The Better Business Bureau says that the way to avoid a cowboy locksmith is to check for ALOA rregistration". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Safeman's Organization, then how does that stand with the ALOA? Is there an overlap? Which would be seen as more credible? Here in the UK, locksmiths deal with safes too. Of course, a small town retail locksmith only does domestic jewellery safes rather than bankvaults, but there's still a broad overall sense of being the same trade. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable, independent sources of any substance. Use "bruneiorthopaedics.com" and trivial passing mentions suggests attempted Wikipedia:Bombardment. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This trade association seems to have been organized in 1955. The earliest reference I am finding on Newspapers.com is to an article from Jan. 1956. I gay-ron-tee that a professional trade association has had multiple independent sources published about it and its activities in more than six decades! Carrite (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: In which case we should start from scratch, instead of the promotional piece we have now. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stripped away some of the most crufty stuff and put it into a more standard WP form. I'm in the middle of a busy weekend but will try to toy with it a little; I don't have any doubt that the sources are out there, given 60 annual conventions, most of which probably drew some sort of newspaper coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Newspapers.com is showing over 1200 hits for the exact phrase "Associated Locksmiths of America." It's just a matter of digging. This is a legit, long-running trade association. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just checked Factiva, and this org has 39 article mentions on there, in various newspapers. Has been wound for around 60 years, and has been running a national convention for the trade for nearly that long. I assume this is the national US body for locksmiths, so that would go towards making it credible. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been dinking around with the early history of the group and it has been thoroughly decommericalized. There are dozens or hundreds of newspapers articles that can be mined. As for something concrete that can be counted towards GNG, see for example THIS from the 1984 US Commerce Department publication, Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States, which deals with ALOA in a substantial way on pp. 113-114. Carrite (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems passing WP:GNG should not be an issue for such a long-lasting trade association. Now that most fluff was removed I see no reason it should be deleted. --Muhandes (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has been extensively reworked and cites various independent reliable sources. This is clearly a notable organization. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those keeping score and needing to see another source that unquestionably counts towards GNG are called to the attention of THIS 1973 AP wire report on the AOLA moving its headquarters from Kingston, NY to Dallas. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Developmental Football League

[edit]
Gridiron Developmental Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor semi-pro football league that lacks significant coverage. There is minor coverage about "a game was played", mentions that the team exists or human interest stories about a local player chasing a dream, but nothing of real substance. A recently added source from Sports Illustrated gives it brief coverage, but I don't think it's sufficient. Notability tags keep getting removed by editors who don't add secondary or third party sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep this feels akin to a third-division or fourth-division soccer league in Europe. While the teams and players aren't notable, the leagues generally are. [48] should be sufficient as a reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd almost agree, if the league were actually a significant part of the article. Instead, the article is little more than a list of different leagues and an obligatory paragraph or two about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is confusing stub with non-notable, so please don't make that assumption. Where is this coverage? It doesn't matter what we "generally find", it matters what coverage THIS league has received. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought your bad faith was simply poor wording, but now you've doubled- down on it. Thanks for the lesson about how to click a link. In the last decade, I never learned how to do that. Well, at least that's how you are acting. So I'll return the favor and educate you, since you apparently struggle with what "significant coverage" is. Saying that a game was played isn't coverage about this topic. It's a mention, which is almost all of what LNP coverage was. I can't view the entire article from "Fed News", but the part that is viisible indicates that the league itself isn't getting significant coverage, but more mentions. Even if we called the "Naptown Buzz" a reliable source, the GDFL is merely mentioned. The NYT article is about a man, who happens to play in the GDFL. It hardly covers the league. In fact, one of the things most telling is "... must toil at day jobs while indulging their football dreams in obscurity.". Obscurity indeed. So thanks for the education about clicking links. I hope I've held you identify what significant coverage is, because based on wehat you put forth as "evidence", you apparently needed some help understanding it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take offense if you want. When you said I was consing stub with notability and I stated I wasn't, you came back with more nonsense. Who is talking about financial requirement? What are you talking about? I don't know and I'm starting to question if you know. I haven't said a single word about financial status. Oh wait... you're one of those people who need the obvious explained. That quote was about OBSCURITY.... notice how I even repeated "obscurity" indeed? That was to help editors like yourself. I apologize for assuming you could get that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You posted "one of the things most telling is "... must toil at day jobs while indulging their football dreams in obscurity." -- you are in essence saying that the league isn't notable because the players don't get paid enough money.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you can't understand the context. I just clearly told you that the quote was about obscurity. You've chosen to ignore that clear statement and continue on with your false statement. I said nothing about finances, you simply made that up. Also noting that you've ignored addressing the fact that you are trying to spin mere mentions into "significant coverage and instead chose to contradict something I didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You quoted PART of it and completely ignored the context or the follow up clarification. Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons.... Niteshift36 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Paul, when you start making baseless allegations about what editors allegedly didn't do BEFORE and then misrepresent what they said, you may find that they stop indulging your faux civility. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Morgan

[edit]
North Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline notable at best: being short-listed gfor a first-book prize is not a significant "award". The refs in the Independent by themselves are not enough, especially since the books are litlte-known despite the promotion--Worldcat shows 18, 11, and 10 libraries.[49]. More important than all of that is that the article was created by the publisher of one of his books, and then edited almost exclusively by two undeclared paid editors, both now banned . He does need a good deal of additional advertising to become well-known, but we are not the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Technical College

