Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 September	9 September >

Guide to deletion

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 speedy delete. spam for nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altadyn[edit]

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

Sources: the company web site, press releases, passing mentions, and blogs, some of which don't even mention the company. Searches of the usual types found little better, just one paragraph.[1] Fails WP:CORP. The same WP:SPA created an article on the CEO, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Lahoutifard. Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an company with no indications of notability or significance. 100% advertorial content created by a SPA; no suitable sources. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 9 September 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Lahoutifard[edit]

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

Subject's claim of importance is that he wrote the preface to a book, wrote a book his company published, holds an obscure patent, was included by an artist in a work of 1000 internet pioneers, won $100 and "Entrepreneur of the Month" from a blog for "best 30 seconds pitch", and won "Person of the Year" from a non-notable association. Searches of the usual types also found a Google Scholar profile with zero citations,[2] but nothing better. Fails WP:BIO. The same WP:SPA created an article about a company he ran, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altadyn. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- bio spam on a collector of vanity awards. Promo language includes:

"Executive with extensive management experience introducing and developing innovative concepts into the mainstream markets!"

I'll request a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Deb (talk) 18:03, 9 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Natural Energy Bar[edit]

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

Given an exceptionally AGF straining and probably unwarranted benefit-of-the-doubt... this is... just obviously promotional garbage and needs to be deleted regardless of whether it is notable. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent sources. ToThAc (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify. What I mean is that this is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever tagged it for deletion does not know ethics of writing and uses insulting language. Article has been discussed before in Speedy deletion and there are independent confirmed sources. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperna (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles without reliable cited sources do exist. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4rabar strictly promotional and from their own website. Compare articles please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderatequite (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERCRAP, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources do establish notability. There is no advertisement established. Article is comprised of cited facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderatequite (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasperna[reply]
Delete -- 100% promotionalism on a company / product with no indications of notability or significance. The section on "Brand portfolio" contains all of the sub-brands, as in Kick Natural Energy Bar Cranberry. The red links apparently mean that the article's creator plan to add articles on all of them (?) Might as well raze the future walled garden to the ground now. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree. If there are red links that are bothering anyone from any article, they can be removed. I haven't noticed an extension to further product from this article. The fact that brand exists should remain not the red links, I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperna (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: Corrections seem to be made. To me doesn't look like a promotional intent if the corrections were made. Check for facts. Any boasting about the product if found to be removed(To the creator) thanks Ravinagr (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've stricken multiple sock "keep" votes; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasperna. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently notable food product; WP:SPAM article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You... guys... really aren't picking up on these hints are you? TJW ^talk 01:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional. And, to be sure, the article also fails general notability as the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I could find no mention of the product in the usual gSearches. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims to WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 20:36, 13 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vumero[edit]

Vumero (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)

Claims of significance are not supported by listed citations WP:CCOS. Cited sources for claims are materials produced by the organization itself, and I can find no outside reference to the claims online. PureRED | talk to me | 21:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the interest of transparency, I originally nominated this article as a CSD-A7 but it was declined. PureRED | talk to me | 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I believe I was correct in declining A7, because there are multiple credible claims of significance (has received coverage for pioneering professional services education with world championships events, owns the largest Sports Analytics & Sports Technology Conference series in the world, awarded as one of the fastest growing startup companies in Australia) in the article. Said claims need not be supported by reliable sources to disqualify the article from A7 per WP:CCOS. There are few sources available, however, and they all appear to be primary sources or promotional. These appear to be secondary sources: [3][4]. Companies and organisations are not my area of expertise and I don't know if the coverage given by these sources is "significant", but I am willing to re-assess my position if more reliable secondary sources are provided. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not stating that I disagree with the denial of CS7. I agree that I mis-tagged it based off the criteria listed. Just want to make it clear that I was the one who tagged it. PureRED | talk to me | 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ITWire is sponsored. YBF does not appear to be independent (it's a coworking space for startups, etc, which has hosted the company). Launchvic does not demonstrate notability (it looks basically like a government f[o]unded angel investor), and the page does not mention the company or its founders. The rest of the sources are primary. I'd accept notability on an NPOINTS basis for their range of activities (doing things, attracting thousands of participants, ...), but I'm not finding indications of in-depth sustained coverage in independent RS for anything, and specifically not at AFR.com (ft, wsj...). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Daisley (journalist)[edit]

Stephen Daisley (journalist) (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)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA, since banned as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the individual were notable, then coverage by multiple, reliable independent sources would exist, and the article wouldn't have to rely mainly on primary sources, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Sro23 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail on WP:GNG and is largely promotional. Shaded0 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 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 that we should not expect the same level of online sources for Albanian subjects as UK / US ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Albanian Second Division[edit]

2014–15 Albanian Second Division (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)

Albanian lower leagues, fails notability criterias and its only one season for each.
I am also nominating the following related pages for same reason:

2014–15 Albanian Third Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jolicnikola (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but you can delete the third division) Linhart (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that we have season articles all the way down to level 10 in England, it would seem to be systematic bias to delete the third/fourth tier ones for Albania. Number 5 7 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS; there is no substantial prose here and the league doesn't appear to be fully pro. Only the first two tiers of Albania are fully pro so this clearly fails NSEASONS. I can't see any evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: WP:NSEASONS is for club seasons, not league seasons, so is not relevant here. Professional status is not relevant to league season articles, hence why we have them on all the leagues listed by Linhart below. Number 5 7 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how the article passes WP:GNG Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to Albanian sources, so I can't. Have you checked them to see what coverage this league gets? Number 5 7 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kategoria+e+Dyt%C3%AB%22 Linhart (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then delete all

National League (National, North, South) Isthmian League (Premier, North, South) · Northern Premier League (Premier, North, South) · Southern League (Premier, Central, South & West) Combined Counties League (Premier, One) · East Midlands Counties League (level 10 only) · Eastern Counties League (Premier, One) · Essex Senior League (level 9 only) · Hellenic League (Premier, One East, One West) · Midland League (Premier, One) · Northern Counties East League (Premier, One) · Northern League (One, Two) · North West Counties League (Premier, One) · Southern Combination League (Premier, One) · Southern Counties East League (Premier, One) · South West Peninsula League Premier Division (level 10 only) · Spartan South Midlands League (Premier, One) · United Counties League (Premier, One) · Wessex League (Premier, One) · Western League (Premier, One) · West Midlands (Regional) League (level 10 only)

season articles. Linhart (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to season articles being deleted especially something as low as the 10th tier provided GNG is not met. This is however merely a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a case of quoting OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without the knowledge that it can be used just as much to argue for keeping articles as for deleting them. I'll refer back to the systematic bias point here. Number 5 7 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a valuable comparison, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". There were debates about lower regional leagues and apparently the consensus was to keep them. See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_68#Season_articles_for_Regional_Football_Leagues. And the Albanian second league is not even a regional league, it is a national league. The league itself is notable, the clubs in it are notable, so the season should be also. There are also enough sources (in albanian of course). Keping english, german etc. lower regional leagueas and deleting albanian second division would be just biased. I agree with Numer 57. I must also say that I personaly didn't expect such a proposal from Nikola. Linhart (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given that the first and second tiers are confirmed as fully professional and the third tier is a national level competition, I find it inconceivable that there is insufficient coverage of this competition in Albanian sources not to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments about systemic bias. The lack of notability articles at present does not mean that they do not exist. Egaoblai (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, and as others have mentioned, we have to be careful to avoid systemic bias. If nominator feels this kind of article is not inherently notable, he should establish consensus in the relevant places rather than selectively pick them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the teams in these divisions may not be individually notable, the league as a whole is. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hemingway[edit]

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

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

The only source is his own website. A search turned up AllMusic (a very brief entry) and Discogs, neither of which is WP:RS, and Encylopaedia Metallum (another brief entry), which doesn't look particularly WP:RS either, and his LinkedIn profile - only. The article has more red links than Lenin's watchchain. FWIW, the article was created in 2007 by a WP:SPA. Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own ten minutes of Googling has turned up nothing beyond the nominator's findings: just fleeting mentions on sites independent of the subject.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and A bit iffy. No reliable sources turning up in google, doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:36, 14 September 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Bisiot[edit]

Patrice Bisiot (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 real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. The article had me at "author, keynote speaker, CEO and an executive coach". The sources are typical WP:SPIP, with interviews, blogs and other promotional coverage. I'll request deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 11 September 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 : speedily deleted (G7—author requested) by Ronhjones 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) czar 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Pollock[edit]

Holly Pollock (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx. You are welcome to delete and close if you don't feel that it is suitable for Wikipedia. --TheDomain (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDomain: What? J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not notable and gets deleted then I'm fine with that @J947:. --TheDomain (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an executive producer of a TV show is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- the article's creator is fine with the deletion: [5]. I'll request a G7; let's see if this takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 11 September 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. Keep per WP:ARTN (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naked (2017 film)[edit]

Naked (2017 film) (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 over-reliant on unreliable affiliated sources and republished press releases. Without any WP:RS sources it possibly fails WP:GNG. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic is notable, regardless of what is in the Wikipedia article. Aguyintobooks, see WP:ARTN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources do establish notability. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage around in reliable sources to establish notability. What sources the article uses has no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IHealth[edit]

IHealth (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 seeing sufficient external coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are from internal sources by the company. I think if better sources can be found, then it may have a chance to stay.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 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 close per WP:SKCRIT #6. Wait until this is off the Main Page. I have no problem with this AfD, but per WP:SKCRIT, articles linked from the Main Page may not be nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and handshakes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes

Donald Trump and handshakes (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)

Politically biased. Not in compliance with WP:NPOV Eric Cable ! Talk 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moreover it is embarassing for an encyclopedia trying to be taken seriosly to have such an embarassingly stupid article about literally nothing. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively [...] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [...] BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Words such as "awkward" and "bizarre" and expressions such as "yank[ed] the judge towards him as if he were a pet dog on a leash" do not reflect a conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and dispassionately written article. It should be noted that not everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." --William Case Morris (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is your BLP concern strictly the expressive language used by the authors of the cited sources? I ask because the BLP policy says,
Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort.
I would disagree that "the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is "substantially of poor quality". The entire article revolves around the idea that Donald Trump's handshakes are "awkward", "bizarre", "appall" others, prompt "memorable eye-rolls", "appear to painfully twist" arms, etc. I do not believe that such an article can be considered as nothing more than poor quality, at the very least (assuming good faith). --William Case Morris (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton Chase[edit]

Thornton Chase (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)

Thornton Chase is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and in the case of this article almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. A35821361 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article doesn't have appropriate sourcing right now, but I'm not clear which notability guideline you feel he doesn't meet? penultimate_supper (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
penultimate_supper, care to update your pov? Smkolins (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it would be great to have more sources (and I can lay my hands on a few newspaper references aside from Baha'i background,) it should be minded that the distinguishing aspect of him is not just that he is the first Baha'i to survive that early period but that he served as a white officer of a unit of the United States Colored Troops. There are few comparable articles about people who served in such units but there are some - Walter Thorn, Edward Winslow Hinks, and William Gould (W.G.) Raymond, and few of them have more than a couple/few sources. So I put this in the let's build it and certainly not delete it.Smkolins (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the first American Baha'i, he is referenced throughout Baha'i literature in more than just a trivial reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some 30 newspaper references to him… Smkolins (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
… well… a few more than that… and other sources…Smkolins (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing from 1908 is still sourcing. Being the first American convert of any nation to any significant religious group obviously results in sourcing, and that is the case here. Yes: the sources that write about him are primarily Baha'i, but we don't exclude those from notability any less than we would exclude histories of early Mormon missionaries written by LDS historical scholars. We tend to consider figures that major religions themselves hold notable to be notable. I don't think we'd have any chance of deleting Kateri Tekakwitha or Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, and we should extend by similar merit the same assumption to the Baha'i. Before someone shouts WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please read that essay: it is a valid comparison to discuss how we handle religious figures within Wikipedia and the reasoning behind it. My argument is quite simple: they meet GNG and per NPOV we should treat the Baha'i and secular sourcing like we would for similar figures in other religious groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well sourced article about a notable subject. The article should never have been brought up for AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So - do we have consensus? How do we get this closed? Smkolins (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chase is notable and the improvements to the article do a great job of demonstrating that. penultimate_supper (talk) 11:30, 14 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq[edit]

