Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yellow Dingo (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 10 October 2016 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macau at the 2016 Asian Beach Games). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 1 October 3 October >

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 : WP:CSD#A10 - duplicate of Droughts in the United States Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Drought

North American Drought (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)

Propsed deletion template is removed Dirty Duck 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Wrong venue, WP:RM is thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter

Ian Carter (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)

One link disambiguation page — JJBers (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 given there are now no suggestions of deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Funderburk

Brent Funderburk (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. No coverage outside of small trade magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. seems to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dikesh Malhotra

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable business person Uhooep (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there are only three such sources in the article at the moment (the sources have to be there for us to discuss them) and none of them shows notability. There has to be significant coverage, not simply trivial mentions of the person. Please note that per this guideline, editors who participate in a discussion are asked to disclose any conflict of interest they might have (such as representing the person, being related to them, being employed to promote their company, etc.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Cordle

Sidney Cordle (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 on the leader of a group that is, to be blunt, utterly insignificant. The subject has never achieved national elected office and the sources are directories. Perennial losing candidates can be notable (Bill Boaks, for example), but there's no evidence that's the case here. His party? I am a Brit and have never even heard of them. That means they are less electorally significnat than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Quite a feat. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lacks significant external reliable sources; basically all the sources are just listings which confirm that he was a candidate and that he lost. Doesn't meet the WP:BIO requirement for significant coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Guy (almost) says, leader of a minor political party can be notable (Bez, for instance) but it doesn't make someone automatically notable. Yes, he's the leader of a national political party, but it's a party which polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election—which is considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol. As a former local councillor there's some press coverage, but not enough to remotely approach notability. As a glance over the many unlinked party leader names here shows, for these hyper-fringe pressure groups the presumption is that the party leaders aren't even worth redlinking. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are some dubious arguments here. "I am a Brit and have never even heard of them." Sorry, but ignorance is no excuse - I am a Brit and I have heard of them. "Lacks significant external reliable sources." That's not true, but if there is deemed to be insufficient sources that is no argument to delete but to tag it with refimprove. It "polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election." No it didn't, it polled them in 17 constituencies out of 650, hardly nationwide. 3,260 is "considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol". No, YF polled 6,811 in total, so it's marginally less than half, and YF did not campaign "nationally". CISTA polled 8,419 in 34 seats, an average of 248 compared with CPA's 192. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit (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:NBIO. A Google search does not give many results. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly satisfies WP:NPOL. Minister of Finance for about 4 years and Minister of Commerce for eight terms as well as general. Notability is not a concern: referencing is the problem but I suspect we'd get a better chance if we searched using the Thai alphabet. Pichpich (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, history shows that I created the article but that's not what actually happened. I categorized an existing article but saved my edit just after the article was deleted [4] under criterion A10. Unfortunately, the deleting admin did not record the article that the present one duplicated. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article exists on the Thai Wikipedia and there are references there. Of course, I don't speak Thai so I can't evaluate the quality of the sources but it should be looked at before deleting the en.wiki article. (As should the results of a Google search for "เภา เพียรเลิศ บริภัณฑ์ยุทธกิจ"). I've added a link to a page from the Ministry of Finance of Thailand that confirms he served two terms as minister. Pichpich (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list [5] from the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand is hard to read for non-Thai speakers but it certainly appears to confirm that he was the Minister of Commerce on multiple terms. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to The Cold Crush Brothers. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy A.D.

Easy A.D. (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)

It's possible that an article could be written about this person; but this is not an article, it's an advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 23:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wiener

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Could not find significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL (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)

Big violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, QBs have 300 yards pretty much every week so this isn't even a notable statistic, and is badly written and formatted to boot. We already have a List of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game article, so this is also redundant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my hat is off to the editor or editors who worked to prepare this information and source it. However, I have to agree with the nominator. I do find it interesting to look at the number of 300-yard games (as opposed to just a list of 400 yard games) as a potential, useful measure for those who study and follow professional football. I'll even go as far as to say I like it. Unfortunately, none of those reasons are enough to pass the muster of notability. Darn. Perhaps the enthusiastic editors may try another wiki with this information?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 300-yard games is just not that notable or infrequent these days, unless you're Julio Jones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, much too frequent an occurrence to keep track of. Lizard (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't home runs too frequent an occurrence to keep track of. Lol, jk. Home runs are more important than 300 yard games. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orville Christianson

Orville Christianson (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)

Mr. Christianson appears to not meet the notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Juliano

Jonathan Juliano (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 person fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Strassman

Rick Strassman (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)

Biography of living person and academic. Works are on the fringe science with an extremely paltry amount of secondary sources mentioning the individual, let alone reliable secondary sources. Most of the article is primary sourced. Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry but this proposed deletion is just ludicrous. Rick Strassman was the 1st man to start psychedelic research after a long hiatus of many decades. His book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" is a bone fide classic, just because the title may make skeptics blanche doesn't mean his work is not notable. That book spawned the very well known movie of the same name directed by Mitch Schultz. I agree this page needs more secondary sources, but as it stands it is not a bad little bio of Strassman. Considering Wikipedia is a public resource, deleting his profile is insanity. He has carried out much research that is groundbreaking. There is a big difference between groundbreaking and fringe - fringe will remain unknown in the future, whereas groundbreaking research will be remembered in burgeoning fields like psychedelic research. Probrooks (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable secondary sources to show that his research is groundbreaking? That is what wikipedia looks for. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, Dr Strassman's work is very notable because his research kicked off modern day psychedelic research and it is the first extensive scientific study giving subjects DMT.
Graham St John's book "Mystery School in Hyperspace: A Cultural History of DMT" (which is the definitive book about the history of DMT) says this about Rick Strassman's research.
"Subtitled A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, Strassman's landmark study raised the profile of DMT, and represents a milestone in the history covered in this book. Triggering a tidal wave of interest in the pineal gland—seen more as a “lightening rod of the soul” than the brain's laboratory for hellish hallucinations—DMT: The Spirit Molecule shone a light on the profound implications of DMT's endogenicity (that is, its natural structure and function in humans)—all deriving from Strassman's observations of goings-on in Room 531 of the University of New Mexico Hospital Clinical Research Centre, Albuquerque, between 1990–1995."
From this article:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychedelic-drugs-mental-health-disorders-bad-rap-war-drugs-385946
"It ultimately took two decades for psychedelic research to begin again, when Dr. Rick Strassman studied DMT in 1992. DMT is a psychedelic compound that can be taken on its own, but it is also the psychoactive component of ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea brewed by the indigenous population of Peru. Unlike the more widely known psychedelics, DMT had much less of a stigma, allowing Strassman to get his studies approved far more easily. In the same year, the FDA also passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that year, which encouraged new drugs to be researched."
and another:
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/05/18/psychedelics-new-pot/
"The psychedelic faucet began to drip again in 1991 with the start of Rick Strassman’s famous Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) study at the University of New Mexico, which served as the first human trial of any psychedelic since they were made Schedule I. From there, the full-blown psychedelic renaissance that we now find ourselves in began to develop."
Probrooks (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YourGrocer.com

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity.Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) –Davey2010Talk 23:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peapod

Peapod (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 till date. It is old but no significant nature. Covered once in a lifetime, merely promotional in nature. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. happend a long time ago but could not make any impact to become encyclopedia. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity as it still exist. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if cut to actual RS-backed claims this would be very short indeed and eminently deletable - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The text of the article is bad, but this is one of the largest grocery brands in the largest market on earth. They aren't a start-up at all, and based on their service territory they seem no less notable than Carrefour or Aldi. 2601:14D:8300:2CE0:54B1:4A3F:7E1E:3A53 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to find the history or talk page of contributor. it is owned by Ahold Delhaize, the new big group formed in Europe. This new thing can be big. The sources are media coverage for this one are press release. the real thing is being old or size of customers does not make a company encyclopedic notable. There are lots of companies now part of big company or were there in existence from over 50 years. It can be good and notable for a business entity but for encyclopedia need to be more than this. Light2021 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is all advertising in that it clearly only states what there is to advertise about the company, there's literally nothing else, the sources are not convincing at all, and that's not surprising if this is all PR to begin with. None of this would suggest hopeful and meaningful substance therefore there's nothing to save. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- long-established company, was at one time WP:LISTED, owned by a major brand. I am seeing reasonably WP:SIGCOV in RS, such as:
  • New Era of Management by Richard L. Daft (a full page discussion, in what looks to be a college textbook)
  • Management by Richard Daft (2007). Cannot see a preview, but here's a snippet: "... But Peapod, the online grocery service founded in 1989 by brothers Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, is succeeding on all three fronts. Peapod introduced a new concept 15 years ago: the convenience of shopping for groceries online. Plenty of ..."
  • Applications of Supply Chain Management and E-Commerce Research from Springer Publishing, an academic imprint. Reasonably extensive discussion.
Compared to churnalism coverage we so typically see in company articles, this is a significant step up. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete (and close to consensus to keep but calling it "consensus to keep" wouldn't appropriately deflect the whole debate IMO).

