Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 18

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shadowowl (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 18 September 2018 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Allen. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 17 September 19 September >

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 keep. Consensus was that the author is notable by WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. It was suggested that the article should be improved. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Allen

Liz Allen (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. Only sources are about her books, and her claims to fame and other promotional crap are unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is inadequate and under-referenced, but Allen is a figure in Irish journalism. Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. The Irish Times has a review of her book "The Set Up" [1]. There are reviews of her book "Last to Know" in the Irish Independent (29 May 2004), the Irish Times Weekend Review (12 June 2004), Ireland on Sunday (13 June 2004), VIP (13 June 2004) and Irish World (18 June 2004). There are over six hundred library holdings of her books: [2]. James500 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true: library holdings are not an indication of notability, even if you would like to invent and promote that policy in multiple AFDs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly an indication of it, but not a conclusive one for Wikipedia purposes. So James500 gave other reasons for keeping the page as well. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leann Hunley

Leann Hunley (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 BLP. Not sending to BLP PROD as there are external links, but they are likely unreliable (example: it has a link to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source). Likely passes WP:NBIO, but needs citations to confirm that - will withdraw if reliable sourcing is provided. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Even a casual WP:BEFORE finds a profile in People [3], confirmation of Emmy win in Los Angeles Times [4], discussion in a book [5], for example. Many more articles with in-depth coverage show up in newspaper archives from the 1980s, eg "UW dropout Leann Hunley finds her calling on 'Dynasty'" (Seattle Times 05 May 1987: F1), "Days Of Our Lives fans will miss Leann Hunley" (Toronto Star 01 Nov 1986: S92), "Leann Hunley has a date with an angel" (St. Petersburg Times 09 Feb 1988: 7D). Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Bakazaka (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. I'd ask the nominator to, if they state in the very nomination that the article should probably be kept and lacks contentious content, consider doing a cursory WP:BEFORE, find some basic sources, or try to bring it to other editors' attention if that's not an option, instead of immediately bringing it to AfD, given the bureaucratic burden an AfD means when we have to discuss "should we have this article?" instead of "how can we make this article better?". /Julle (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has had notable roles on shows such as Dynasty and Days of Our Lives (where she won a Daytime Emmy). There are also several newspapers articles about her during her peak fame in the 1980s, so she also meets the GNG. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - withdrawing in order to mark for cleanup, as upon review it is savable. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Ferries

Irish Ferries (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)

Written as if it was promotional, and notability is not established within the article (thereby failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG). Kirbanzo (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Boson (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quizizz

Quizizz (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)

How-to guide to a non-notable online tool without reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatantly promotional, and WP:NOTHOWTO. There is some coverage out there, but mostly seem to be single-author reviews and short routine coverage of questionable reliability and independence. (E.g. [6] [7]) The strongest source I could find was Fortune India, but that is not enough to keep the article in its present state. MarginalCost (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - had there been an appropriate speedy category then this is where this article should be headed. However, we are at AfD and this has zero notability nor even any serious effort to try and provide notability. This looks very much like a paid editing job - "get this on Wikipedia and I'll give you $10" - job done, it's here, now let's tidy up afterwards.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Bordering G11 material. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe there coverage will develop, but right now, to get rid of all the sources parroting the announcement about them raising $3 million in funding, I Googled quizizz -raises -raised and Google's initial hit tally fell from 3,050 to 56. (Funding announcements are like birth and wedding announcements—the question is whether anyone talks about the operation for doing what it actually does.) The 56 remaining hits seem to mention Quizizz mostly in the context of a set of similar products. Largoplazo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pages read like a how-to guide with little to no coverage in significant sources. —Mythdon 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Further discussion regarding the article, a possible title change and its content can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Evaluation Association

Northwest Evaluation Association (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 organisation with a notable product Measures of Academic Progress which doesn't (yet) have an article. Sourced only by its own website. A Google search is only returning business listings, social media, and its own website. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Also the creator of the article did not follow the standard AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm a little confused here. Cabayi, you're saying their main product, MAP, is notable - a statement I would definitely agree with. NWEA-MAP is a giant in the K-12 testing space, and plenty of writing has been done on it. It's pretty common for individual products to be merged with their companies, especially when there's not an article on the individual product. There's plenty of coverage of MAP, like this extensive Department of Education report, multiple academic publications studying the reliability and validity and effectiveness of interventions based on it ([8][9] [10] [11][12]) or news coverage of the controversy surrounding some of the tests and their implementation and the like ([13][14][15])[16][17]). I think one could argue for inclusion based on a few sources focused on NWEA in general or the non-MAP parts ([18][19]), but while I know notability is not inherited, in the absence of a MAP-specific article, I don't see the problem in keeping the parent company article. I may be misunderstanding though. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What I wrote just above notwithstanding, I find a great deal of coverage via Google News attributing substantial significance to the Northwest Evaluation Association as a provider of assessments and tests. This, despite one source that says "Northwest Evaluation Association is not well-known in Portland, even though it develops and administers tests for 10 million students a year." Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Harlech