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq (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)

Wikipedia is not a collection of stats, as established in WP:NOTSTATS. This is also an orphan page and the only article I could find on Wikipedia that exhaustively lists each and every international appearence by a soccer player, so it's not like there's precedence on this. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that there's not a single source in this article either. RetiredDuke 17:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that these types of lists are notable Spiderone 10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst there may be grounds to suggest a list of his goals (as an all time top scorer for his country) could be notable, appearances in themselves are not inherently notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeeHex[edit]

BeeHex (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 company where all of the sourcing appears to be your standard press churn: the press about NASA is clearly self-promotion that it puts out in its press releases [6], and the rest of the sourcing all appear to tell similar stories that suggest lack of intellectual independence from the organization itself, which per recent changes at WP:CORPDEPTH and the guideline at WP:SPIP, don't count towards notability. Everything else is non-RS blogs, publications like TechCrunch, and your standard industry publications. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above. Could use some salt as appears to be an ongoing issue here with COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability. Needs more independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. thecompany is good at getting publicity. We shouldn't confuse that with reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is WP:MILL jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company looks like it is not notable. If better sources can be found then maybe it can stay, but right now it looks like weak promotion.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of top international association football goal scorers by country[edit]

List of top international association football goal scorers by country (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 coverage in WP:RS that this topic is notable. WP is not collection of stats per WP:NOTSTATS. Just a WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who is the highest goal scorer for each country is notable as evidenced by their mention on each (mostly) of their individual country's football page, and the fact that every player that nears their county's record gets a chunk of coverage when they are about to pass their predecessor, as evidenced most recently by CR7, but also by many others, including Robbie Keane, Falcao, Messi, and even others who are still some way off, but likely to get there given their youth, eg Wood. This itself I don't believe is the question here, but rather should a combined list of them exist. I suggest it should. This is an article I frequently refer to for easy comparison of those that reach records, to compare for example how many more or less matches these record holders took to reach their tallies. There is nothing in NOTSTATS that suggests this list should not exist. It is not anExcessive listing of unexplained statistics, it is a concise list of explained records. There does not appear to be anything in WP:NOT relevant here, except WP:NOTPAPER which is not a delete argument. The LISTCRUFT argument does not wash with me as of the 12 bullet point Meanings, none apply except arguably #8, and I submit that also doesn't apply as there are many examples of sources that list the top international goal scorers. [7] [8] [9]. Maybe not so many broken out to show only top per country, but refining the information is not against policy. In fact, WP:NOTEVERYTHING suggests A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This is a good example of summarising information from multiple articles into a concise format. ClubOranje^T 12:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the notion of record goalscorers clearly attracts sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. It seems to me relevant that we capture a listing of top goalscorers at the highest level of football, namely senior international. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix Down Spiderone 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix Down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasoning. Macosal (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the accomplishment of being a record international goalscorer for a national team is a much discussed and usually well covered statistic. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 15 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lawrence[edit]

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

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

I'm unconvinced that WP:BIO is met here as the coverage is either local or in highly-specialist publications. I have been unable to find any better sources through my own searches. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough sources for WP:GNG GSF 323 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discount local and specialist sources? Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi[edit]

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi (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:NPOL. No in-depth coverage found so he fails WP:GNG too. If his party is notable then we should have a article on that rather on him. Greenbörg (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being founder and general secretary of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be shown to get over WP:GNG for the media coverage he got in that role — but it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to have an article just because he exists. And the only source shown here at all nominally namechecks his existence in an article that isn't primarily about him otherwise, so it's not substantive enough to make him pass GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Jafri[edit]

Asad Jafri (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)

Spent time on searching in WP:RS but there is no coverage in WP:RS. No such impact on Urdu poetry, just a regular professional poet. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently a SPA Samahota (talk · contribs) has been editing and expanding this page. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement. Gazal world (talk) 17:12, 12 September 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). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lesniewski[edit]

Joseph Lesniewski (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)

Joseph Lesniewski was an enlisted man in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. He was a late arrival to the company, having first been assigned to the Office of Strategic Services for a planned mission to jump into Nazi-occupied Warsaw that was cancelled when the Russians took the area. Lesniewski served honorably during the European campaign but his rank (Private First Class) does not make him notable under WP:SOLDIER and there are no decorations on record. After the war, Lesniewski went to work for the United States Post Office as a mail carrier, an occupation that garnered no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). This person does not appear to meet WP:BIO, but as they may be searched for we should redirect to the most relevant article. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, like the others in the past to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States); not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, like all the others to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). How many more of these are there? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 14 September 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. Even the latter editors who voted "keep" were concerned about content (including one saying "remove 99%" of it) and possible crystal balls, which leads me to conclude the best thing is to delete this now, without prejudice to restoring at a later date when events change. If anyone wants the content userfied, leave a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Treaty with North Korea[edit]

Peace Treaty with North Korea (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)

Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Already nominated per PROD and speedy, this article is merely a repeat of various speculations propounded because of WP:RECENT events. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that WP:RECENT is no longer valid, and explain the cases of WP:CRYSTAL as speculation it is necessary to know for the contributors of this article. To generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, Can we please extend this AfD discussion for another seven day as some of the contributors of this article were not able to express their opinion? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL and other issues like WP:NOT#NEWS, recentism, and POV pushing topic in several languages WP:NOT. In any case, this is a WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:RECENT Please see my comment above, criticism for WP:TNT with two languages (English and Korean), from my understanding, if we need to find the trustworthy references (news, books or scholar), it would be necessary to see the well-grounded source with both English and Korean language because the geological location of the issue is Korean peninsula. For quick translation, the famous google translate can be used.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also deletion opinions at Talk:Peace Treaty with North Korea#Speedy deletion request (and above). Widefox; talk 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not aware of even any initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea. This article is entirely speculative. Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events is a perfectly good place to record any initial moves that might lead toward a peace treaty. In fact this article will duplicate a lot of what is in Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events, and I think it is better there until there are at least preliminary meetings about a peace treaty. Rwendland (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A doubt about initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea-> Please see one of the latest example: the Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) ^[1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is an essay. Fails WP:BALL. As an interesting but relevant aside - see Talk:Second Korean War (which will also AFD soon / reduce to redirect) - which described the current events (before modifications - [10] as the second Korean war).Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL = WP:BALL - Please see my comment above ( On WP:DISCUSSAFD - explanation the cases is required rather than merely stating that it violates the policy. ) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per nomination - Please see my comment above about WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for the notice about the AfD - Peace treaty with North Korea - article and please understand that I have no objection whatever to the decision of ("WP:CONSENSUS"?) to Keep(or rename), merge(to other topic) or remove (to draft for improvement and Wikipedia:AFC process ), however I believe that this article has enough evidence below for the Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that it would be required to open the gate (enough time) of comments from the contributors of this article and North Korea Project participants who are interested in this topic.

It is my understanding about five suitability of this subject on Wikipedia.

WP:NRVE There are significant independent coverage or recognition on this topic,

WP:SUSTAINED This subject has a sustained coverage as an indicator of notability

Regarding the key word for 'Peace Treaty with North Korea', Appreciate User:Srich32977 for the links above
> About 1,500 results of news, 1140 results of Books , About 60 results on Scholar, 27 matching research articles and other sources

WP:ACHIEVE NPOV and WP:POVNAMING : The article has a neutral perspective because of the contributors of the topic.

Regarding the suggested issues, ,

WP:CRYSTAL explains "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." so an article is nor precluded a prior - it seems to be there are reference sources appropriate for passing the WP:GNG

Wikipedia:Recentism On this issue,

From my understanding about the comment of USER: Escape Orbit and the Wikipedia suggestions are, WP:10YT, consensus can change there is no deadline and consensus can change by WikiGnome and Wikipedians instead of getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per WP:GNG. I can see multiple independent sources, and the suggested issue with WP:CRYSTAL might be fixed by change of the name as per the talk page ' bad name 'comment by User:Kintetsubuffalo Wikilinlin (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record, the topic itself is notable; the issue has been discussed since the 1950s and that has generated plenty of reliable sources. But this article is too essayish for me to consider advocating for keeping it. Should it be deleted, I hope the closer will consider it on the basis of the content of the article, not what the topic is. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that it could be appreciable to revise the subject(topic) appropriately based on the contents of the articles, because the substance of the whole contents contains, news, opinions and research results of the experts in the respective fields of North Korea nuclear and ICBM issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~, Strong Keep: I think there is sufficient evidence WP:NRVE of this topic and other current relevant topics in this encyclopaedia:

- compendium providing summaries from all branches of information. These several adjacent Wikipedia articles below regarding North Korea issues, is useful for the readers of Wikipedia because its one of the primary interests of the global community.
It proves that People desire to know the facts from fiction and to learn more details about it including the summary of books and scholastic writings on this topic.
List of North Korean missile tests , 2017 North Korean missile tests , North Korean August 2017 missile launch over Japan , 2017 North Korea crisis, Korean conflict, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction,
Japan-Korea relations,
Foreign relations of North Korea,
North Korea–United States relations, Gemvoice (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no realistic prospect of a peace treaty with North Korea as long as its provocative missile and nuclear tests continue and suggesting otherwise (as the article does in its very first sentence) points out this article as North Korean propaganda.Amyzex (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it North Korean propaganda? -> Please see reference - USA was considering Peace Treaty with North Korea for at least more than 23 years. ^[2] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by OP). Additionally, the article violates WP:NOTOPINION. That is, every speculation about what might happen is pure opinion by more-or-less informed commentators. There can be no facts about something that not certain to occur. (Also note how the articles uses the term "Peace Treaty" as a proper noun – this illustrates that it is not encyclopedic.) As NOTOPINION recommends, the material should go into Wikinews. To do this properly, the article should be deleted or made into a redirect to Korean conflict. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

, Keep , Rename and Keep - There are some issues with this article, but it could be amended later on. A fair share of information for global community without bias. I think it would be one of the most important contributions in Wikipedia. Regarding this topic, I can understand why North Korea developed nuclear weapons and why it is of interest by several international parties. Before then, I thought North Korea is actually preparing for a nucleus and there are still so many others who believe that North Korea wants to ignite the fuse of a nuclear War. Because there are lots of news articles that are from outside of the current situation :example today North Korea news: It’s ‘Begging for War’ I believe that the Public generally did not have time and energy to see articles from the actual experts on the North Korean nuclear issue and international law because we can only see the news on Internet and TV. Peace Treaty with North Korea: it is nothing new, but it is popular topic on news, newspapers, books and scholastic writings. I don’t see the evidence of violation of WP:NOTOPINION, but the topic supported by the experts and journalists on this matter and it would pass the WP:SUSTAINED with several references. D8jang (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete low-quality content about a vague topic. Korean War should discuss the historical issues; any new treaty that Donald Trump or Kim Jong Un might do in the future is entirely WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the several articles about diplomacy options of US via google search - few examples from TIME concerning opinions of 6 Experts and CNN - Jimmy Carter's Agreed Framework :^[3] (I could add it more later on) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[4] ^[5]