This is clearly a case where different editors have different standards about company notability and inclusion vs. promotion, and both sides of the argument can be somewhat supported by different interpretations of the wording and/or spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH -- which is a problem with policy more than with the editors trying to work with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee

Honestbee (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 till now. comparatively new and funded vy investors. Nothing significant but another startup company for grocery delivery. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company investment plans. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and essentially actually speedy material because it's all simply advertising the company, actually also going as far to then mention about the clientele methods, clearly PR, and the sources, no matter what they are and what about them, are all republished PR and that alone. None of this is substance, and for a company looking for PR at any and all costs, it's something we delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone; it does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. North America1000 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of this is "corp depth" because the sources are laced with PR; take the first one, every single paragraph has quoted interviews, meaning that article was not entirely substantially independent so none of it can be taken as guaranteed as no PR, especially since the article is heavily an interview to begin with; the second then starts and contains several paragraphs of information about shopping, so it's not actually about the company, then it starts with interviewed information, which is not independent of course, every single sentence from there to the end is an interviewed quote, which is outstandingly outrageous because each part was thinned out to span several single-form sentences, instead of paragraphs, this shows how thin the article is, itself, that they attempted to make the "article" seem larger by thinning the sentences. The third source simply starts with trivial information about other matters until starting information about the company, and then eventually mentions the outrageous comment " it’s eager to prove it can deliver the goods", that means the company intentionally listed their own thoughts, and that's not independent of course, the next sentences all bounce between showing how the business works and how it can be used to then starting with heavy interviewed quotes, none of that is independent of course, because it's all coming from the company itself and only that; another example is "The company can also nudge shoppers towards picking time slots", the last few sentences show this themselves that the article was largely of course an interview because he never stops talking until the end, and even a footer at the end shows how he supplied information, that's not independent and it's not surprising to see. The fourth article is also still blatant with advert parts, such as the overspecific "On March 30, the grocer asked its users to “sink your teeth” into the meats supposedly from Explorer Joe Exotic Meats (the website is apparently fake) and place orders until March 31. It said deliveries would be made on April 1", which no would be as passionate about this than either the clients and investors, who want to make sure they're getting their partner packed with all of the company information; the next sentences weave between interviewed quotes before, going to the next one, which is not only an interview quote....but a requote of an interview quote from somewhere else, after a few other sentences of interviewed quotes with the man, it ends exactly there, showing there was no actual journalism since the man took all of the articlespace, hence no substantial or significant. The fifth article then advertises the facts of where and how you can buy from the company and it makes these messages clear....but not actually containing news, but instead grocery and task lists, literally! This sixth source is then simply announcing mere trivial coverage about what the company's business plans which, in this case, are about business overseas, but it's actually only a mere 6-paragraph (and they're thin, I'll note, hardly ever consisting of information past 2 or so sentences, so it's not actual substance), and then with this one article, you have a 20 to 50% of it simply republishing what the company says about itself, that's not substantial and it hell sure as is not if it's basically company-supplied information. The next and last source is still rather thin since it only talks about the "meat events" and the worst blatant part may actually be the fact it lists its costs, which may or may not have been a planned PR plan. Yes, although it's not a flashy PR piece like the others, what still stays is the fact it's still not actually substantial and significant, especially if it's as thin as simply a company controversy. About half of this last article is simply repeated company quotes as it is. All in all, there was not actual significant or substance, especially if it's simply republished company materials. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources listed above by North America demonstrate that company meets WP:GNG. WP:ALLBUSINESSCOVERAGEISPR is not yet a policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only interest Safehaven86 (talk) is to "keep" anything that is covered by any sort of media, and whatsoever they have written without analyzing the actual notability or significance for Encyclopedia material. I have been analyzing the keep vote mechanism for articles submitted for AfD. that is the reasons some of them are nominated various times, but for Vote for participation or comments, they had been restored. Still it does not make any of them encyclopedic genuine. thanks for giving your opinions. Light2021 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not be replaced with Daily News paper or the blog-spot. Just something is covered once in a time in a notable news paper does not make anything Encyclopedia notable. Every articles that is covered by daily news will make this Wikipedia irrelevant and will lose all its credibility. Techcrunch and Forbes? Highly commercial so called news platform, that covers anything that can make money or either funded by huge investment? misuse of WP:GNG. Light2021 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how to respond to this, as it's utterly incoherent. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jamie, and apologies if I was inappropriate to you. Light2021 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Keep comment above this one explicitly actually stated that there is not yet a policy about PR, yet we will have WP:NOT and its closely linked areas such as WP:NOTADVERTISING, and thst is enough, especially considering the largely obvious PR initiatives here which suggest nothing else, and a comment merely repeating what a Keep comment suggested including about sourcing, means nothing if the comment is not actually acknowledging and considering the anaylsis of said sources, therefore claiming Keep is still not the same thing. Once we start making excuses for keeping advertisements, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after reviewing the lists of sources in the !keep votes above, it is clear that enough significant coverage exists in independent reliable sources to pass WP:CORP. The verbose commentary above is also acknowledged, however it is entirely unconvincing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was a little amazed to see this even being discussed. How can one defend an article on an insignificant $15 million new company whose principal output to date has been a flurry of press releases? I wouldn't suggest going entirely by size of the company, because sometimes a small company really is innovative enough to justify real news coverage, but a me-too company like this is another matter. Blind reliance upon the GNG without considering the actual reliability of what are no longer honest sources (or areh onest sources only in part, which is the case for essentially all business newspapers) is destructive to the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It is definitely passing the frontiers of WP:CORPDEPTH...On lighter side...DGG and SwisterTwister have little high levels of standards when it comes to articles related to companies... I have never seen them vote keep... Hitro talk 21:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is because it's advertising , regardless of whatever has been noted above, because the analyses have had larger weight of shoeing the concerns, so it should not and will not be expected for any of us to vote Keep for an advertisement. Suggesting we "change" our standards for advertising is going to largely damn us as an encyclopedia because it will show that we cannot even control the simplest advertising that needs removal. Please state where, how and why this is not advertising, without citing anything of PR and unconvincing information coming from company-supplied words. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an advertisement then we should rewrite it or we should place an advert tag there, we shouldn't discuss deletion.... question is whether it is notable or not.. Techcrunch and Strait Times are covering this company.. I guess it is notable and it deserves to stay here...Plus it has been covered in other reliable sources... Hitro talk 22:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One question...what do you mean by "Our Standards"? I believe there is just one standard Hitro talk 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning is WP's standards. Or at least what WP's standards are supposed to be, instead of the current very low levelfor these articles. FWIW,I !vote keep a little over 1/3 the time. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the only truly independent sources that I was able to find discuss the company's labor practices (misleading advertising to potential contractors). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. The article was created by Special:Contributions/Karentho who is currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The article was also extensively edited by an account bearing the company's name. Thus paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Pls see WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage the spammers by keeping promotional articles on non notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources presented in article and at this AfD meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, maybe redirect to Formation 8. The main claim to notability seems to be its funding, so a redirect to the funder seems appropriate. My reading of the sources is that the company has ~55 employees and ~500 contract grocery purchasers/"runners" - not sure why this sort of information isn't in the wp page, but it doesn't sound terribly notable. The funding sounds notable, but it isn't clear the notability there belongs to the company or to the funder, given that there are few independent details about the firm in the article.Smmurphy(Talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the significant sourcing available from reliable sources such as the Straights Times and Forbes. As far as I know, the number of employees or contractors has not been a per se requirement for WP:CORP. All start-ups engage in PR, although many will deny it. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about how the small number of employees fit with DGG's point that the funding wasn't so large (I don't know anything about what is or isn't a big amount of funding) and together implied that the company might not necessarily be receiving significant attention aside from the press release based reports SwisterTwister discusses above. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grocery Gateway