[edit]
Pulaski Technical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a small technical college, and under normal circumstances would be only borderline notable. As it is, there has been controversy at the college between students and administration, and this page has become hijacked to litigate that dispute and has been and will continue to be a nightmare to maintain as NPOV. We should therefore delete and salt this, as we all have better things to do than try to moderate a dispute that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. The content not about that dispute is neglected and unsourced, btw. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than meets our standards for an article as an Arkansas state-funded (and HLC-accredited and NCA-licensed) college, especially one of the largest in the system, in the state capital city's county; we usually don't delete anything that has a known .edu address. "Because IPs and new accounts are bringing drama against the big, mean dean who fires people and the school can't get their funding straight" isn't a good reason to delete this article; I see no history at all of bringing any semi-protection to this article so the "Makeptcgreatagain"s and "Ptcterminator"s of the world just move on, get themselves blocked and let this just be a humdrum technical college article (though they've also seemed to take out some umbrage on Google Reviews, so these are endemic issues with the school). Semi-protection and blocks are appropriate here, not deletion. Sourcing could be improved (and it needs an update as it seems to now be in the University of Arkansas system; that makes the keep automatic), but it should be easy for that to be found seeing as the school is in the Little Rock area. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nate if you are going to !vote keep then you need to commit to spending your own time dealing with the ugly editing and behavior that is blatant in the history for long time now, and that produced the absolute dreck in the history section of this version of the article. Are you going to do that? And I will note further that this diff series by you was yet more unsourced editing to this article, and does not inspire confidence that you could maintain the neutrality of this article, even if you did commit to trying. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's what semi-protection is for. I'm shocked that it was never asked for; the article should have ever neared that state of disarray. And the only ugly editing I'm seeing is from accounts that just needed blocks right away. Also, the school's name was changed (which it did on February 1st). Don't step on editors trying to improve the article. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editing unsourced content without citing any sources is not "improving" WP and is the kind of poor editing that has beset this page. (But this is much better, thanks!) And page protection etc don't happen automatically. Again please don't !vote keep if you are not willing to do that work. This does seem to part of the University of Arkansas system now, so perhaps this could be merged there -- that article has 59 watchers who could perhaps keep the malarky at bay (this one has "fewer than 30"). That would probably work....Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm just getting things more in shape; we can worry about the history and body later, but the stats and lede need to be solidified at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GB Innomech

[edit]
GB Innomech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable for encyclopedic standards. brochure! Light2021 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 18:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Limeback

[edit]
Eric Limeback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · nomination) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Limeback's notability:

This record was set using the old multiblind style, in which competitors had unlimited time. Limeback took 1:41:51 to complete this.[1] Currently, the national record is 19/20 in under one hour[2], and the world record is 41/41 (in under one hour).[3] I do not believe a 2008 Canadian record that does not abide by today's rules constitutes notability.

  • 3x3x3 blindfolded solving

Limeback is ranked 37th in the world and 3rd in Canada[4], so this must refer to his former national records. He has broken the 3blind record 6 times, but since his first blind record 3 other people have also broken the record.[5] His numerous former national 3blind records do contribute a bit of notability.

  • Guinness World Record

Limeback formerly held the Guinness World Record for the most 3x3x3 cubes solved in 24 hours. However, Guinness is not the authority for cubing records, the World Cube Association is. Where the records overlap, Guinness records are often outdated by several years (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhargav_Narasimhan for more discussion of this). The only reason Limeback held this record is that no faster cuber, of which there are 48[6], had put in the effort to set this obscure Guinness record.

  • Former Canadian records

Cubing is rapidly gaining popularity, so records more than a few years old (which most of Limeback's are[7]) are quite outdated. Consider for instance the first on the list - his 2x2x2 single solve record of 1.52 seconds, which is his most notable as it was a North American record. This record has since been broken 7 times and currently stands at 0.58 seconds.[8] In fact, Limeback's record is slower than the current North American 2x2x2 average of five record[9]; this is particularly notable for 2x2x2 as single solve records result from very lucky scrambles - Limeback's fastest 2x2x2 average at the time was 5.47 seconds.[10] Going down the list a bit: his 3x3x3 average record has been broken 11 times, his 4x4x4 average record has been broken 15 times, even his 3blind record has been broken twice since he set it 5 months ago.[11]I argue that there are too many cubers who have held national records for it to constitute notability.

  • References

An article about him in the Toronto Star (his home city): this article is about a neat job he got helping build mosaics from Rubik's Cube. Another article in the Star, this one mainly about someone else, but also considering Limeback and one of his national records. I do not believe either of these contributes much notability. Tkwikihelper (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2007LIME01?tab=records
  2. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=Canada&eventId=333mbf
  3. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?eventId=333mbf
  4. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2007LIME01?
  5. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=Canada&eventId=333bf&years=&history=History
  6. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?average=Average
  7. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2007LIME01?tab=records
  8. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=_North%2BAmerica&eventId=222&history=History
  9. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=_North%2BAmerica&eventId=222
  10. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2007LIME01?event=222
  11. ^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=Canada&history=History
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've now added some sourced material to this page. Eric Limeback has been the subject of multiple news stories over the past ten years or so. On this alone he achieves notability as per the WP:BASIC criteria. In addition the 2013 Guinness world record - the marathon Rubik Cube solve - falls under the additional criteria of having won a significant honor in competition.

  • You may be right about the news stories providing notability. However, I disagree that a Guinness World Record should be considered a significant honor in competition, as I discuss above. Success in major WCA competitions, or WCA records, is the only major source of notability in that regard. Guinness records are often random (such as cubes solved in 24 hours) and when not random are typically outdated (see above). In my experience of 6 years of competing I have never heard another cuber mention any cubing Guinness world record.Tkwikihelper (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes, I should have read your points more carefully. I know Guinness can be outdated and random. Nothing wrong with being outdated but the random bit is a fair point. Anyway I hope we've reached the point that this page can be saved, Thanks either way. Feel free to make edits if you think I've overemphasized the world record bit. Pasicles (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_July_15&oldid=1142618680"