References

References

^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

^ ""North Korea: 6 Experts on How We Can Solve the Problem including - Treverton, the former chair of the U.S. National Intelligence Council"". TIME.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

^ "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

^ "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments to delete the article are very strong, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for possible future events. Those arguing for keep do correctly state that "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The difficulty here is that the article is currently written in an inappropriate essay style. I would like editors to further comment on the merits of these points as well as to consider the policy on content forks and whether the content is more appropriate for a section of 2017 North Korea crisis or Korean War. More discussion may help consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Thank you for Relisting discussions and guiding us about Wikipedia policy on content forks, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have Korean reunification which covers this topic. This BALLy essay is not needed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is, as far as I can tell from looking for sources, no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea. And the title itself takes an inherent point of view. A treaty, by definition, is between more than one party, but this title only mentions one party. Is it supposed to be about a peace treaty between North Korea and Papua New Guinea, or maybe Gabon, or who? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to the initial version of peace Treaty attached between U.S. and North Korea: Agreed Framework

It was the part of North Korea Nuclear deal. - page #3 , U.S. promised to provide North Korea with the formal assurance of peace and Security to North Korea. From my understanding, the current nuclear & ICBM issue would have been removed already, if the agreement was proceeded, I was able to figure it out this information just only a few days ago because of the news release from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

Delete It's not clear which peace treaty the article title is referring to. I suppose it should more accurately be titled

Possible Future Peace Treaties with North Korea Korea, but that would be silly.--Pontificalibus (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just cannot overlook the WP:CRYSTALBALL we would need to use to support keeping this article. This is an essay on a hypothetical scenario and a disorderly one at that; too many opinions and topics are covered (inadequately). Please do not merge or redirect this essay to Korean reunification for there is no benefit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer that I summarized the opinions and topics on articles yesterday.

With the issue ofWP:CRYSTALBALL, the issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL raised last month August, because people (including myself) did not know whether there was already signed Initial Peace Treaty between U.S. and North Korea via Agreed Framework. However, it is now we know the fact and so the issue ofWP:CRYSTALBALL can be cleared.

Regarding the term about name of topic.

It's my understanding, concerning the motivation of the peace treaty : there is a clear consensus about the abandonment of Nuclear weapons and Chemical weapons of North Korea.
However, there are some suggestions of the peace treaty partner with North KoreaDPRK via experts in this field.

Option 1 Between DPRK and South Korea - backed by China & U.S. because North and South would be the main states

option 2 Between DPRK and U.S. because U.S. is practically related to this subject after 1950 Korean War

Option 3 Between DPRK and U.N because U.N was the actual signed party of 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement

- That is the reason behind of the subject: [[Peace Treaty with North Korea],
Regarding the comment on Talk page of the changing name: Please refer to proposed subjects below

Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula

Diplomacy of UN to North Korea missile tests

Options(Diplomacy) of U.S. to North Korea crisis

I believe that it would be hugely favorable for us to have one of the topics above on Wikipedia. There are several topics about North Korea missile tests & crisis on Wikipedia, but as far as I know, there is no space for the summarized advice and opinions from the global experts on this topic.

Only for within the latest 24 hours, It is easy to find more than 50 reliable news and opinion articles about North Korea crisis, but it is difficult to see all.

As Wikipedia is one of the primary live Global Encyclopedia on Internet, it would be advantageous to have room for subject above on Wikipedia,

Please refer to the three example subject of last 24 hours below. ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those three topics you mentioned belong in North Korea–United States relations.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your feedback, YES, It is quite related with North Korea–United States relations, however from my understanding, North Korea–United States relations is hard to cover all of this topic as the prevalent nuclear & ICBMs of North Korea are the global issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More References

References

^ "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

^ "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

^ "AGREED FRAMWORK BETWEEN U.S and North Korea" (PDF). IAEA/. Retrieved 2017-09-09.

^ "North Korea is able to exact nuclear annihilation". iol.co.za. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

^ "The world's dilemma: Why North Korea will become a nuclear power despite pressure". scmp.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

^ "North Korea warns US will pay due price for spearheading UN sanctions". smh.com.au/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

Comment Goodtiming8871, the creator of the article, appears to be bludgeoning this discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
' Comment: Please understand that I am one of the people who is fear for the accidental nuclear war. As some experts said, North Korea would be the most potential place cause global war threatening the safety to all of us. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. I received a message on my talk page about this from the creator but still stand by my "delete" opinion. I also note that the message still didn't reply to my comment that a treaty needs more than one party. The article obviously refers to a non-existent treaty between North Korea and the United States, so why on Earth, unless the creator is under the impression that everything in Wikipedia is written from an American point of view, doesn't the title mention the United States? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' Comment: Dear 86.17.222.157,

As per my kind reply message of your inquiry: '"no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea." : I would like to politely share the related factor, the initial version of the Peace treaty was signed between U.S. and North Korea.
Concerning "American point": there was no intention of this side, and so I updated my comment above for clarification: example names- including U.N and Korean Peninsula. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove 99% of content. The peace treaty itself is notable, but there are only few sentences about it (and one table). It seems the rest of the article is off topic, poorly organized essay/fork of the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, plus some POV rants/points. All that junk needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What peace treaty is notable? The only international agreement that is written about in the article is the Agreed Framework, about which we already have an article. There is no peace treaty. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, if they are the same then merge (if anything) and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly important and notable topic and there is plenty of literature discussing the history and prospects. That literature can be documented factually. The article needs work to neutralize, as most new content does, but this is not an argument for not having an article. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
** Comment - Regarding opinion from User:JWB and User:Piotrus, let me please add My two cents. To sum up my idea, I updated my first comment above Rename and Keep - Firstly, YES, this article required counterbalance, and I trust the power of millions of Wikipedia users who want to hammer this notable topic into the proper Wikipedia shape by freely editing the article- - Secondly, I was wondering if other articles on AfD can understand the Delete comment on this article, but I don't see that it is the objective with other few latter-day AfD articles with WP:CRYSTAL issues; Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, GW170817 - It seems like people believe that several reliable references could waive off the issue of WP:CRYSTAL. In my estimation, the choice of name is wrong, as there would be many people with a mindset: anti- North Korea(may be NOT South Korea) & hate Appeasements with DPRK, to minimize any negative impression with DPRK, I would like to suggest to change the name to something like: Peace Treaty for Korean War or End the Korean War and enables users to modify this article. D8jang (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, it is an article on a thing that doesn't exist. bd2412 T 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the article's talk page: the article is speculative, not encyclopedic. The subject of the article does not exist. Discussion of proposals for such a treaty would fit better as parts of articles on the Agreed Framework and the Six Party Talks. NPguy (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes so far, to save folks the hassle of counting: Delete+Nom: 14, Keep: 5 + Keep but remove 99% of content: 1 Rwendland (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Glass Sphere. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There was an Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK, but that has broken down, and there is no peace treaty in progress at this time. Any such peace treaty in the future is pure speculation. Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autodetection[edit]

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

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

I've declined a WP:PROD on this as deletion of a page that's survived unchallenged since 2003 is never going to be uncontroversial, but I agree that this no longer seems appropriate as a Wikipedia article. It could possibly become a redirect rather than be deleted outright if anyone can think of an appropriate target. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs in a dictionary. Too broad a topic, a bit like Detection.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Not every word gets an entry, and there is no specific encyclopedic topic here really. W Nowicki (talk) 23:22, 10 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Brett Serle[edit]

Jason Brett Serle (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)

Having found this on my way through some Thelema-related material, I have to question the notability of this fellow in what is a fairly promotional article. References seem to trace back to him, or are passing, or are concert guest kind of listings. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language used is neutral and not promotional and the facts mentioned are backed by valid references. I do not know how they 'trace back to him' as you say. He is by no means a mainstream figure and is only known in the alternative communities he deals with but I feel his work to be with merit. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparent vanity page claiming notability by having a handful of written pieces published, self-produced films entered into film festivals, and self-released music. Links are to small or self-published sources. No significant independent, third party coverage found. Fails meeting notability criteria for WP:AUTHORS, WP:FILMMAKERS, and WP:MUSICIANS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a 'vanity page' as the language is neutral. Only one of the written works cited are self-published and the music mentioned was published by a notable record company and features another notable artist. The mention of his self-produced work is merely complementary. He is an alternative filmmaker and so naturally his films are self-produced. They have been official selections at notable film festivals and are distributed both here and in the US by notable film distributors. Mind your Mind has also been included in the psychology syllabus in American Universities. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please give valid reasons. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:CREATIVE is a valid reason to delete. What criterion in that guideline, exactly, is clearly and unambiguously met by the subject? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the refs support notability for wikipedia. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even a fringe personality requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the sources are all fringe, that's just "in universe" coverage that doesn't confer notability. He may be notable in fringe circles, but this is an encyclopedia that is global in scope, and notability needs to be more than just from the fringes. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Hosseini[edit]

Arash Hosseini (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 WP:PROD; restoring for deletion discussion. Other than his qualifications the only cited material is cited to the subject's own websites, and the tone is so promotional it almost qualifies as spam. ‑ Iridescent 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(adding) I've removed some of the more obvious promotion and padding. ‑ Iridescent 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. Pahlevun (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are clearly not independent and fail in establishing the subject's notability. This is a promotional article on a run of the mill businessperson. RetiredDuke 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or even speedy delete, because, while the article asserts a claim of significance, I don't see that it asserts any credible claim of significance as required to avoid WP:A7 deletion. I wouldn't object to moving the article to draft space for improvement and AFC submission if notability can be proven. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, because soureces and references are not enough for this article at all Leodikap (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leodikap, just out of curiosity what speedy deletion criterion applies here? Even if an article contains no sources that's never been a CSD reason. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 11 September 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) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tywanna Smith[edit]

Tywanna Smith (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. I don't see any way the person meets WP:NSPORT, and the purpose of the article appears to be to promote her (non-notable) business. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business related information was deleted- I wasn't aware that only sports related information was acceptable for content. Aleksej Nikolić is of lesser notability but has a page? I am very confused. Jacobbailer (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Nikolić played in the EuroLeague which meets WP:NBASKETBALL (because of the news coverage the EuroLeague gets). Can you find some sources about her professional career from reliable sources to improve the article? -- Dammit_steve (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Jacobbailer (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobbailer - this person's article may meet other notability guidelines such as WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG, but needs additional references included to reflect that. Hmlarson (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson Dammit_steve I added close to 10 new sources-does that work? I can add more if that's not enough.Jacobbailer (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The goal isn't to link every web page that mentions her: anybody with Google could do that. Read WP:N for what notability actually means - in-depth and more than local coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A classic case of WP:ROUTINE. The press coverage outside of college papers is almost all quick mentions, team sheet listings etc. We may wish that women's basketball got the same press coverage as men's football or politics, but it doesn't and therefore WP:GNG is not met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colapeninsula Her professional work post-basketball has press mentions of the type you are talking about, for example, a Huffington Post article was recently published I believe. I'll try to restructure for that as a smaller page. Jacobbailer (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson (talk) 03:02, 9 September 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 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beamery[edit]

Beamery (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)

PROD was removed without any other changes. Similar article AfDed earlier this year. References weak, not notable. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are mostly passing mentions or affiliated sources or press releases. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like / promo page on an unremarkable private company. Sources are usual WP:SPIP suspects -- interviews, launch publicity, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the previous deletion mentioned in the nomination was a CSD G11 rather than an AfD? As to the article, it describes the feature proposition and the funding, but neither these nor inclusion in a "fastest-growing in sector" list provide evidence of attained encyclopaedic notabiility. Some of the references are items by firms involved in funding this venture, so also have to be considered as WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (Note there is also a similar Draft:Beamery by the same author.) AllyD (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kozo the Hippo[edit]

Kozo the Hippo (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 fictional character that does not appear in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and is not mentioned in article of the studio that allegedly created it. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear non notable lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 15 September 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 05:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alecks Awklr[edit]

Alecks Awklr (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 demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing notability guidelines for music producers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Legacypac (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wahooly[edit]

Wahooly (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)

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

An article on a defunct social-network start-up company. The available coverage is typical notice of a start-up proposition, and then of its attempted rebrand and revised proposition the following year, and then closure the year after that (involving a merger into another start-up which has no article, so not a redirect target). The most detailed discussion that I am finding for either brand name is an article early in its lifespan in the Star-Tribune ([11] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but that is effectively home-town start-up coverage and not, I think, sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No long-term significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet requirements for notability, references fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:18, 10 September 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 06:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pino[edit]

Nick Pino (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)

Autobiography in which notability is not established. The only two sources included are not independent and do not provide any in-depth coverage. It fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO, not enough coverage in third-party sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: these are the only third-party sources I could find: 1 and 2. They're both inadequate.