Grocery Gateway (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. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one happened a long time ago. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and this was actually PRODed nearly 5 years ago and it actually got worse, with PR sources being added, but fortunately we now have the choices and images to show why we must delete these; everything listed is so overspecific about the company, this is clearly an article that was started for PR and was likely part of a PR campaign, nothing listed comes close to actual substance, and is simply republished PR and what the company says itself, it's all trivial. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too promotional to consider. "the team approached a number of independent grocers around Toronto to be their supply partner. Anthony Longo and his team stepped forward and were exceptional partners. They provided access to the stores for the team to take pictures of all of the products, record the relevant information and start to build "picking route maps". " if that's not an example of a not very impressive web page, not an encyclopedia article. We could of course remove absurd puffery, but if we removed it all there ere would be nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

77 Diamonds

77 Diamonds (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. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. advertisement. no need to check notability for something like this, which is irredeemable, as promotionalism by itself is a good reason for deletion Each diamond comes with a certificate of authenticity, which the company’s founders, Kormind and Weinig, say is key when it comes to customer confidence. They also believe diamonds will rise above the inflation index." along with an absurd account to trace the company's inspiration from 1477. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sources themselves are PR and the information itself, also in that it only focuses with what the company about itself and that then emphasizes the PR campaign here. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Very little WP:CORPDEPTH; most of the articles are related to a publicity stunt the company was involved with. I amended this from a "delete" to a "weak delete' based on this Reuters video, though even the video kind of feels like a press release more than anything else.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instabuggy

Instabuggy (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. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Light2021 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 23:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Thailand football rivalry

Malaysia–Thailand football rivalry (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 couldn't find any verifiable sources supporting the existence of this claimed rivalry. Paul_012 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Lain

Tracey Lain (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 unremarkable actress. Per recent AfDs, the awards listed (UK Adult Film and Television Awards & UK Adult Producers Awards) do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Sources provided include non RS directories and self-published material. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. After discounting the opinion by John G Masters for containing personal attacks, and that by 82.132.224.113 for not making an argument, we have only one credible "keep" opinion.  Sandstein  07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music News

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

Promotionally-toned and WP:PUFFERY-filled article created by belligerent SPA. Appears to be actually for promotion. I went looking for sources actually about Music News and couldn't find them. The total claim for notability is: 1. it had interviews with chart musicians (so did my 1980s fanzine with a circulation in the hundreds, and that's not Wikipedia-notable either) 2. it got a paragraph review in New Media Age (which literally compares it to a fanzine) 3. it got passing mentions as having run stories 3a. and the SPA proudly cites it as having done a bad job of doing so. There is no evidence I can find that Music News meets any of the four criteria of WP:NMAGAZINE. (My fanzine meets #2. And no, it shouldn't have an article either.) David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion required — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Albanese

Kelly Albanese (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 actress, Found a few trivial mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. All of the information can be verified and has been taken from several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.193.131 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edible oil india

Edible oil india (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)

Clearly WP:NOTADVICE, wirtten like an essay with trivial information. PROD was removed by author. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G5 created by sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump tax scandal

Donald Trump tax scandal (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)

Newly created article on extremely recent event, serious WP:NPOV violations and potentially WP:OR. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "...one of the greatest political scandals of all time..." - Really? Even if this is kept, it will need to be fundamentally rewritten. This is pure sensation. Very early to determine lasting notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Functional food definition by FFC

Functional food definition by FFC (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 apparently WP:COI article is basically presenting one organization's particular definition for "functional food" and its background. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the activities and motivations of the this one organization, the FFC. It's basically an advocacy essay, even after I deleted, just now, a section stressing the importance of all of this. It's essentially the organization using Wikipedia to publish its views. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found zero RS on searching for the FFC itself, which I therefore assume is not a notable company. Consequently, it is highly dubious that its definition of whatever is notable, when no source to that effect is provided. And that is without even looking at potential OR issues. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to say that FFC's definition of functional foods is absolute or should they take any or all credit for defining the concept, however, much like all things in the field of science, everything is up for debate and discussion because things change. FFC is not trying to claim that everybody in the industry should understand functional foods by solely their definition. It is FFC's responsibility to let the functional food community know that this is a refined version of the many historical definitions. The fact remains, this is not a definition that was created out of thin air and had no scientific proof; more or less it was a definition that would better communicate the qualities and essence of functional foods. Since this is a scientific field of study, the current FFC definition of functional foods will not be a permanent one, as there will be more research to facilitate a new or updated definition. FFC is only advocating that functional foods be understood as something more than just orange juice fortified with vitamin D. Functional foods cannot be defined as a general term because there are so many properties that validly point out that there is more than what meets the eye. It is a much deeper concept than one would assume, there is no conflict of interest because FFC is only wanting the community to understand that functional foods are functional for a reason, they treat chronic diseases. That is all FFC wants to advocate, a major detail in the scope of functional foods. 19:48, 7 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8980:900B:D88C:B4FF:3C31:6BED (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine for FFC to advocate and convey an understanding, but not here. Wikipedia isn't an outreach vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is comprised of several references and citations to convey an understanding, how is that different from the FFC page? Does the page not provide reputable peer reviewed sources that contribute to the topic? Does the page only provide references that cite from its own substituents and entity? Is it only the name of the article that breaches the guidelines for conflict of interest? The way this is set up at the moment, if the wiki page were to be merged with the "functional food" page, then there would be a conflict of interest where FFC would be advocating that their definition is the absolute definition for functional foods. As you mentioned, Wikipedia is not an outreach vehicle; that is correct, it is an online encyclopedia. However, what if the entirety of the functional food community is at a consensus with this definition? Would there still be a conflict of interest? That would mean that there is objectivity on the matter. I could only assume given the direction of your response, there is no reasonable way for this wiki page to remain active under the sanctions of wikipedia. 18:39, 8 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:17D0:1D24:CEA3:672A:7D13 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A generally accepted definition of a thing is already going to be the core of the article on that thing. We aren't going to have an article called "Definition of phobia" separate from the article "Phobia", an article called "Definition of climate" separate from the article "Climate", etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this detail will help with the merging clarification that took place earlier today. Largoplazo made a proposition on the functional food definition by FFC wiki page and told me to link it to them. 18:41, 11 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1,276)‎ . . User talk:Largoplazo ‎ (→‎Proposed merge with Functional food definition by FFC: new section) It is possible that Largoplazo did not receive the message of the necessary changes that were made in my talk page, which outlined all the editing that would have resolved any issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_food_definition_by_FFC&oldid=713739982 On April 5th, I created the talk page that would list all changes or revisions to the functional food definition by FFC page, but there was no response by Largoplazo. So there may have been a miscommunication where Largoplazo was not notified, however it was proposed by Largoplazo to merge the two pages together. The activity from earlier today was not an agenda to put out my content to advocate for FFC's definition. I'm just trying to resolve this issue by following the guidelines of wikipedia and the enforced policies by wikipedia employees, but this is much more difficult than what your suggestions offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) Here are a few links to the conferences that took place around the world to show that FFC is an organization that represents the functional food community as a collection of scientists, professors, USDA, and FDA officials, working together to educate students, doctors, and everybody about functional foods. To clarify, these are individuals that do not exclusively work with FFC, but are collaborators. Here is a conference report for the Harvard Medical School Conference: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/dbfc12f0d4/ARCHIVE Conference Report for Kobe University: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d5db3f5096/ARCHIVE Conference Report for University of San Diego: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d4d2113e77/ARCHIVE These conference reports highlight notable speakers from government organizations such as the USDA and FDA, even researchers from the NHI. If you would please take a look at these conference reports, it would provide you with a bigger picture of what FFC does as a company. We are not trying to push an agenda that functional foods are as what we define it as, we are collaborating as a scientific community to reach a better understanding of functional foods and educate our audience with the current affairs. More importantly, if we could merge the two pages like what was initially proposed, then this issue would be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the organization exists and that it engages in activities aren't in question here, and the organization's merits are beside the point. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for espousing its mission and notability of the organization are among the concerns under consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Scaff

Sammy Scaff (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)

Boxer best-known for losing badly to a young Mike Tyson. As far as I can tell, however, he does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NBOXING or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karolcia

Karolcia (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 children's novel. The article was previously deprodded by Piotrus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, ie. "4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." as it is required reading in Poland classes I to III, see here, tks to Piotrus above and Polish wikipedia, their article on the book is here.Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri-KO

AfDs for this article:
Jeri-KO (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)

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD on WP:TOOSOON grounds, but after a search, I'm seeing sources dated after that AfD, so I think the circumstances have changed since then and this is not G4 eligible. May or may not now be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. This is a WP:SNOW deletion: there is no point wasting any more time on this, as it is clearly going to end up being deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Mohammad Kazim Banday