...is just him and another commentator speculating about one video-game, he isn't the primary topic of the video.

...is a compilation of reviews, one of which he features in, again, not the primary topic and no indication that he is well-known as a reliable reviewer.

Aside from the notability problem, we've got a verifiability issue. I've blanked the personal life section because it was completely unreferenced.

DrStrauss talk 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are not independent and don't provide enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. As such, the article does not meet WP:AUTHOR. RetiredDuke 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Krauser[edit]

Shane Krauser (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 radio show host and political figure. No in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. Article relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Article was created as a promo/advertisement for subject Neutrality^talk 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete i thought about trying to dig and save this, but yet another promotional article, written by somebody who doesn't care enough to even format citations and just slaps in bareURLs.... Just kill this. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn as an adjunct professor, talk show host or as a director of nn American Academy for Constitutional Education. An apparent vanity page and bio spam. No SIGCOV in secondary independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 11 September 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) 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rushika Fernandopulle[edit]

Rushika Fernandopulle (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the multiple, independent sources included in the citations? Would seem to meet the basic criteria ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]") Citations include the New Yorker, Boston Globe, and Wired among others. Zapfdingbats (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You're missing the "significant coverage" part, which cannot solely consist of quotes from the subject, which must be about the subject, which can't be press releases or routine namedrops debarred by WP:ROUTINE. So let's examine the cites.
[12] is about Renaissance Health, not about the subject.
[13] is not only the same, it's plainly a press release.
[14] is similar.
[15][16][17] are about Iora Health, not the subject.
[18] is a one-paragraph capsule description in a section with *hundreds* of the same, if not thousands.
Lacking is any significant coverage of the subject, as the GNG requires. Ravenswing 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the citations you call out are merely there to substantiate factual elements of the entry; I don't agree with your characterization of the citations from the Boston Globe, NY Times and Wired, and am not sure why you did not point out the New Yorker citation in which the person the entry is about is one of the primary subjects of the article. Zapfdingbats (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it; in fact, that New Yorker piece goes several thousand words before mentioning the subject at all -- it is a good cite for supporting the notability of Jeffrey Brenner, though, whose article could use some work -- and provides the subject almost no coverage: his mention in it are quotes from him and a brief description of how he assists a particular clinic, but tells us next to nothing about him. That the other citations are there to substantiate factual elements of the article I don't dispute, but none of them bolster notability. Ravenswing 07:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article from the Financial Times meet your standards? Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health - At Work with the FT Or this interview with him in INC? Would adding these resolve the concerns you have? Thanks! Zapfdingbats (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>> I have added additional sources that I believe address your concerns. They are from reputable sources: Financial Times, American Medical Association & The Atlantic, and the articles are directly about the subject of the entry. Thanks! ^[1]^[2]^[3] Zapfdingbats (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Innovator finds value in relationship-based primary care model". AMA Wire.

^ "Fixing the 5 Percent". The Atlantic.

^ "Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health, At Work with the FT". Financial Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it fails and how it can be improved? The article has multiple secondary sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. As SIGCOV states, the subject DOES NOT need to be the main topic of the source. In some of the sources, however, the subject is the main topic. I don't see how you can say this fails BIO or SIGCOV, it seems to meet the criteria easily. Zapfdingbats (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 16 September 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) 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indibloggies[edit]

Indibloggies (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 blog. Whole article is filled with outside linking. Not to mention the creator of this article is same who created this blog (as can be verified from his user page). Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it might be seen as a case of COI, I agree. I never really thought that I was doing any illegal thing by creating a page about a website I created (I could have used a different user id if that were not true, and back in 2006 I don't think these were seen in the same way as we do it today, in this era of fake news). The page has no false claims though, mentions only facts. I didn't make a penny out of the effort, in fact I incurred money to keep the website running. It was a great community effort where the awards came from the blogger fraternity, no money, only goodies. BTW, Indibloggies was not a blog, it was a community blog award website. It enjoyed its spate of popularity for 6-7 years and many of the winners went on to become notable authors. The site is now defunct, so you cannot find any newspaper resources anymore. However, it was such popular at a time that it was quoted in scholarly journals https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Indibloggies%22 and in news papers alike https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Indibloggies%22. IHMO, the page should be retained for historical reasons (many pages cross link to it), but I wont mind either if its deleted. I am not in blogging scene anymore like most of the other folks who quit as well. Old things are forgotten and probably Indibloggies should also be. But it was an important milestone in Indian blogging scene, there has been no blog award before it or like it. (BTW, just noticed that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies), on which Indibloggies was parodied, is also nominated for deletion :), these are the new times) Debashish (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debashish (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment - I removed the inline external links. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No denigration to the content of the blog, simply that it doesn't merit an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 15 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 South Shields F.C. season[edit]

2017–18 South Shields F.C. season (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 fails WP:NSEASONS by some margin – the club plays in the eighth tier of English football, well below the fully-professional divisions. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 5 7 08:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. Appreciate that their season might get more than average coverage for a team at this level because Julio Arca plays for them, but I anticipate most of this coverage will be focused on him and should belong in his article, not a standalone season article. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ People tend to forget the match report url's that are in the match statistics section, these act as citations although hidden and I really don't like how they seem hidden in season articles, I see enough for a weak keep on this. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: The match reports are from the club's own website so do not demonstrate any form of notability. Number 5 7 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O, not so smart, I thought it was independent of the club, I missed that! Delete then. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Shields F.C., which WP:NSEASONS says should be done when the season is not notable but the team or competition is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I read that (the redirecting possibility) as being for when an article is viable but currently only consists of stats. This article doesn't meet the requirements full stop. Number 5 7 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the team doesn't fall in the WP:NSEASONS as they are too low down the English pyrmaid to be notable Matt294069 is coming 05:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly excessive; redundant to South Shields F.C. and 2017–18 Northern Premier League. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORS Direct[edit]

ORS Direct (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 corporate notability standards and web content notability standards. No indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that conveys any notability. DrStrauss talk 11:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadads (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wow, it has survived this long? Purely promotional; no sources, except for promo web links. Basically, corporate spam. I would have requested deletion under G11, but not sure if the prior AfD would prevent that. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft Club[edit]

The Loft Club (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 a notable band. The sources are struggling to show anything approaching WP:NMUSIC, and a search for them returns a similar show of results. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band (WP:TOOSOON) which fails WP:BAND. Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few releases, minimal coverage, minimal impact. Not notable at this time. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A D Nasim[edit]

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

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

i dont see the subject meets the basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely agree that this article does not pass the notability guideline. A person who is just an advocate is not notable for a wikipedia article. Moreover, there is no significant coverage of him by independent sources. RRD (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not meet WP:GNG, as per nomination. The article reads as a autobiography and the sourcing it provides is not independent. RetiredDuke 17:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrax Detection Device[edit]

Anthrax Detection Device (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 (badly named) article is about a product from ca. 2005-2007 for which I can only find press releases and similar company-created "news", not the necessary independent reliable sources about it. Seems to have disappeared without a trace (hah!) and never to have achieved the notability required for an article here. Fram (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this one plainly didn't make it to notability. Dr Google finds only 29 scrappy hits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every single product conceived to date. Fails to meet basic WP:GNG. RetiredDuke 18:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTE, clearly a product designed to gather hype in scarier times.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a fake page with no citations. No real notability or sources.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish khan[edit]

Danish khan (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 is a claim of significance here (the subject holds the Guinness World Record for the longest time spinning a Guinness World Records book on the finger), so it is not eligible for speedy deletion, but I don't see how he meets our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. fails WP:GNG apart from the visual presentation of the article itself. Vignyana^talk 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT etc. Spiderone 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.- Fails GNG. FITINDIA 17:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any citation.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartOwner[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven or passing mentions. Previously speedy deleted, and then immediately recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lacking depth of coverage. Promotional tonality. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom has given sufficient reason to have this removed. I could also not find reliable sources to have this as an article. The language used is more brochure sounding thus can't have stint here on Wikipedia. Kagundu Talk To Me 09:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon: if the company survives the test of time and has sources besides promotion, then maybe some day try again. Otherwise not remarkable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:26, 10 September 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. bd2412 T 03:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Barone[edit]

Marcus Barone (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 "motion picture music executive, supervisor, composer, publisher and studio musician". Long list of credits, but length does not equate to notability. The references generally fall into one of the following categories: non-selective roster-like listings, such as IMDb, list of invited speakers and the like; commercial sites where the subject sells his work; or passing references. Before I had started cleaning it up, a number of the references did not support the claims in the article; some had nothing to do with the subject at all.
Barone seems to have no significant awards and no notable work, either in film or recording. His film work credits are on the order of "music supervisor", "executive in charge of music," etc., as distinguished from composer, except on a few minor works. His recording credits is essentially as a studio musician or arranger.
The article was created by User:Hollywood Silicon, who only edited for a week in October 2009; and who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than to this article. Most recent substantive edits have been made by User:Marcusbarone, but are little more than an unreferenced catalog of non-notable work. The editor's ID suggests he is the individual who is the subject of the article.
I PROdded it in July. User:Marcusbarone dePRODDed it, leaving a comment on the talk page that I do not think justifies retention. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from MARCUS BARONE and Thank you for your input and concern for me to have a better sourced article.

I removed both lists Filmography which the summary can be linked to the IMDB and the full Discography which at this time, needs more sources. Its difficult getting record labels and information from recordings I worked on the the late 70s and 80s as a session player, but once found, that info will go to ALL MUSIC ROVI first before I post again in WIKI.
I am slowly getting accurate sources together that fit your criteria.
Please don't delete my article.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusbarone (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nom. After I made the above nomination, the lengthily unreferenced catalog of film and recording work that I refer to above was deleted by Marcusbarone. That doesn't really change things. The defect with the article was not the long lists; even if referenced, they would not have established notability. The basis on which I propose deletion is the lack of notability of the subject, not merely the current state of the article. TJRC (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Ive started to remove any dead end reference links. Ive also added a few more references that might hold, and Im searching BILLBOARD MAGAZINE for any articles about me. Ive found two and Ive not added them yet. Im looking for more. ALSO ROVI ALL MUSIC will have new input on the list they have , once I fill out the template they sent me to help me add recordings Ive worked on. I need the codes which I have been finding. Also there are a few books that mention me and Im talking to the authors to get the correct publisher's names
THANK YOU MARCUS BARONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusbarone (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little in the way of sources to write an article with. Topic ban Marcusbarone (talk · contribs) from the article as he has a blatant conflict of interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage, so fails WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is a personal bio with no claim of notability; his IMDB profile doesn't suggest he's notable either. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like the page was started and mostly written by Marcus Barone himself. Very few sources cited and possible WP:COI issue makes it looks problematic.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 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; I have redirected the title to Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, as the subject is mentioned there. bd2412 T 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Hotel Austin[edit]

Four Seasons Hotel Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An directory-like page on an unremarkable hotel. Significant RS coverage not found; fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. What comes up is passing mentions or travel guide entries. The article was a part of a group AfD nomination in 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta), which closed as "Keep / nomination withdrawn", hence the second AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Gee, Robert W. (2000-07-21). "Welcome to Plugged Inn - Hotels in Austin and elsewhere cater to tech-savvy travelers (just don't try to cheat the mini-bar)". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

Some, like the Four Seasons Hotel Austin and the Driskill Hotel, have upped the ante. They offer fast wireless Internet access in public areas -- the lobby, the bar, the restaurant, many of the conference rooms, and at the Four Seasons, even the pool.
The Four Seasons, as a test case for Wayport, was the first hotel in the world to have a wireless Internet network, in 1997. But only now do some guests come equipped with wireless Ethernet cards that allow them to use the service.
In a timeline titled "Hotel technology through the years", the article notes:
1997: Four Seasons Hotel Austin is the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network.

Barnes, Michael (2017-03-08). "When Queen Elizabeth II stayed at the Four Seasons Austin Hotel". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

Do you think they’ll shoot an episode of “The Crown” in Austin? If so, they absolutely must use the Four Seasons Hotel Austin as a location.
Why so? Because Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II stayed there in 1991.
...
As the venerable luxury hotel celebrates its 30th anniversary, we dig into its pictures and stories at the Austin Found blog. U.S. Presidents have included Presidents George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush, as well as Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, although the latter two did not spend the night.
The hotel has hosted royalty and heads of state from Saudi Arabia, Spain and Australia. Two who surely appreciated the full-size beds: Former British Prime Minister John Major (6 feet) and former Mexican President Vincente Fox (6 feet, 4 inches).
Sports legends Willie Mays, Pete Rose and Joe DiMaggio rested their weary frames here, as did Hollywood luminaries Gregory Peck, Lauren Bacall, Rod Steiger, Robert DeNiro, Robert Duvall and Debbie Reynolds.
The media were represented by Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Mike Wallace and Rupert Murdoch — a more-frequent but extremely quiet visitor to our town during his recent courtship of Texas model and actress Jerry Hall.

Seale, Shelley. "The Telegraph Review. Four Seasons Hotel Austin Austin, Texas, United States". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The review notes:

Timeless elegance and Texas hospitality – that’s what the Four Seasons in Austin is all about. The iconic brand’s hotel in the state capital city lives up to its reputation for the latest amenities, attention to detail and fastidious service.

Dinges, Gary (2015-05-09). "Four Seasons' new owner - loves the Austin market - Chicago company says it's intrigued by other Texas locations". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

A chance to buy "the best hotel in one of the strongest markets in the nation" doesn't come along often, Strategic Hotels and Resorts CEO Raymond Gellein Jr. said.
That's why the Chicago-based company was quick to express interest when the 291-room Four Seasons Hotel Austin went on the market this year.
Strategic Hotels and Resorts said Monday it will pay $197 million for the luxury hotel, buying it from Lodging Capital Partners and Prudential. The transaction is expected to close by month's end.

Dinges, Gary (2015-01-31). "Austin - Four - Seasons for sale - Renovated luxe hotel 2nd high-end inn this week to go on market". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

Suddenly, two high-profile downtown Austin hotels are on the market.
The building that is home to the Four Seasons Hotel Austin, 98 San Jacinto Blvd., is for sale, a hotel spokeswoman confirmed Friday. The news came just hours after the developer of the W Austin Hotel, at 200 Lavaca St., revealed in a securities filing Thursday that a company had been hired to market that building, as well.
The Four Seasons is owned by Lodging Capital Partners and Prudential; the W is owned by a partnership led by Austin-based Stratus Properties Inc.
...
The 291-room Four Seasons was built in 1986 and renovated extensively in 2007 and 2014. The Travis Central Appraisal District valued the property at $106.8 million in 2014.

"travel42 Hotel Review: Four Seasons Hotel Austin". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

Although it lacks the historic charm of the Driskill Hotel and haute, refreshed style at the enormous new JW Marriott, this Four Seasons, located two blocks east of Congress Avenue, remains Austin's most luxurious property, an exceptional endeavor purpose-built to impress even hard-to-please travelers.

"Four Seasons Hotel Austin: A waterfront gem in downtown Austin". Forbes Travel Guide. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
The article notes:

Since opening in 1986, Four Seasons Hotel Austin has maintained its reputation for elegance and top-notch hospitality. Situated along Lady Bird Lake, just a stone’s throw from the Congress Avenue Bridge, the Forbes Travel Guide Four-Star hotel has the benefit of peaceful privacy from its tucked-away spot in lively downtown Austin.
The property’s central yet secluded locale has attracted guests traveling both for business and pleasure, and made it a favorite of visiting musicians and celebrities.
The hotel is undergoing a massive renovation, which will be completed in the fall of 2017, enhancing the current 291 guest rooms and adding three more (plus five new suites).

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Four Seasons Hotel Austin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta participants and closer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs), Raime (talk · contribs), W Nowicki (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), John Quincy Adding Machine (talk · contribs), and Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. of the sources above, #1 is a mention in an article about hotels in the cit and internet access in hotels generally; 2 a PR piece from a newspaper in its own city; 3 , an uncritical travel guide using promotional language, tho from an usually reliable newspaper; 5 a real estate notice; 6 and 7 are commercial travel guides and unreliable for notability. {{U}Cunard}},you can usually find better sources than these DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable to say about it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think you can truly say nothing notable to say. The one about the queen has a lot of other impressive facts. The one from the Austin American-Statesman also has some facts. Together these alone probably suffice for WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. Of the sourced supplied by Cunard, they are all either hotel guides, reviews, PRs or news items with very little coverage outside of local level. Not convinced this is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a run-of-the-mill hotel from a national chain. Wikipedia is not a hotel directory. Most of Cunard's references are to hotel-directory type pages. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources (including those listed above, but not added to the article) are trivial passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hotel has been reviewed in The Daily Telegraph, Travel Weekly, and Forbes Travel Guide. How are those "trivial passing mentions"? The 2017-03-08 Austin American-Statesman article discusses the hotel's history of serving notable guests like Queen Elizabeth II.
Cunard (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph source looks like an advert. As a general rule of thumb, having written / saved a few hotel articles, ones built before about 1930 tend to be notable, ones after that generally aren't aside from exceptional circumstances. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph source is a review written by travel writer Shelley Seale. She gave the hotel a 6/10 for "Value for money". An advertisement would not give a hotel a 6/10 for "Value for money".
I consider a hotel notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources", not if it was build before 1930. If you are looking for something "exceptional", this hotel is "the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network" and has had noteworthy guests like Queen Elizabeth II, Gregory Peck, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Mike Wallace, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
Cunard (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (talk · contribs), W Nowicki (talk · contribs), Ajf773 (talk · contribs), Power~enwiki (talk · contribs), and Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), would you support a merge to the parent article, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts? I would prefer a merge in lieu of deletion.
Cunard (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to merge. What would you merge? There's nothing in this article except totally generic information like how many rooms it has. The proposed target article says they have more than 100 hotels. What's so special about this one that it stands out from the others? Or are you proposing that the parent article contain a list of all 100+ properties? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge:
It is located on the shores of Lady Bird Lake, a reservoir of the Colorado River of Texas in Downtown Austin.
Its restaurant, TRIO, is a four-star restaurant, like the hotel.
The 9-story hotel was built in 1987.
Located near the Austin Convention Center and the entertainment district, the hotel offers 291 guest rooms, including 28 suites.
I would also add information about how the hotel is "the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network" and information about its architectural style and ownership history.
The proposed target article says they have more than 100 hotels. What's so special about this one that it stands out from the others? Or are you proposing that the parent article contain a list of all 100+ properties? – no other hotels have this special claim: "The Four Seasons [in Austin], as a test case for Wayport, was the first hotel in the world to have a wireless Internet network, in 1997." The proposed target article can have a section discussing hotels like Four Seasons Hotel Austin. When that section becomes too big, then a spinoff can happen to a "List of Four Seasons Hotels".
Cunard (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposed. None of that is worth mentioning. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why it is worth mentioning. You said you disagree. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider a merge fully appropriate, if only the minimum amount of material is merged. I think Cunard has the right approach here--I too have always advocated merging for chains of this sort; we shouldn't be stuck in the dilemma of either having an article or nothing. But I suggest that ""the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network" is a claim requiring interpretation that would require a very good source, not just a newspaper article. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Nothing but trivial and routine coverage of a local hotel of a chain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per Wikipedia:NOTDIR, as this hotel is merely a local installment of a larger brand.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added information about Four Seasons Hotel Austin to Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has been up since 2007 and there is virtually nothing on the article in terms of both content and sources. Only 2 sentences on it before being nominated for deletion.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 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. Nominator withdrew nomination, therefore satisfying criterion 1 of Speedy Keep applicability/reasons. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MicroBilt Corporation[edit]

MicroBilt Corporation (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)

~~PROD removed without satisfying NCORP. Holding company notability not inherited from subsidiaries. Rhadow (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I changed my mind. Rhadow (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong[edit]

Someone is doing something questionable.
First a tag was placed with several conditions:

please edit this page

I did - adding 2 sections, one about MicroBilt Merchant Services, the other about MicroBilt Financial Services. Since both use the "holding company" name, that should count.

I have 7 days

Escalated to Article-for-deletion 16 minutes after I made my first edit

Nominator: Please consider notifying the author

was not done

The above is regarding [19]
The article was tagged sixteen minutes after my first edit
saying that I should research among:

(Find sources: "MicroBilt Corporation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I chose the one on the right, WP reference, and among the first 3 listed,

the oldest was that the NY Times reported on their earnings.

The newest was that they were the subject of a lawsuit (2017, in NJ).

Earnings worthy of NY Times attention and a case to be tried by the State of NJ Judiciary,

and THAT IS NOT NOTABLE?

Why the KILL IT approach? Why not FILL IT? Trink24 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hello Trink24 -- We are talking here about the subject, not about you or the quality of your work. Nothing is wrong. As this article was originally published, IMO it did not meet WP:GNG, keeping in mind specifically that a holding company does not inherit the notability of its subsidiaries. Yes, I promptly tagged it. Today is a holiday; I was watching new articles. A PROD works for seven days. You removed the PROD and any further review. My take was that the article needed more eyes. Now it will get more eyes. If you add the two articles you mentioned: about a lawsuit and earnings, maybe others will disagree with me. Rhadow (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't do my job too well either[edit]

Admittedly the NEWS search was basically PR/Press Release (interesting: PR really stands for Public Relations, a Marketing/Advertising/Sales specialty, but the issuing of Press Releases as "PR" is an established technique).
I didn't have much hope for the BOOKS link in the DELETE nomination, but... MicroBilt is given credit for data (an input to ...) and information (the result of crunching data, and THINKING). Anyway: discounting "DIRECTORY" types of listings, I found:

Understanding Business Valuation: A Practical Guide to Valuing Small ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1937350630 (published 2016)

How to Sell a Business for the Most Money Third Edition:

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=145662119X (2014)

Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses - Page 7-57

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1454827149 (2013)
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22MicroBilt+Corporation%22 found 5 non-trivials beyond the above 3, and also 2 trivials -- on the first Google page.
From reading Wiki guidelines, I see:

notability can't be fixed by editing. A bad article can't harm notability.

it's up to the article writer to make notability obvious.