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

This article has been recreated on multiple occasions by someone who simply does not get it. There is no sense to be made of the thing and I am getting nowhere with my own searches. We can keep CSD'ing it per criteria A1 or bring it here, get consensus to delete and then salt the thing. Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization (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 history of this article is shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions&type=revision&diff=742233481&oldid=742219241. As noted, this is a personal essay and is not written in an encyclopedic style, and overlaps other articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. This is pretty much a duplicate of the FIFA Mobile article, and has been deleted as such. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA MOBILE

FIFA MOBILE (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 game lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Withdraw. I will look closer. I didn't see anything of interest the first time, but I don't have time right now to look closer, so taking it on faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thrissivaperoor Kliptham

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

WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Royal Rumble#Dates, venues and winners. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2017)

Royal Rumble (2017) (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 article which violates WP:PROMOTION, advertising event for January. Single ipv6 SPA account came in and removed CSD G11 speed tag, which sympathetic admins failed to remove. Article has been updated since with real date of event, 3 months hence. Advertising page. Scope creep (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thr article is going to just go back up when we get closer to the event anyways. This isn't something that is random and has no usefulness. In fact, there is already another match announced for it.User:Jbl1975
  • I don't think this is promotional, it seems to be written in a neutral way. However, I think this should be redirected to List of WWE Network events, as currently the only information we have is essentially the date and location, which can be included on that article, and the fact there will be a Royal Rumble match, as there is every year. Until there is more substantial information, confirmed by reliable sources, to include, I don't see the point in having a separate article for this, and it will probably be a target for vandalism and unsourced information, as it already has been since it was it was changed from a redirect on September 27. For example, an unsourced match between Kevin Owens and Brock Lesnar was added. Silverfish (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is about as promotional as Super Bowl LII, it's an article on a recurring event (since 1988) where the location etc. have officially been announced.  MPJ-DK  20:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Royal Rumble The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016) seemed to agree that articles in this state should redirect to the main article until there's some build for the event. This stub offers nothing that can't be found there.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know these types of events may be dear to your hearts, but at the end of the day, WP is neither an event nor scheduling engine. There is plenty of sites on the net that will tell you exactly when an event is going to occur. It's misuse of Wikipedia purpose. It egregious advertising plain and simple. I guess the admins will be looking at the SPA account coming in and deleting the G11 tag, possibly as a suspected sock or meat puppet. Scope creep (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Generally agree with Scope creep on this. There was a WrestleMania edition article which wound up on my watchlist within the past few years. Once the event was over and done with, I went back to that article. It was chock full of rehashings of press conferences, press releases and other pre-event posturing and painfully short on details of what actually happened at the event. We shouldn't be, but have been, encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a dumping ground for this sort of thing, the existence of reliable sources or not. In the United States, we have the presidential election going on (and on and on and on...). See Political positions of Hillary Clinton for perhaps the worst example of a dumping ground I have ever seen on Wikipedia, an article that's of use to no one except drooling fanboys. There's a reason for such a comparison: with elections as with events of this sort, we're demonstrating that "enduring notability" are merely two words one throws together to score brownie points in a particular discussion and nothing more when we give so much weight to events which haven't happened yet versus events which have happened. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being what, exactly? Your rationale merely affirms the nominator's rationale. Contrary to prevailing opinion, we're not here to serve as another social media site for current events. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's about an event that will generate profits for a company doesn't mean that it's promotional. The page itself is neutrally written. It's a recurring event that will get its own page and which already has verifiable information about it. (EDIT: Added information from Sky Sports source [22], so the page doesn't just use WWE sources -- 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC))This seems like the wrestling equivalent of Super Bowl LII or the 43rd Chess Olympiad. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not following your reasoning. When you say "neutrally written", I don't see that as a problem. Rather, I see yet another article that's slavishly devoted to a particular manual of style and/or particular sources, but doesn't exactly deliver much in the way of information value and won't until the event or something besides announcements of various minor details actually happens. Keep in mind that we've been in a billion-website world for quite some time. Regardless of what Alexa may say at any particular point, Wikipedia's stock in terms of public perception has been falling for years. Offering only the same content you can find at thousands or millions of other places on the web or the equivalent of clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites isn't going to help that any. Notice that in my original comment, I reference the use of the term "enduring notability" in various discussions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, specifically whether the term is misused or whether editors only give lip service to the concept. I'm reminded of something from Bobby Heenan's autobiography where he had a conversation with Eric Bischoff during the Monday Night Wars. Bischoff was bragging to Heenan that "I've been on top for 36 weeks", to which Heenan replied "So what, I've been on top for 36 years". That quote sums up my attitude in general about our coverage of future events when contrasted with our non-coverage or trivial coverage of countless notable past events. While the Sky Sports source was helpful, I'm perfectly capable of finding their website without having to use a Wikipedia article as a portal. That falls under WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm tired of constantly having to make that argument. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through past Royal Rumble articles, we have an article for everyone one of these events since the first one in 1988, so it seems that these events do have enduring notability. If someone has a problem with the quality of sourcing in older articles, it seems counterproductive to delete/redirect articles on upcoming events, since that makes it harder for people to add good sourcing. If this had been a redirect, I never would've added the SkySports source, and looking at the quality of older Royal Rumble articles, it may never have been added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:188:2A2C:35E4:AD97 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nickag989: – I really get tired of seeing bitey Twinkle warriors polluting my watchlist with dubious edits such as this and this all the time. You appear to be taking a position in this discussion by effectively striking someone else's !vote in the form of repeatedly reverting their edits, all the while making no contributions of your own to the discussion apart from trying to demonstrate your fondness for and/or mastery of Twinkle. This was especially made clear in your last edit summary. If there's evidence to support the notion that the IP is a sockpuppet, then and only then could I see some justification for what you're doing. Otherwise, it's highly improper to delete someone's !vote simply because you don't care for the opinion they're offering. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, why this should be deleted? Because of that IP user claiming this is a "fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable?" Yeah, I think so. However, if I take step back, and look through the previous RR events, it should not be deleted. It takes a while to organize a major sport event (venue, location), like this one or even the Super Bowl. Take the Royal Rumble (2016), for instance, which was announced and created in April 2015, months before it took place in January 2016. Any arguments? I think so. My vote, will remain as keep. Nickag989talk 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored that !vote until more compelling reasons can be given to remove it. At any rate, if need be, striking it like this and offering a rationale for same is typically preferred. If you don't follow WP:ITN/C, until fairly recently, the rationale the IP gave is barely removed from the reasons many editors had for why pro wrestling-related content doesn't belong on the main page. Don't get me started on the compatibility of that stance to NPOV; as I refer to above and elsewhere, the vast majority of our coverage of the current U.S. presidential election is a bad, bad joke, but I'm not on a crusade to do something about it (yet). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ming Li. If the notability of the company may form in the future, people will probably want to restore the article, so leaving the history for now. Currently though the company cannot have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP Technologies Inc.

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

No evidence of any notability for this start up. Press releases and a statement about funding from the government doesn't add up to notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON too soon for this company. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule (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 The Banner talk 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure how its advertising. You could make a wider argument per WP:NOTTVGUIDE but considering other Canadian and US schedules exist, this is simply the next iteration. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of an ongoing series of TV schedules in the US and Canada. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. PKT(alk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be a legitimate case to be made that we shouldn't keep any such articles at all, but there's no good reason to single out Canadian ones as somehow less inherently notable or more inherently "advertorial" than comparable USian articles that are being kept. I might be inclined to support a comprehensive and well-reasoned argument that we should delete all of these including the USian ones per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but I'm definitely not willing to support singling out the Canadian ones for unique treatment not being extended to the USian versions of the exact same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- agree with others' rationale that it seems odd to single out Canadian schedule. I know that this sounds exactly the opposite of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I'm not sure if either should be deleted. Perhaps an RfC on the overall topic would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Canadian network television schedule

2003–04 Canadian network television schedule (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)

Unsourced list that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be a legitimate case to be made that we shouldn't keep any such articles at all, but there's no good reason to single out Canadian ones as somehow less inherently notable or more inherently "advertorial" than comparable USian articles that are being kept. I might be inclined to support a comprehensive and well-reasoned argument that we should delete all of these including the USian ones per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but I'm definitely not willing to support singling out the Canadian ones for unique treatment not being extended to the USian versions of the exact same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games (eighth generation)

List of video games (eighth generation) (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)