Unless the wording allowing me to remove the PROD notice is improved, to make it clear that it's a protection from AfD nominations, a fatalistic approach might be

For now, leave it to the jury, and thanks in advance for those taking the time to vote.
-or-

Await a hint that editing will make a difference

Trink24 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Housekeeping Seal, one sock removed from the floor[edit]

Rather than wait with a blindfold for someone to click on the NYT immediately to the left of the WP reference I mentioned/used above... I've done a bit more homework, and... the article now mentions NYTimes earnings coverage and a 2014 comparison, in a positive light, of MicroBilt data versus "the three major credit reporting bureaus." Cigarette? (I don't smoke) Cigar? Trink24 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:19, 8 September 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. Obvious nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Lands Central Security Agency[edit]

United Lands Central Security Agency (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 and only Google hits are to Wikimedia sites. No hits for the "source" name either. Likely a hoax. Rs chen 7754 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:

United Lands Touring Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United Lands Route 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mobile Control Trailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United Lands Route 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added 02:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC))

Rs chen 7754 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted as it shows business information. It may be small but it is still a growing article. Bacardi379 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Moved from talk page. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But does it meet WP:GNG? Sure, you have sources, but I can't tell that the first publication even exists, and the second is a course website, which is not reliable. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These pages are a confusing mess. Is this a private security agency or a pseudo-government that maintains roads/trails and build ships? Why don't any of the articles talk about how the company operates? –Fredddie ™ 10:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
United Lands Route 1 should probably be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. –Fredddie ™ 10:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This seems like you are picking apart the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. When I said that, the article looked like this [20]. No context for why it was an article, so it could have been speedy deleted. –Fredddie ™ 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of the articles pass general notability guidelines. As stated in WP:CORP, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable.", and there is nothing in the (appaling) sourcing that suggests that this is not a run of the mill company like thousands of others. On top of that, two of the articles have no sourcing whatsoever. RetiredDuke 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all—these appear on their face to be hoaxes to me. The only Google results connected to the parent article are Wikipedia pages, and surely some news or information website out there would have some mention of it if it really did maintain ships and roads. Imzadi 1979 → 15:47, 8 September 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. Ignoring the extensive socking, clear consensus to delete, as failing WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syl Tang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Syl Tang

Articles for deletion/Syl Tang (2nd nomination)

Syl Tang (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)

Advertising for her new book, which is so far in only 6 libraries. The only possibly RS, the NYT article, is not about her; it's about personal shoppers, and she is included in it as one client. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's BEFORE work already shows there's no passing claim of notability and no acceptable RS about the subject. I would just add that the creator was a SPA whose 3rd edit was starting this article. It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to keep WP from drifting toward being a worldwide directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. The list of articles is not independent and blogs are not reliable sources. The Jewelry Association award is not notable. Even though the NYT article is not about her, it does provide more than trivial coverage, so it could contribute towards meeting WP:GNG but it is clearly not enough. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is RS from Newsweek and New York Magazine. I have edited the Hipguide page before though it has been awhile. There are formatting issues for sure but not sure where you got the idea that she is a professional press agent per your other nom - she appears to be a Financial Times journalist. That RS goes to dozens of articles. Arabbitortwo (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)— Arabbitortwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Plenty of GNG - page just needs to be build out. Tang is misidentied in two of the delete noms. Bluebrown321 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)— Bluebrown321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep All issues remarked have been addressed - plenty of GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrypack1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Kerrypack1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Was leaning weak keep until I noticed the above three accounts appear to be sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts. We appear to have possible paid editing here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock puppet - I was a contrib 6 years ago and happened to catch this since pages are related/nominated on same day - see History of the other page. The scope of this Afd should be limited to actual content of the pages frankly, not accusatory, which does not make new contributors want to keep editing. On the merit of the page itself, has anyone actually looked at it? It was up for less than a week and now passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. I think we should keep and allow time for editing because it meets WP: BIO and WP:BASIC. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Also WP:JOURNALIST. Maybe because I'm new to this, I just read the rules-- WP:GNG and related. Arabbitortwo (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWP:BEFORE confirms C. that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. This was also recently created - two days before nominating for deletion? Should have allowed contribs more time to develop the article. Failing that, would have been good to first try first raising concerns on the article's talk page such that readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. <- this exactly from WP:BEFORE. Further, both this and the other linked proposed deletion now have substantial RS. Yet, you persist. Gladpiefelix (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Gladpiefelix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The SPAs just keep comin'. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that an article passes G11 because it is in theory fixable does not imply we should keep it at AfD; G11 is for only the most obvious advertising--the less obvious or challenged ones need to be discussed here--and the stadart is passing WP:NOt and the notability guidelines. The obvious motivation for this article is to serve as promotion for her new book. This can be seen from the face of the article: avance praise for an unpublished book, lists of mentions "appeared in ..." This violates NOT ADVOCACY, so it doesn't matter even if she were notable. But she is not--the only substantial sources are interviews where she says whatever she wants to--this is not independent journalism, and wherever it appears, it's not a Rs for anything other than that her pr agent got her the interview. That this is a new article is not a reason to keep it--the sooner we get id of advertising, the better. And if by any chance her new book is indeed sufficiently importantto meake for ny , someone not connected with her will write an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Improve articles? The guidelines at Afd:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

Why wouldn't we just delete the offending line about the book? I had another look at those interviews. Are you under the impression that New York Magazine, Newsweek, Entrepreneur and the Financial Times all do whatever a publicist says. Not sure that is how media works. there was a good Times article about church and state in media. what you are saying goes against FCC regs. You need industry experts to weigh in here, sorry. Otherwise you run the risk that this sounds like three guys in a room who just don't like the fact that a woman is coming out with a book. I can't believe I am spending this much time defending a company I once edited so many years ago but it reads like a pile-on. There are so many pages on Wiki that are about nothing, this is about one of the few women entrepreneurs out there. I had a look at similar companies and you don't hold others, like Thrillist at all to the same standard. Even other female run companies, Brit + Co with much more promotional language and all the Rs is exactly what you think doesn't work here passes muster. Really sounds like a personal vendetta on a person you don't like -- which I'm sure is NOT what you intend -- but that is how it reads. Arabbitortwo (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took out the promotional line about book, but plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. At worst, repost, as the article is significantly better than at the start of the nomination. Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite this nomination being attacked by SPAs, the coverage is fundamentally nowhere near in depth enough, even in the newly provided sources. There is almost definitely paid editing here, and we have to also enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show it passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:32, 17 September 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 Procedural close.. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syl Tang (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syl Tang[edit]

Syl Tang (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)

Advertising for her new book, which is so far in only 6 libraries. The only possibly RS, the NYT article, is not about her; it's about personal shoppers, and she is included in it as one client. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 8 September 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) 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of David Black[edit]

Killing of David Black (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)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There is very possibly a suitable redirect target. TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could wish Nom had run WP:BEFORE using a keyword like IRA, because this is a case that has had significant ongoing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Considering it was the first prisoner officer murdered since the Gfa and it has recieved enough media coverage I think its existence complies with wiki policy.Mico7898e (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the article creator I'd expect you to want it kept. But being the first prison officer to be killed since the Good Friday agreement seems a pretty slender claim to notability. As for the second point, coverage at the time is not enough (see WP:NOTNEWS).TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a merge/redirect target? It seems more like a footnote in the history of the Troubles than an event which itself had lasting consequences (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc). There is certainly no evidence of lasting consequences in the article as it stands. The current article is hardly worth keeping, with very little information and most of the space taken up by platitudinous quotations, but it's possible a better article could be written establishing the event's importance? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV plus new legal cases related to this murder by IRA terrorists is ongoing, simple gNews search here: [21].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new information, the case has never been cold. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ongoing coverage - e.g. from 2017 [22] [23]. Probably wouldn't have been notable at height of troubles (coverage would've shifted to more significant events) - but as the attack was carried out in 2012, it has received SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the additional providing passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 16 September 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 The Quill (band). (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Haze (album)[edit]

Silver Haze (album) (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/WP:NMUSIC. Basically an unsourced tracklist. Propose redirect to The Quill. Kleuske (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article now meets criteria with various independent sources added. The Quills second album Silver Haze is regarded as classic in the stonerrock scene. It saw The Quill play their first shows outside of Sweden, visiting Germany, Netherlands, Denmark. The also appeared at the 1999 Sweden Rock Festival along side Deep Purple and Scorpions promoting the album to a wide national audience . The proposed redirection link is also pointing at the wrong The Quill. Danger2 (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Quill (band): fails WP:NALBUM, none of the three sources in the article are reliable ones, simply a link to a user-forum rating and two track listing databases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To the band's page. Rate Your Music is certainly not WP:RS and a search for better sources did not turn up anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hatnote at the article that Silver Haze redirects to pointing to the band will suffice. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 15 September 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. Before renominating, consider merging to HOT article. So Why 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Granot Goldstein[edit]

Tal Granot Goldstein (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)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of HOT, one of Israel's leading telecom companies (cable tv, data, land lines, and cellular). She has lots of coverage in Hebrew [24]. HOT is no longer public, but when it was a few years ago it had a market cap of around a billion USD. It is currently worth more (possibly as high as 3, probably around 1.5.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article needs sourcing, but sources exist for this CEO os a major corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: it would be useful if you could list a couple of specific sources which you consider meeting WP:BIO. Then people could evaluate those. And, I suggest this be relisted (yes, a third time), to allow another week for this to happen.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The coverage offered above is routine, as in:

"Hal Granot Goldstein, CEO of the HOT Group, said: "Alongside the expansion of HOT's core product and the launch of HOT [something], and soon Netflix integration into the product..." Etc.

Source: "The competition for viewers continues: HOT launches Rami Levy's television". This is just the subject promoting the company; it's not a source about her.