We have longstanding sequential articles that provide for this topic. See List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). The article creator proposed a major revision in July. Fearing that his idea would not meet with a favourable reception (see brief discussion) he proceeded and created a new article no matter. My main objection is that the new page is essentially a duplication of the existing one. Moreover, keeping the information updated requires a great deal more work. There are more fields that require modifying and the table is so long it is easy to lose track of basic header information. A quick look at the history tab shows that these articles are rarely updated relative to other video game list articles. Proofreading is lacking. For this reason it's best to keep things as straightforward as possible to encourage participation. There is zero reference table at this time. — TPX 12:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — TPX 13:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) is no more than a compilation of three existing articles with non-exclusive games removed. That article serves no purpose at all. I'm not going to reiterate myself here (read there instead: Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)#Purpose of this article?). But more importantly, you've probably have gone too far to have, really, requesting for an deletion on the new article that I've created, even though it has its purpose.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The seventh and eighth generation articles were created long before I started editing them. Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers (Gears, Mario, Forza) in order to make an informed decision. Everyone can appreciate the effort you have expended to create a new article, but there is a considerable amount of overlap between exiting pages and the new article that I don't understand what the point is. Encouraging editors to proofread these type of lists is hard enough as it is. — TPX 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm going to reiterate to here from the last time I said there. They lost their purpose ever since that the "exclusive" column has been returned to the game list. They can just go to the main game list to look at exclusive games just fine. Some readers may prefer a different table with different sorting system revolving exclusive. The new article does not require frequent updates because it does not have release dates and many other game info, just the game title, exclusivity, and availability. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I placed "more concisely" in italics when I said "Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers" because the same information can be found by visiting each list article separately. If you believe they are unnecessary then feel free to nominate both for deletion. But what you should not do is create a yet another third unwieldy article consisting of the same information. — TPX 18:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to tell me what I should and should not do... the new article clearly isn't for you. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very redundant to list same games twice, sure, but sometimes that's a good thing, we can cross-check for the questionable games between two lists. Though that's not what the new article is about, it's another list with conpletely different column that will provide different purpose to the readers. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point though? Each individual list already tracks all of this information, including exclusivity of software. This is a massive, unwieldy list that is going to require a ton of maintenance, without any payoff, since it's all documented elsewhere already. (And in a better fashion too - this list has a ridiculous number of "unknown" fields.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:List of Xbox 360 games#Proposal for improving the exclusivity information is where I got idea from. i thought it's good but it would be crazy to add any more columns to the existing table that's already taken the whole screen, so duplicate the list with a entirely new columns will be more ideal. There are more room for more columns, too, but that's all for now. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about we move and merge the genre, developer, and publisher columns from three articles to this new article? This new article could save someone's edits up to three times because they don't have to add such info to each game list. I don't like this idea though. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its already a very large undertaking to maintain these individual List of PlayStation 4 games-type lists. I believe this proposed combined massive one containing all games from Wii U, PS4, and Xbox 360 is too much to maintain by itself, let alone maintaining the individual lists and your proposed massive combined one concurrently. Especially for something that's entirely redundant anyways. We don't need this. Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide or some "ConsoleWars" fansite. Its an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I realized that articles revolving exclusives/exclusivity information are very console war like articles mostly maintained by fans. Do List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) deserve to stay too? TPX's reason as stated above sounds like they're buyers' guide. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will vote for deletion if the pages are nominated. There is no real purpose for List of PC exclusive games to exist when exclusive titles are denoted on List of PC games. — TPX 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll try to nominate these exclusive articles for deletion tomorrow. PC exclusive games article could just turn into a redirect page instead to retain its edit history then someone will still have a chance to merge if they feel like it. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my comments above and the nom. List is entirely redundant to other already better done lists. Open to recreating as a DAB like page that lists all of the separate lists that already exist that already contain all of this info, though even that is probably more or less already at the 8th gen page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 2016 Asian Beach Games

Sri Lanka at the 2016 Asian Beach Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 12:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2016 Asian Beach Games

Brunei at the 2016 Asian Beach Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 12:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games

Mongolia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games

Cambodia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubiculum

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

WP:NOTDICT Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Another article from a well-meaning student unable to read instructions for contributing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Changing to Keep based upon recent improvements. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has a specific meaning in Roman architecture and culture which is not the same as "bedroom" in modern English, and has loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. For example (and the available sources are far from limited to these) the first two of the very many sources found by the Google Scholar search linked above are this and this. Of course the current article is pretty crappy, but notability is a function of the available sources rather than of the current state of an article. I don't have the time or inclination to fix the article now, but will try to do so in the next few days. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was no reason for the move except to frustrate the deletion discussion. Pure page move vandalism. I've moved it back & suppressed the redirect to restore the status quo. WP:PM/C#1 Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now think that it is no longer a dictionary page, and there is probably enough to sustain an article, given its current information. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Too late for me to withdraw the nomination per WP:WDAFD, but it's now worth a Keep. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There's clearly no great urgency from the community to delete this article. Any discussion about a merge or page move is more appropriately conducted on the article's talk page. A Traintalk 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gardiner's sign list

Gardiner's sign list (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 also applies to the subpages, beginning with List of hieroglyphs/A, which I haven't individually tagged.) There are several problems with this set of pages. To begin with, it is a copyright violation of this list compiled by Alan Gardiner, who died 1963, so it's still copyrighted until 2033. And then it's also basically a reproduction of a primary source, which Wikipedia is not for (see WP:NPS). That articles are not even supposed to have hierarchical subpages and that the subpages are not remotely in an article format is almost a side issue.  Sandstein  10:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question If its copyvio why not just delete it? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since 2005, so a discussion seems appropriate.  Sandstein  19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some form of keep For starters, GScholar claims 1000+ cites for Egyptian grammar: being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs, so I would assume this has academic notability, and provides multiple secondary sources from which to pick.
I am not sure this is a copyvio; the mapping "character" -> "letter and number" is probably not copyrightable, but the presentation (such as the one in List_of_hieroglyphs/A) might be. I left a note at WP:CV in the hope someone might come help.
While the list articles should certainly not be in subpages, they seem a reasonable size split of the complete list of the hieroglyphs by Gardiner's ordering. It may be argued that this list does not meet WP:SAL but it does not look obvious either way.
Beyond the usual whine when formatting issues are invoked, the current layout of the subpages is actually fairly decent to my eyes. I think readability would be degraded if we converted the current formatting of List_of_hieroglyphs/A to (say) a table such as the ones in List_of_Egyptian_hieroglyphs_by_common_name:_A–L. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article about the list might or might not be notable, I'm not an Egyptologist. This assortment of pages here, however, purports to be a reproduction of the list, which is something quite different.  Sandstein  19:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gardiner's sign list is (probably) notable, that was my first point. I understand that your concern is more about the "List of hieroglyphs" subpages, but I still would mention it.
About those pages, the thing is, maybe a reproduction of the character <-> numbering mapping is appropriate. AFAIK, the copyright applies to the layout of the ideas, not to the ideas themselves, so it would be incorrect to have a list with each entry organized the same way as in the original publication; but the grouping of hieroglyphs in thematic categories, and the numbering within those, is AFAIK not copyrightable and hence can be reprodued by us.
Whether the list meets the notability of WP:SAL is another question, and while I lean towards saying it passes as size split of the main article, I could see the consensus go either way on that point. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only page included in this nomination is the parent article page, which is about the list, it is not a list itself. So whether or not the list subpages that actually list out the hieroglyphs represent copyvios is irrelevant to whether the article about the list(s) should be deleted, about which no argument has been presented. And as the list subpages have not been tagged with notices and not included in this nomination, their deletion is not under consideration at all. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we are here, we might as well discuss this. We can also consider this as a group nom and do the analysis here (without the need to actually put an AfD tag on all 26 pages, its unnecessary bureaucracy). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving proper notice that a page has been nominated for deletion is not "unnecessary bureaucracy", it is necessary deletion procedure. And I see many editors have edited the subpages but never the main parent article, and so can't be assumed to have watchlisted all of them or notice if it is only placed on the parent article. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really need all those subpages? Personally I see this is a reproduction of content. While an umbrella article about Gardiner's sign list is notable, the subpages may not really be. How about redirecting them to the main article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting from the current subpaged titles? I would bet there is a guideline against that... TigraanClick here to contact me 17:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan, is there something like that? I am personally not very well versed with redirect guidelines and stuff. However, I do know of at least one case like that. Kallang/Whampoa redirects to Kallang. If this is not correct, we might have to think of a better solution to merge these pages or failing that just delete/userfy them (or move them without leaving a redirect). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was wrong, so I struck my comment. There is indeed a guideline, WP:NC-SLASH, but it says that article names with slashes are allowed (it may cause small problems with the talk pages, but the mainspace is not "subpaged"). Unless there is something very strange going on, this means redirects are okay as well. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Well, the sign list is definitely notable. The classification system itself may be copyrightable, but the content of each list is *not* the same as Gardiners (e.g. unicode chars), which puts it equivalent to a dictionary. Add in the educational value, and the copyvio argument fails for the individual pages. You could make a NOTDICTIONARY argument, I suppose. The content is readily available elsewhere.  The Steve  17:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more definite opinions please — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restructure. Egyptian hieroglyphics are clearly an important subject, so that a classification system ought also to be notable. It is a purpose of WP to bring information together, so that arguments about it being available elsewhere should not hold water. On the other hand an article so much of whose length consists of headings for links to sub-articles is unsatisfactory. That part of the article needs converting to a table, which will provide a much more legible list than what we have at present. In saying this, I am not even considering the issue of whether there may be COPY-VIO issues, though I would have thought that there were none. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian hieroglyphics are clearly an important subject, so that a classification system ought also to be notable. Hmm, no. (Though that particular system is.) TigraanClick here to contact me 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of Egyptian hieroglyphs doesn't exist, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Unicode block) is just about the Gardiner list as represented in Unicode, while Wikipedia's HEIRO extension is also the Gardiner list. We should have a list of heiroglyphics separate from the Gardiner article, with the HIERO extension image, the Unicode image, the Gardiner code, the Egyptological notation for its pronunciation, the ideological meaning of the glyph, in a list. I suggest that List of Egyptian hieroglyphs be created as being a list (with all the HEIRO and unicode glyphs, and any missing from these two systems would be represented by a picture file and the Egyptological pronunciation and meaning. Gardiner isn't the only source, after all, Champollion's works are now Public Domain -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir Todorov