Such coverage does not establish notability independent of the company, and notability is not inherited from it. A $1bln company is not large enough for its CEO to be presumed notable. If there are better sources available, I'd be happy to look at them. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Run-of-the-mill executive. The RS mentions are brief and routine, subject doesn't seem to have attracted in-depth coverage sufficient to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and more Edit subject is notable but the references should be more improved Leodikap (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Leodikap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable CEO with limited depth of coverage beyond press releases. Per PohranicniStraze, WP:MILL applies as the subject did not accomplish anything that would make her stand out from other CEOs in the industry, and thus should not be considered of encyclopedic value. Note that her primary achievement (CEO of HOT) should not convey undue notability on her per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as her title, I'm unsure of the relationship between HOT and Altice; [25] suggests they were merged as of 2016, but Altice suggests the merger hasn't happened yet. I've added the inter-wiki link to her page on the Hebrew wikipedia, which does have more references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that HOT is fully owned by Altice. Patrick Drahi bought control of HOT, a few years ago, and when they went private (buying out all or most of the other shareholders, and redeeming issued bonds) - it was placed under the Altice structure. The company is however an Israeli company (and I believe it is required to be so). Granot Goldstein is one of the youngest (male or female) CEOs of a major Israeli company (which HOT is - a market cap of over a billion USD is considered big in Israel). The name of HOT may change in the future to Altice, or Altice Israel (they are discussing this, hasn't been finalized yet).Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Regarding a full merger (and not a subsidiary wholly owned by Altice, possibly with the Altice brand (not yet)) - I believe this is not possible in the regulatory framework - which requires an Israeli company for several of HOT's operations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 17 September 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) 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Travis[edit]

Chester Travis (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably just WP:TOOSOON for this music video director/musician/songwriter. He did just direct a video that is bluelinked; and a gNews searchshows that a song of his won an award [26] in his very small country. Zero WP:SIGCOV and the work he has contributed to is not sufficient to carry him past WP:CREATIVE, althuogh it looks like has has a shot at getting there one day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New Zealand Music Award winner. Major NZ award is good for wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough content in NZ to meet WP:GNG with coverage in main media and music magazines, plus some internationally NealeFamily (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of independent indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, notability can be established if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The New Zealand Music Awards win is good enough to establish notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the music award would be sufficient. See for example: Jody Direen and Chester Travis claim New Zealand Country Music Awards honours. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient significance for inclusion. Lack of in-depth coverage just means we can't write an in-depth article, but we don't need one. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 15 September 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. Wow. One of the worst debated AfDs ever. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maheen Zia[edit]

Maheen Zia (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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be covered by refs [27] Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 September 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. Purely on the numbers this would be "no consensus", but when we look at the strength of the arguments it's clear this is a "delete". The keep !votes make arguments that can be characterised as either WP:OTHERSTUFF, or an argument to notability based on Kinnard's professional output and its presence in various sources, rather than on coverage of Kinnard herself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Kinnard[edit]

Meg Kinnard (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 journalist lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly examples of her work product. Vanity page bordering on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable journalist. A simple Google of her name turns up countless national articles in every major newspaper outlet in The United States. Additionally, I have also found her work cited in United States Supreme Court rulings and over 50 published books. The entry was flowery in its language. I removed many parts that lended credibility to concerns over vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestTennHistory (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - most working press members will find their stuff re-used. That does not make the reporter notable. We are not seeing much in the way of the requisite substantial coverage of Kinnard herself. Her family's charitable work, her famous granddaddy and her husband's press releases do not count. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Continued search of Kinnard turns up more examples of outside sources lending credibility to article. Vote prior to mine uses vague, unsourced language to support claims that "most working press members will find their stuff reused," or any evidence of press releases sent by her family as the originating source for information written about her. Articles produced by UT Martin include bylines of UTM writers and don't indicate that the work was contributed by an outside source. This isn't the strongest article, but it has improved substantially since its first writing. Print journalists often get much less credit than those on TV, but are no less "journalist" than their counterparts. In many cases, such as in this one, they leave a much larger impact. Google her name and choose "news" or "books." Diverse inclusion of her articles in major national publications, using her byline, indicate that she is more exceptional than "most working press members." Kinnard has a verified Twitter account with nearly 20k followers. A deep dive into that shows that she was often retweeted by major candidates such as Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Cruz and Bush in 2016. Shining a light on print journalism is something that can only benefit sites like Wikipedia. WestTennHistory (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately Wikipedia based notability is not a function of work output or reuse of that content, but rather a function of in-depth, non-trivial, substantial support of the article's subject. Popularity, such as the number Twitter followers, has no bearing on notability. reddogsix (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability of journalists lists: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." In the social media age, being retweeted and quote-tweeted by peers and major figures certainly falls into this category. This will likely not be the first debate regarding this as we move into the new era (or error) of social media dominance. WestTennHistory (talk)WestTennHistory

Comment - It is debatable whether 140 character snippets are substantial enough to be considered a representation of one's works; however, if we were talking about her articles I would certainly understand.reddogsix (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep - Just as legit as other journalists already in Wikipedia. Wikirikki79 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)— Wikirikki79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, you have not provided support for your statement. The evidence shows otherwise. reddogsix (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Her articles appear in various notable publications, but she hasn't distinguished herself sufficiently to merit an article or awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Sufficient amount of publication to met GNG. Article is promotional in tone, but let's not confuse quality of article with notability of person. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, publication is actually not a component of GNG, but coverage of that publication would be. Which this journalist does not have. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources that are about her (as opposed to written by her) that are more than passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think WP:JOURNALIST needs to be clarified. Ignoring that standard, [28] is the only independent coverage that's about her rather than a link to her reporting or about her family, and it's not really about her journalism career. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 17 September 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. Ignoring several WP:SPAs, strong consensus that this is WP:PROMOTION and fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HipGuide[edit]

HipGuide (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)

Advertising; apparently part of a promotional campaign, and,astoundingly, here from 2007--a great deal of copyediting has been done without dealing with the fundamental problems. The founder of the firm is a professional press agent, and has taken care that there is a good deal of press. I doubts any of it is truly independent, so it also does not meet the notability standard. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no references, just many external links, some of them inline. Most are about Tang and not HipGuide also most are not RS or are not independent. The JCK article is due to a not notable award related to jewelry. It fails WP:CORP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been a previous editor on this page. Hipguide is a Delaware corporation which seems to have been in operations since 1999. It does not appear to be a promotional campaign. There is a working website and I was able to find a listing in Cision and other media databases. Some of the links should be edited to be proper RS but that does not merit deletion. The award is a media award from an industry organization that has a registration since 1984 - not notable is debatable. It does not fail WP:CORP - the owner is Reed Infomedia India. Arabbitortwo (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepClicking the Find Sources Highbeam yields additional RS not cited here, from Entrepreneur Magazine, Knight Ridder Tribune, Footwear News which is part of Women's Wear Daily. These could be added as RS. Kerrypack1 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable media company. Sources are typical WP:SPIP, interviews and launch publicity. The above keep votes are by SPAs also present at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Syl Tang (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specific coverage from NBC, Newsweek, CNN, Forbes and New York Magazine over what appears to be a 13 year period feels sufficiently notable. They are not WP:SPIP. All are standard RS on chief executives. Tone is not compelling reason to delete a ten year old entry which has had a variety of editors contrib and which can be addressed through improvements to the article. Other complaints - reason for the keep vote also present at the other Talk is because one is about the company, the other about the current chief executive, who is a Financial Times journalist. A search at [29] yields authored articles dating back to 2005 which include this company's name and its association with the FT. The inclusion itself should be sufficient to keep the article.Arabbitortwo (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is not particularly well-written, it appears to pass a reasonable standard for notability (a number of major media mentions, has existed for a long time, article has been up since 2007). Recommend re-writing to clean up poor grammar, irrelevant references, and to add additional more recent references if available. 157.191.26.94 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why should having been here a long time be a reason not to delete? The longer spam says, the worse it is. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because a large number of contributors have added to it and find it valuable. They are not a press firm, it is the other side of the aisle, media/journalism -- there's a link in the references called "Articles for Financial Times" that rather downplays a 12-year relationship between this firm and the FT. I doubt the Financial Times considers their articles spam. They appear to be a decade+ content partner. Arabbitortwo (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be promotional and possible paid editing here as well. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is frustrating. I am not a paid editor or a sockpuppet. I had to look up what that is. I was an editor on this page in 2011 and simply haven't been active since but the subject has a book coming out which was when I saw this. Not every infrequent editor is fake because they don't live on Wiki. Please take care when making accusations. I do not happen to believe this meets WP:BEFORE, not even close. I would suggest that we all need to re-read the AfD guidelines. There is so much RS that could be added, it doesn't appear that a basic Google search was done. I would have just added a cleanup tag before AfD. Per WP:BEFORE, "basic due diligence before nominating." Arabbitortwo (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked, and I could not find any. Almost everything is a mere mention. The only extensive article I could find was in Sportwear International, and its a classic PR interview,where the subject says at length whatever she wants to--such "interviews" are not independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly don't agree. As I mentioned before, I haven't edited a lot on Wiki but since I hadn't in years, in the last day or so I read a bunch of the AfD and there were ones that were kept for having literally just one article. One person was even dead! I looked through the pieces on Ft.com, there's 80 of them! And the book's website - as I said, that is how I thought to come back and look up this page - has reviews from people from McKinsey and George Washington, that's notable to me. I just looked at SI - they appear to be the Women's Wear Daily of Germany. The German Audit Bureau of Circulation (IVW) is pretty serious business and I can't imagine they do fluff anything. Anyway, you seem intent on deleting this entry. Myself I'd have tagged it for improvement having just read the WP:BEFORE. But this is exhausting, I have never written an article on here but can tell you, it doesn't make me want to contribute more when it will just get arbitrarily deleted. I've said all I have to say. I think it has more than reasonable notability. Arabbitortwo (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite this nomination being attacked by SPAs, HipGuide is fundamentally not notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. There is almost definitely paid editing here, and we have to also enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:PROMOTION.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 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 salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip A. Cutler[edit]

Philip A. Cutler (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)

Notability as football player and entrepreneur doesn't satisfy GNG. Current office as a Westmount City Councillor isn't important enough to meet MOS:CA#Municipal politics. Also - this article has been created (and deleted) twice before by Theswissarmy, whose editing history seems extremely focussed on Cutler, his company, and his alma mater. Salt? Madg2011 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:SALT. Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn clone on which every person is entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist — and it's worth noting that the first time Theswissarmy tried to create the article, Cutler's time as a student representative on the organizational senate of his alma mater was actually the height of his notability. Nothing here passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and none of the sourcing gets him past WP:GNG in lieu. And no, we don't routinely accept city councillors as notable per WP:NPOL, either. We do in Montreal but not in Montreal's smaller suburbs, because the inclusion criterion for city councillors is not "holds office as a city councillor", but "holds office as a city councillor in a major metropolitan global city" — which Montreal is, but Westmount is not. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers cannot be used to show wikinotability, so the McGill Daily is a non-starter. WordPress blogs cannot be used to show wikinotability, so nearly all of the rest of those are non-starters. Interviews where the subject is speaking about himself cannot be used to show wikinotability, so the Global News video link is a non-starter. The only one that's a starter is "Westmount to upgrade parking meters", but that's (a) not about Philip Cutler, but merely namechecking his existence as a bit player in the issue that is the subject of the article, and (b) not a notability claim even if it were about him — so it's a starter, but not a finisher all by itself. So, nope, you just batted zero for seven. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - and salt as per nomination. There's nothing on the article establishing the subject's notability, he's just counsillor in a minor city. Wikipedia should not be used as self-promotion. RetiredDuke 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Morid[edit]

Ahmad Morid (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)

Although he has about 50,000 Google search results, I can see little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails referencing criteria for biographies of living persons and has promotional undertones. DrStrauss talk 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a lot of claims, but no sources. Could be a hoax, for all we know. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 12 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Moerzinger[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Álvaro Moerzinger

Articles for deletion/Álvaro Moerzinger (2nd nomination)

Álvaro Moerzinger (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. no inherent notability in any of his positions. a mere 3 gnews hits which just confirmed he held an ambassador position LibStar (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup From the very little information looks like this subject might indeed be notable, but there simply isn't enough sources to back up the claim and support his notability as of right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment this user is now blocked. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds ridiculous. A lack of sources is a reason for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the sources to show notability, diplomats, even ambassadors, are never default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show that this diplomat passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per John Pack Lambert. Being a diplomat isn't inherently notable, and the article has no other claim of notability, nor any claim of meeting WP:GNG. Google searches don't give any indication of meeting GNG either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:05, 17 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Wok[edit]