Tihomir Todorov (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 football player never played in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi Duvvapu

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

Non-notable actor with no roles in any notable films or other productions. Google returns no significant coverage from secondary sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Housekeeping closure. Article does not exist. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstaritis

Barnstaritis (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 don't know, but the humor template is being used to compromise the speedy deletion process. Articles like these woild have been speedy deleted if it wasn't for that user tag. Does anyone here even find these nerdy articles remotely funny? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Night Takeaway

Sunday Night Takeaway (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 program was announced as airing in 2016, however did not eventuate and looks to be either dumped or pushed to 2017 [23]. The article could be re-created should the series be going ahead. Otherwise the article is about a show announced but not delivered, failing notability and lacking sources. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A Traintalk 20:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerball

Hungerball (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 WP:Too soon Jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Behbahani

Ahmad Behbahani (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 speculation, one strongly doubted report

Ahmad Behbahani arises from a single reported conversation said to have taken place with a self-identified individual. The report was never verified and the claim was strongly doubted by the NY Post on the basis that the claimant was too young to have been the person he claimed to be, which is just about as damning a challenge as one could imagine. The original claim was never repeated and does not seem to have been reported again thereafter. Lockerbie is a hot and notable topic but that does not make every rumour, speculation, unsubstantiated report or unverified claim worthy of reproduction on WP. At most, someone might want to add a brief note about this on a Lockerbie page. sirlanz 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiousism

Facetiousism (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 GNG. Neologism. Only references found are to things like Facebook and Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JbhTalk 06:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Portaro

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. This article was originally filled with SEO/spam external links many of which did not have any relation to claims. The subject does not appear to be notable and the page looks to be nothing but a promotional vehicle. After going through the inline external links there was one, poor, link to a "List of Geniuses" site that you pay to be listed on. JbhTalk 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Obvious spam for non-notable musician Jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WYSM (Musician)

WYSM (Musician) (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)

Self promotional article of non-notable musician. Speedy was removed by a new editor. Melcous (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Eric Horvitz#One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence. Whether to merge stuff from history is up to editors.  Sandstein  08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (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)

Insufficient evidence for the importance of this particular report DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect if there's a suitable target. The "coverage" is clearly from a promotional push, and is therefore churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Eric Horvitz who seems the promoter. The Horvitz article just has a promotional quote about it. W Nowicki (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no connection to Horvitz; I created the article b/c the sources include what I presume to be independent analysis, and my reading of WP:ORGDEPTH was that any amount of unattributed analysis by the independent publication makes the coverage non-trivial; if I'm wrong, then the article can be deleted but I'll probably ask at the WP:ORGDEPTH page for a modification to be more clear. For example, the nytimes 2014 source states "The project, hosted by the university, is unusual not just because of its duration but because it seeks to track the effects of these technologies as they reshape the roles played by human beings in a broad range of endeavors." The csmonitor source states "As it turns out, there are already groups dedicated to tackling these ethical concerns." Of course, for all I know these "insights" may have been fed to them by the organization, but that's true of any article. I don't know what level of non-triviality is usually required to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) JbhTalk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lazzarini

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. I could find no significant RS coverage of the subject and his publications have few citations. JbhTalk 04:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, it appears that the work with Csound and synthesis is significant enough. There were some links broken in different places on wikipedia, I realised later that the page was there but was deleted.Roetfuss (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something where sources discuss him rather than the technique. I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if some are found. Also, his most highly cited work has 38 citations so how big a deal is it? His work is outside my area of expertise and I'm willing to reassess. JbhTalk 13:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible a redirect to csound is appropriate ... but I'll have a good look - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38 citations of a single article in a niche area such as sound synthesis is not too bad. The MIT Press book appears to be well appreciated. Just giving some reasons why I even bothered.Roetfuss (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Obvious hoax Fenix down (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barbour II

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

This is apparently a playable character from a video game. Google searches turn up nothing. If it exists, this is way too soon for an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hypes

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

Not enough coverage to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. Coverage is a single local paper and social media. JbhTalk 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAT Refund Eligibility Table for EU based Companies

VAT Refund Eligibility Table for EU based Companies (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 encyclopedic, not referenced, not reliable compilation of tax rates. Do not quite understand the purpose of this. The article itself says The table below is intended as a guide only. Renata (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love: The Bob Marley Musical

One Love: The Bob Marley Musical (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 musica lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page would benefit from expanded content, additional information about the show, synopsis, song list (like other musical theatre pages), and community impact. Beneficial as a record of a new work of musical theatre, with one, soon to be two full productions, and prominent subject matter. References, as pointed out by Michig, are substantial and non-trivial. Yebsakin (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamieson Laboratories

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

A non-notable company that fails to cite almost any reliable sources to back up its claim to notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning Delete - I had a look, but everything I could find was passing mentions and corporate ownership deals - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the listed links were all simply PR and republished, talking about what the company only wants to mention about itself, not what actually matters, and the best part that came close was simply about the potential $1 billion sale, but it never actually happened therefore there's nothing else to say. Once we become a PR webhost for all advertising matters, this place is damned and troubled severely. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability under WP:CORP may certainly be possible here, as it's by far the dominant product on the vitamins rack in every single drug store I've ever actually set foot in — but the nominator is correct that in this form, the article is minimally sourced and skews decidedly advertorial in the substance. Adam9007's new sources on the talk page aren't helping all that much, either — half of them are corporate press releases, which are primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the ones that are good sources are covering it entirely in the context of a purchase deal that fell through. And even in a deep ProQuest search, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (such as its former CEO donating $750 to the mayoral campaign of Drew Dilkens, which who cares, or his new role as head of a medical marijuana company, which WP:NOTINHERITED), and very little substantive coverage about much of anything else besides the cancelled takeover. And while the takeover deal would be entirely worthy of note in a substantial and well-rounded article, it just makes this the corporate equivalent of a WP:BLP1E if it's the only thing we can actually substance or source about the company. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as currently written and sourced is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this is a case of a company that could be notable, but review of the available sources proves otherwise. Not other reason for the article to exist to serve as a WP:PROMO, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A Traintalk 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggtmoy

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per usual, none of these sources show anything relevant. First four are singular name usage that do not talk about the character in any meaningful context, fifth is just describing a branching scenario and mentions the character only in relation to the scenario without any real world context, and sixth is just a strategy guide. Once again, you've brought in a load of fluff and three other people will come in here to vote "per Jclemens" despite reasonably knowing that none of these sources could actually be added to the article in good faith, at least in terms of establishing notability for the article. Would it kill you to at least try to find actual sources? TTN (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At some point, you should reevaluate your assessment of the sorts of sources I provide, since when I do provide them and dispute your deletion proposal, consensus seems to fall with me far more often than it does with you. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please feel free to show me where anyone has used the majority of the sources you provide to improve an article. There is not one source listed above that could be added to the article in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with the sources being relevant or even actual consensus that the article is notable. It's a bunch of people coming in with the idea that the article is notable in the first place and voting keep based upon that initial idea when given a reason to do so, even if that reason is faulty. Pretty much all these articles that have been kept recently will end up sitting for another year without improvement and eventually be removed in another AFD. It's actually quite common in a number of AfDs with the same kind of useless laundry list of trivial mentions. Your idea of notability is simply contrary to Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't see that changing any time soon. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amusing that you should expect me to improve an article with what I find, when when I find anything at all, it's evidence that you never bother following WP:BEFORE. You also confuse evidence of notability, which must be independent, with evidence of sources which can be used to create and expand an article, which doesn't have to be, per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would expect that, if your sources are as good as you claim, that any of the number of people professing a keep argument would use them in the articles. They don't, they won't, and nobody ever will (unless someone shoves them in after this argument to make a very bad point). Anyone who expects someone to follow BEFORE to the letter for a bunch of old, forgotten ten year old articles is silly. The onus is on the person claiming that the articles are notable. Just because most these were made when Wikipedia's standards were extremely lax does not mean the idea of a topic needing to properly branch out from a main article should be ignored. I do run a quick check through the source links, but that doesn't really matter when you pull out a bunch of irrelevant junk and claim it to be proper. Articles need to have multiple, non trivial third party sources to establish notability. While you constantly try to dance around that very specific definition of notability, it's there as clear as day. These sources are irrelevant, trivial mentions that do nothing more than confirm the existence of the topic. TTN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How? What significant coverage has this received that is independent of the subject? Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myhriss

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 while this is indeed a concept invented by popular writers post WWII, it is notable as such, but the article should be edited to reflect this. I'm not sure that there is consensus to rename the article, but discussions about this can continue on the article talk page if needed.  Sandstein  14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German tank aces

German tank aces (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)

Plainly put, there never was a "German tank ace". By that I mean that neither the term "Panzer ace" ("Panzerass") nor the "concept" (whatever that means) did exist among the Waffen-SS, the German wartime propaganda or the Wehrmacht. I may be proven otherwise by RS, but so far I have not read the term or in any primary sources or military historiography. (There are two exceptions of the latter, I will mention later but these actually support my argument.) Of course there were German tank commanders who became the subject of German propaganda, notably Michael Wittmann. It is also true that U-boat commanders and pilots received the most prestigous German military order of WWII, the Knight's Cross, when they had sunk a certain number of enemy ships or shot down a certain number of enemy planes, respectively. But even them were not referred to as "aces" (Asse) by German propaganda. No soldier of the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS, however, received a Knight's Cross just because he had destroyed a certain number of enemy tanks. If these men were considered for a Knight's Cross, it was for a single deed which was supposed to have significantly influenced the outcome of combat and been carried out "on one's own initiative" ("aus eigenem Entschluss"). Kurt Knispel, arguably the most "successful" "German tank ace", for example, never received a Knight's Cross. (Roman Töppel, "Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände," in: Ztschr. f. Heereskunde 76 (2012), pp. 180-190, here pp. 180-1.)

The article claims rather vaguely: "To the extent that the concept existed, it was mainly advanced by the Waffen-SS as part of its contributions to Nazi Germany's propaganda campaigns," referenced with Steven Zaloga's Panther vs Sherman. Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Oxford: Osprey Publishing 2008, p. 36. I will quote him at length, because his publication is the one and only source so far. Even he notes that "the concept of 'tank aces' was not particularly prevalent in World War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger bataillons which enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year [...]. In Heer panzer units the concept was not widespread, and military awards focused on mission performance, not an arbitrary metric like tank kills". Zaloga's claims do not support the definition of our article, since the top three "tank aces" fought with the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. How did they become "tank aces", given the "concept" wasn't prevalent in the Wehrmacht? And how could the "concept" have been especially common regarding "certain bataillons" and not with tank commanders in general? Did man and machine become one? It seems as if the fame of the German tank Tiger II, propagandized as a "Wunderwaffe" (wonder weapon), has somehow been transposed upon its commanders, but that is clearly an ex post development, i. e. the term was attached to them after WW II. Zaloga does not provide any reference for his claims anyway, which does not speak for their reliability.

As I said, the term "Panzerass" is not to be found in German propaganda of WW II. The term "ace" in relation to individual military success, so to speak, originated with French military propaganda of WW I. The as de l'aviation, (the flying ace) was used for fighter pilots who had shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft (usually more than five). It has been picked up particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) Two things should be noted: First, although, fighter pilots like Boelcke, Immelmann, and Richthofen figured prominently in German propaganda, the term "Fliegerass" was not used. Second, the term "ace" is nohing like a concept, but rather an image, a myth. As Peter Fritzsche put it: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) The term "Fliegerass" is nowadays present and being used in German language referring to fighter pilots like Richthofen, Mölders and the like. But that is a fairly recent development (see, e.g., this google ngraph) and to a limited degree it became part of popular culture through special interest literature. It is not used as a "concept" by historiography, though. Instead, the image of the "ace" itself has become the subject of historiographical research. (See the examples of Robertson and Fritzsche, cited above.)

The same applies to the term "tank ace", minus the historiographical interest. The term originated within English special interest literature to purport the image of individual, distinct combat (and to sell books, I might add, by hooking up with Western folklore). One might just take a look at the literature in which the term "tank ace" is used. If Zaloga claims that the "concept" of "panzer aces" has received considerable attention in recent years, then he certainly does not refer to military historiography, but rather to special interest literature by publishers like Osprey, Stroud, Stackpole, Fedorowicz, Zenith Press and so forth. Take Franz Kurowski, former Nazi propagandist himself, as an example. It is difficult to keep track of his numerous publications in German, but a quite comprehensive list can be found here[44]. He chose some fairly martial titles, but he did not use the term "Panzerasse" whatsoever. Who came up with the "Panzer aces"? Please note, that JJ Fedorowicz followed up with Infantry Aces: The German Soldier in Combat in WWII (1994), also by Kurowski. It's the same book selling scheme, but equally ahistorical nonsense.

So far I have found two RS in which there are references to "Panzer aces". One is by controversial author Jörg Friedrich who speaks of generals Hermann Hoth and Georg-Hans Reinhardt as "Panzerasse" (Das Gesetz des Krieges, 1993, p. 220.). By this he unwittingly demonstrates, that "Panzer aces" is not a defined "concept" referring to successful tank commanders. The other is The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser /Davies who discuss Kurowski's titles, but not as a "concept" whatsoever.

To sum it up: "German tank aces" is a phrase used within English (mostly American) militaria literature. The term not only builds upon the myth of the fighter ace, but incorporates this myth and therefore has no analytical value whatsoever. It is not found within military historiography. As a "concept" it is WP:FRINGE and not sufficiently notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. (WP:NFRINGE). Instead Wikipedia provides unwarranted promotion for the "concept" (WP:PROFRINGE). In contrast to "Flying ace" or simply "ace" where there are independent reliable sources analyzing this term, there are virtually no such RS on the "German tank ace". Thus the article is beyond improvement. Instead Wikipedia is not a dictionary does apply. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure why this has been taken to AfD before there was any discussion on the talk page... Regardless, the concept is clearly notable as it is covered by the multiple reliable sources cited in the "Overview" section of the article - I'm not sure why these are being dismissed? This nomination is also rather confusing as the article discusses the concept of a "tank ace" critically, noting that it is a disputed concept, so the WP:TNT-style argument above doesn't really apply. This is an article about the alleged concept of a tank ace, and not an endorsement of such a thing. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect to Steven Zaloga, who is apparently a more critical reader than many of his fellow author's at Osprey's, but imho his publication does not qualify as a RS. It's an 80pp brochure with many grand illustrations, but lacking any references. Zaloga's depiction of the German perspective is based upon "the numerous Foreign Military Studies prepared by German military officers about the Ardennes campaign" (including, e.g., two reports by Jochen Peiper), i.e. by the de:Operational History (German) Section. The work of this body of former German officers has been critically examined recently ( Esther-Julia Howell: Von den Besiegten lernen?, Munich 2015]]. The 12 books in his bibliography (Kurowski is not among them) are also from the militaria camp. Btw, I admire how you managed to read my argument, check upon its claims and the references and came up with an answer in just three minutes.--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Osprey books don't have footnotes, Zaloga always includes multiple pages worth of references (including to the primary sources he regularly uses) at the conclusion of his books, as you note, so it's not accurate to claim that his work is unreferenced. You also appear to misunderstand WP:RS: Zaloga is a widely-published and cited expert on the topic of armoured warfare, and whatever the shortcomings of Osprey publishing, they're a professional outfit which exercises quality control (albeit not as much as they probably should in some instances) so the work can be considered reliable. I don't think that many people are going to read all of your over-long statement, and there's no reason to do so given that it's not relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and implies that you haven't actually bothered to read the content of the article (the topic is notable, and the content is OK and can be improved, so there are no grounds for deletion). There are certainly grounds to move and improve the article, but that's an content discussion which you didn't bother to start before launching this process out of the blue, not a deletion discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pls see below; Original comment -- as someone who has contributed to the article, I advocate deletion. Here's the version as I came across it in 2015: link. It was one of the articles that launched me on the "Waffen-SS mythology" journey :-) . The article continues to attract (mostly new) editors who attempt to restore it to the prior state on a fairly regular basis:
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016 Edit summary: "This is the list of German panzer aces. Stop. No need of sociological junk"
  • February 2016 Edit summary: "Reads like a tabloid whit all those quations, not very encyclopedic. This should be merely a list, how invulnerable the Tiger I was doesnt matter, or that all tanks aces were bulshwalkers does not belong here."
  • Also from February 2016, restoring the dubious "kills"
As far as the term is concerned, I suspect it originates with the prolific Franz Kurowski whose Panzer Aces, Luftwaffe Aces, Panzergrenadier Aces and Infantry Aces (!) continue to be popular WWII "militaria literature". The term "Panzer ace" appears in The Myth of the Eastern Front in quotation marks in the discussions on Kurowski.
At best, this could be deleted and redirected to either Waffen-SS in popular culture or perhaps to Franz_Kurowski#Portrayal of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Alternatively, a new article could be created under the name "Panzer ace" in popular culture or similar. Secondary sources for this would be Zalooga and Smelser & Davies.
As far as the article under discussion, the most recent version, which I was actually planning to address, but got distracted, introduced sources such as Patrick Agte and similar. So I suspect that trying to maintain neutrality of this article would be an on-going issue. Thus I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infrequent, and rapidly reverted/corrected, reversions to a less-good previous version aren't a reason to delete articles or their history IMO - note that these can, and probably will, be re-added via Wikipedia mirrors anyway based on my experience with similar articles. I'm sympathetic to an alternate name as suggested below though. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latest dubious version (diff) was there for a month. So, I'd say WP:TNT the current version, and start from scratch with a new name. Please see suggested draft below. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I created Draft:"Panzer ace" in popular culture by moving the academically supported content to the draft version, and addressing some of the concerns raised in the nomination. I limited the list to those commanders who are described in RS as "Panzer aces".
I would still advocate deletion of the current page, to remove the access to the edit history and avoid restorations of dubious material. After deletion, the name can be redirected to the new article "Panzer ace" in popular culture, if the consensus is indeed to go with a revised name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this effort is an ill-advised piecemeal approach. I do not see sufficient RS for a "Panzer Ace" in popular culture-article. As far as I know this topic has not yet been adressed in military or cultural historiography. Steven Zaloga (I have adressed the reliability of his work above) does not deal with the issue of "tank ace" as a myth, but accepts it as being a "concept". Moreover I doubt that the "Pancer Ace" figures so prominently in popular culture that it would deserve a dedicated article. Instead, I would suggest an article Ace (military) on the terminology. There are sufficient RS to trace the emergence of that term, its meaning and image. The equally ahistorical Submarine ace could be merged and redirected to that article. Ideally even the article Flying Ace, which at present is completely devoid of academic historiography on the subject, could (and should) be merged into such an article.
My own research suggests, that the term "tank ace" was used as early as the 1950ies, but not as a concept. Rather it was a loose, even sloppy term to describe military leaders like Guderian and tank commanders like Wittmann, but also someone who managed to destroy more than five German tanks with an anti-tank gun. That underlines that it is the term "Ace" that deserves scrutiny, not its various ramifications.--Assayer (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides multiple references which discuss the concept of the role of a "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Smelser and Davies discuss aspects of this in considerable detail in their book, as does Zaloga in several works. I also refer you to searches in Amazon.com for "tank ace" and "panzer ace" which show that multiple popular (and generally awful) books have been written on the topic - it is these which Smelser and Davies critique and Zaloga and similar are responding to. Google Books searches provide similar results (eg, [45]). Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, the term indeed is restricted to "militaria literature" in the popular culture, but Wikipedia caters to the general public, and not to a scholarly audience. Given the fact that the article survived in its "WWII German military romancer" version until 2015 (I assume copy pasted from Achtungpanzer.com), and that there are consistent attempts to revert it to that state, I'd say there's interest in the "concept", however misguided it might be. On the other hand, I did not know that Ace (military) does not exist, and I agree that it would be an appropriate article to create and discuss the term there. I also agree that "U-boat ace" is an ahistorical concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not deny that there is some interest in what some have called the "German tank (panzer) ace". Of course you'll find multiple books carrying the phrase in its title. But I argue that the idea of a "concept" is fringe theory and does not merit a dedicated article. If you don't take my word for it, you may consider what Nigel Newton, Chief Executive of Bloomsbury, said when Bloomsbury bought Osprey: "The acquisition of Osprey increases our presence in niche special interest markets". Pageviews Analysis [46] suggests that the Flying ace article generates about 3,5 times more interest than the German tank aces and Michael Wittmann alone is viewed more than 3 times as often. Besides, I do not see a reason why a topic with a popular interest to it should not be treated in a scholarly sound manner. Otherwise we need not to bother about RS as vetted by the scholarly community. In a sense Franz Kurowski's work is more readable than many scholarly books. Neither do I see a particular reason to start a Panzer ace in popular culture-article instead of using a redirect to Ace (military), where the various military "Aces" can be dealt with. --Assayer (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Panzer ace in popular culture; delete current page per K.e.coffman. Thanks Assayer for doing all this hard work in the research; this concept needs to be clearly discussed as a post-World War II creation, seemingly with some roots in the Waffen-SS, and not something that was around at the time. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Panzer ace in popular culture as it seems to be mainly a post-war subject-matter of discussion and writing; thereby, deleting current page. I would like to see some further addition to the article, and it should be balanced without any "WWII German military romancer" version, nor too much reliance on any single author/historian; of the two articles I do believe the draft article now put forth is the better. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the move. However, it seems to me that the suggestion to delete the prior history is a violation of copyright laws if any material whatsoever form the old article is retained in the moved article because it removes the attribution of material that is a condition of contributing the material to Wikipedia. Also a comment, there were no Fliegerasse because they are referred to as Experten. I didn't search very far, but the highest ranked Google uses of Panzerexpert seem to be associated with games. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is notable per WP:GNG due to the level of coverage it has received. The main issues appear to be regarding content and how we choose to cover the issue (or about what name we give the article), not that it actually is covered in Wikipedia at all. The fact that some interpretations of the concept might be fringe-like doesn't disqualify us from covering it (and them) as long as we address that issue, likewise if some of the sources which cover it are considered to be less reliable than others doesn't prevent us from using / mentioning them and the role they have played in developing the concept (as long as it is with care and appropriate attribution, and academic reviews of them included if available, etc.). These are all questions of editorial judgment and as such I don't think AFD is appropriate in this case. By all means ensure the article addresses the issue that it is disputed / ahistorical or whatever, but the fact that it is widely covered in popular literature means many people are interested in the topic so why not provide the information to our readers in a critical manner which might educate and inform them? Indeed recent changes to the article look promising to me and suggest that that is an achievable objective. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I agree per above. Move this article to Panzer ace in pop culture and delete this article as it does not warrant inclusion into the English Wikipedia. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you move content, you need to retain the historical contributions attribution. If you copy in select content to a new article, you need to attribute it Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this not a "historical topic" but rather a contemporary creation, mostly via popular history and militaria literature. Panzer ace is currently a redirect, and it will continue to function in this capacity, so if anyone searches for "panzer ace", they will be directed to this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Idzkowski

Daniel Idzkowski (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 unremarkable entrepreneur; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What's available relates to subject's company, while notability is not WP:INHERITed. At best this could be redirected to Peekshare; but this article is at AfD, and it's not certain if would be retained: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekshare. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_2&oldid=743551817"