The Runaway Wok (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 Wikipedia:Notability (books). Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence of COI presented. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 158.59.127.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ does not meet WP:NBOOK and part of an apparent walled garden around the author, Ying Chang Compestine. The "Keep" vote above is from a IP whose only contributions have been a few deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added several reviews from reliable sources about the book to the article, passes NBOOK. I hope K.e.coffman will reconsider after seeing the new sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, and the article is fine.TH1980 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. Thanks for working on improving the article Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as has been reviewed by a number of independent sources (although some editors may be uncomfortable with kirkus that has gone very commercial recently(?) ie. accepting payments for (some?) reviews), have added a couple more reviews (horn book is extremely short), and has also received a number of awards even though they are not major ones (where are the wikiarticles on us state awards!:)), they could be seen as representing the impact of this book, oh also WorldCat, shows it being held by around 750 libraries including OZ, NZ, Singapore, so again showing the impact of this title. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the author, Ying Chang Compestine. School Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews reviews are not in depth, and the walled garden / promotionalism are still a concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 10 September 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. Little participation, article could be renominated in a few months' time. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Khan Niazi[edit]

Sardar Khan Niazi (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 coverage. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and tougher WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He doesn't seem to fail WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Has exhaustive coverage on himself, both critical,[37] and otherwise.[38] For his lifetime journalism achievements, he is the recipient of the Tamgha-i-Imtiaz, the fourth-highest civilian award of the Pakistani Government.[39][40][41][42] He's considered a very important figure, being the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Group of Newspapers and Chairman of Roze News.[43] Statements like "Chairman Senate Mian Raza Rabbani and Speaker National Assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq received him upon his arrival," also allude to his importance.[44] He's the head of one of Pakistan's biggest groups the SK Group.[45] The program he hosts Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath is grabbing quite some attention.[46] Vice Chairman and Chief Editor of The Daily Patriot.[47] Doesn't seem a delete to me. Lourdes 08:07, 15 September 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 The Visitors (American punk band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie Bollox[edit]

Benjie Bollox (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)

Differences of opinion on biography AubergSweight (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Benjie Bollox[reply]

Speedy keep That's not reason for deletion (although I'm not entirely convinced by his notability, there may be a merge target). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to The Visitors (American punk band), although it's possible that article may also fail notability in future on closer inspection. This is an odd AfD – nominated by the article's main contributor over the last few years, who admits that they work for Bollox's own publishing company [48] and who have been making edits according to the subject's wishes, so you'd think they'd have a vested interest in keeping it... and then receiving a "speedy keep" vote which admits that they aren't convinced by the subject's notability. Anyway... Bollox himself fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO – there is this article in the Dallas Observer about him [49], but it's the only source I can find, and it's also only local coverage of a local musician. The other Dallas Observer reference in the article makes no mention of Bollox. It's true he played with notable bands the UK Subs and Splodgenessabounds, but only in brief, minor roles (stand-in drummer and coconut player, respectively), so the redirect to either of those bands won't be worth it. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That is not a reason for deletion. It appears the primary contributor wanted article presented a certain bias way rather than all of the facts about the entry. Once additional information added they were not pleased with the result. I do believe the entry should stay as it related the The Visitors (American punk band) and though minor has a history with other notable acts such as U.K. Subs. Tom.rivers (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Tom.rivers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, failing WP:MUSICBIO and having only one good reference IS a good reason for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that from the case you are presenting... was referring to reason this discussion was started. In regards to notability, I was also able to locate an interview of both UK Subs Charlie Harper and another mention/confirm of Splodgenessbounds. [50] In addition, he is credited with playing drums and co-writing the song Riot on UK Subs Riot Album. The album was released under Cleopatra Records Label. This does help it to meet WP:MUSICBIO.

Tom.rivers (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just chatting back to see if any other opinions and if we can carry this forward as a keep. There is only one criteria from WP:MUSICBIO that has to be met and this article/subject meets at least two. (#1 and #2). I would also like to state my account is not single purpose, I am actually a passionate Wikipedia user but have just only recently registered an account so topics I am involved in are currently small and niche. Since this is one of them I obviously feel inclined to comment on the Afd. Tom.rivers (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I speak to Benjie Bollox regularly. He never asked for this page to be created and sees no reason or need for it to stay.

He did want the article free of any bias and kept diplomatic but that has been changed by a recent contributor who has added a certain bias. If there was a perceived bias before the recent changes, that was never intentional.
If the page stays it is better to remove all mention of any other band member’s names and keep it a simple biography of Benjie Bollox which is exactly what this page is about anyway. I think being amicable and removing any bias whatsoever on all sides is a positive option.
If redirection is the option, redirecting to The Visitors page which has very little information about the band and has been written in bias by the same recent contributor would just continue the issue about bias. Considering any issues about notability, it would make more sense to redirect to UK Subs considering that is the main focal point in his notability. According to Google, when people Google Benjie Bollox they also Google other UK Subs members ColonelDavy (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelDavy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There are many reasons for deletion of the page. The article was created by someone who knew Benjie and felt that he was notable to him. As someone who knows Benjie personally, I can confidently say that Benjie never asked for article and he does not see any reason for the article's existence.

The fact that when the page was started filled with unreliable and unverifiable and original research should be enough reason alone to remove the page as it should have been deleted when it was created as it breached so many guidelines. According to Wikipedia, ″the phrase ′original research′ (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist″.
Also, the recent additions breach verifiability, are a conjectural interpretation and do not improve the article. They are questionable and focus on and magnify tiny details around events irrelevant to the article. According to Wikipedia guidelines, ″material about living people that is sourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately″. The recent material also goes against the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. According to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, ″If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia″.
Bare notability is another reason for deletion, as the article just minimally meets Wikipedia's notability standards as it is presented with very few references. The article also does not contain high-quality secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, ″Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity″. The topic has not ″received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject″ (Wikipedia). Most of the sources lack ″editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability″ (Wikipedia). Wikipedia also states that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.″. This subject of the article has not gained significant attention from independent sources. Wikipedia states ″No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.″ ColonelDavy (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.rivers: my apologies to you if you are indeed a long-time contributor to Wikipedia: it was just that as the only edits you have made since creating your account relate to Mr. Bollox, it did appear that you were a single-purpose account. There is no question that he has played in two notable bands, but per WP:NOTINHERITED that doesn't necessarily make him notable enough to have his own article. And as you can see above, it appears that even Mr. Bollox considers himself not notable enough to have his own article. It seems the only reliable source is the Dallas Observer, but it's a repeated source, and furthermore a local one, so I'm not sure it passes the "multiple, independent coverage" required. I would also question your statement that he passes criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO – although the bands in question did have hits on the UK charts, Mr. Bollox was not a member of them at the time, so he personally has not appeared on any chart hits in any country, as far as I am aware. What will happen now is that this AfD will stay open for a few more days to see if anyone else would like to comment, and it will then be closed by an administrator who will decide on what course of action to take.

ColonelDavy: I have struck through your "delete" comment above as you are only allowed one !vote, and you had already asked for "speedy delete" previously. You can see that I agree with you (and Mr. Bollox) that he isn't notable enough for his own article, but unfortunately it won't be up to him to decide – it will be a administrative decision made after arguments have been put forward by various Wikipedia editors. Hopefully some other editors will have some input into this AfD in the next few days. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120: No worries. Where I can agree that there is quite a bit of uncited conjecture in this article and it was like that from the beginning, years before the latest edits. If the article is not deleted sources should be added or the article shortened to only contain source verifiable information. A quick google search shows numerous articles on other encyclopedia platforms that state everything that was in the previously edited article. It appears this original article creation was for self-promotion at one point regardless of what subject states were the facts. This also appears obvious with reverted edit reasons of "changes made without permission from singer". In regards to the charting, there were American charts "Billboard" with The Visitors in Dec 1998 and Jan 1999, however these have not been cited in this particular article. Does anyone have any issues with the particle being cleaned up and shortened to only contain sourced verifiable information until a keep, redirect, or delete is agreed too? I do not mind making these edits. Tom.rivers (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.rivers do you have a reference for those Billboard charts? The Billboard website doesn't appear to show any charting history at all for the Visitors. Richard3120 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120 Here are a couple: Billboard Magazine 12/26/1998 and Billboard Magazine 01-09-1999 The online Billboard "Independent" records do not go further back than the year 2000.Tom.rivers (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks... but those aren't actual Billboard charts, they're "most requested songs on the radio" charts, and they won't pass RS. And they do kind of prove the point that Mr. Bollox isn't independently notable, just as part of a group. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I hear you there and can see where you are coming from in regards to independent notability. Honestly, I do not care if this article is deleted, it just needs to be for the right reasons. The fact that is article appears to have originated for self promotion makes me think of changing to a delete just in that regards. Tom.rivers (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be a simple "delete" - despite not meeting individual notability, "Benjie Bollox" is still a valid search term for a redirect in Wikipedia... I think if this article was redirected to the Visitors or to UK Subs, that would probably be a solution that suits everyone who has taken part in this discussion. But I'll leave that to the closing admin to decide. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If for some reason it gets redirected, it makes more sense to redirect to UK Subs which are a notable band and not the Visitors which was only one of many smaller bands in Bollox's career, and as Richard3120 points out above in regard to the Visitors article ″it's possible that article may also fail notability in future on closer inspection.″ Also to reiterate what I wrote above, the UK Subs were the main focal point of his notability. The whole point of a search on Wikipedia would most likely be from a UK Subs enthusiast. But a delete makes sense as most likely, someone is going to be searching for the term ″UK Subs″ rather than just ″Benjie Bollox″. The page has a strong case for full deletion.ColonelDavy (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Visitors (American punk band) as the only band he played a significant role in. He isn't independently notable and sufficient sources don't exist to have a decent article here. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Visitors (American punk band) per the other redirects. Invalid rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:05, 16 September 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 socks may be halal, but the article is haram. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halal Socks[edit]

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

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

The only thing documented by third party sources is trivia, ephemeral news DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MacLeans, HuffPo, NY Times....RS City... It should be a little less spammy though. South Nashua (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FART. KMF (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although perhaps on a somewhat weaker level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEPTH for what, exactly? One item of tabloid interest? ``— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:46, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. Having your 15 minutes does not make one notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Islam and clothing and we should prefer these per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, the swooning was over Canadian PM Trudeau not the socks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all media recognition is about a single event of a politician wearing the socks. Trivial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SUSTAINED, one instance of someone wearing the article subject does not indicate encyclopedic value.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG, NOTNEWS, and SUSTAINED check out as reasons. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious promotion. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 16 September 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.

[1] "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

[2] "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

[3] ""North Korea: 6 Experts on How We Can Solve the Problem including - Treverton, the former chair of the U.S. National Intelligence Council"". TIME.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

[4] "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

[5] "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

[6] "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

[7] "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

[8] "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.

[9] "AGREED FRAMWORK BETWEEN U.S and North Korea" (PDF). IAEA/. Retrieved 2017-09-09.

[10] "North Korea is able to exact nuclear annihilation". iol.co.za. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

[11] "The world's dilemma: Why North Korea will become a nuclear power despite pressure". scmp.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

[12] "North Korea warns US will pay due price for spearheading UN sanctions". smh.com.au/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.

[13] "Innovator finds value in relationship-based primary care model". AMA Wire.

[14] "Fixing the 5 Percent". The Atlantic.

[15] "Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health, At Work with the FT". Financial Times.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]