Tallulah Harlech (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. Even prior to the recent (own?) hatchet job, the refs were all interviews or perhaps regurgitated press releases. Nothing substantial, independent or reliable. Her apparent relationship to aristocracy doesn't count for anything. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles' source, Fashion Telegraph is a part of The Daily Telegraph, a very reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the notability criteria for people states" multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". One source does not equate multiple sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't saw it at first, but our subject had removed 2 references (and couple sentences) which expanded on her notability. I restored the version which was prior to removal. So, I think she is quite notable (as of now 16 refs).--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nayeemuddin

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

This appears to be a highly undesirable individual who has been shot dead by the police but for whom there is no good evidence that he has ever been prosecuted for the alleged crimes. The refs read like tabloid sensationalism . Fails WP:BLPCRIME  Velella  Velella Talk   16:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement between myself and @DBigXray: over the article's name aside, the sourcing for this article has vastly improved since my initial !vote. I can now say Keep per GNG, as a result of the additional sources that suggest that LASTING is met, among other things. StrikerforceTalk 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Strikerforce Isn't BLP1E also a BLP policy, note the subject died in 2016.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Single event - which I feel applies here, as laid out below - links to a see also of BLP1E. Their use here is interchangeable. StrikerforceTalk 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Strikerforce, Please accept my thanks for re-considering this !vote based on WP:HEY, cheers and regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont 1. The person died in 2016 so its not BLP. 2. The Person was covered in mainstream media for more than 25 years. (e.g. 2012 1998 so its not 1EVENT. I have added more sources and text before find search links for keywords. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, help us out here - for what event other than being an alleged killer was he notable? Note that the use of the word "alleged" is due to the fact that, as far as any references provided have shown, he was never actually convicted for the crimes of which he was accused. StrikerforceTalk 21:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, BLP applies to those recently deceased as well. Either way, he only seems to be notable for that one event and thus I believe this warrants a section in another article but an article specifically about Nayeem. Vermont (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, He was notable for being a dreaded Naxalite leader since 1998 see (Gangs attack rights activists in Andhra Pradesh from 2005), He then became a police informer and led to the killings of several naxalite squads in the region. He then became a Gangster, and was finally killed. [31]. I have added several links in the comments above with years (I dont want to repost). Please take a look. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: even Speedy delete. As it was written, it stated he's a criminal and murderer which he was not convicted for - which is a WP:BLP violation (even though he's now dead - it applies to recently deceased too). BLP1E applies as well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tod, Article is judged on the subjects notability and not simply based on the current content see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP DBigXrayᗙ 22:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is judged on all aspects of its reasons to be. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Morgan

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

Subject requests page deletion JEM1406a (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be evidence, yes. But it would not warrant deleting the article. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do not delete articles on request. How many negative articles would we whitewash knowledge of if we took the advice of the subject? Preposterous. Clearly meets notability guidelines, represented her national team in the World Championships this year. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @JEM1406a: The subject of the article can be referred to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons; especially the section called Dealing with articles about yourself. If the details and reasoning of the subject's request for deletion cannot be shared publicly, then an e-mail request can be made to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as OTRS). Contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article and provide details of the concerns. Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Boson (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Brien (actor)

Kevin O'Brien (actor) (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; Nothing to say beyond that. Only thing that comes up in searches are personal sites and imdb. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subjects meet WP:GNG (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Roll

Martin Roll (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)

Lack of notability. Cites are to items which are abot products rather than him. TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Martin Roll is a well-respected author especially in the topic of C-suite branding in Asia. His works can be found [34] here on Amazon. A prove of his association with INSEAD can also be found on INSEAD site at [35]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belindaang (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the original entry and I am amazed by the continued attempts to delete him. The previous editor that tried, ended up supporting keeping the article, and improved it considerably. Roll is a frequent expert contributor to global media, there is a full back page from China Daily only about him and he is the author of several books, one of which won the accolades of Business+Strategy. I am really lost as to why this is not sufficient, as my reading of the notability guidelines I have always followed, says that he fulfils the requirement. I am also slightly disappointed by an editor who says "about products and not about him", when this is factually incorrect, something that is evident if one reads all the referenced articles. Tobias Tan (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is the talk page edit that I made after reaching the conclusion that, contrary to my initial opinion, Martin Roll meets WP:GNG and therefore merits an article in Wikipedia. Zazpot (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. Coverage in China Daily and quite a lot of sources in GNews. Review of "Asian Brand Strategy" in The Telegraph: [36] (see "BookEnd" section). Coverage in strategy+business magazine: [37]. It is also highly cited with well over a hundred cites: [38]. There are reviews of "The Future of Branding" in Global Business Review, volume 17, issue 6 and Vision, volume 20, issue 4, [39] (both December 2016). There are over seven hundred library holdings of his books: [40]. James500 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Erra

AfDs for this article:
Giancarlo Erra (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 could not find any evidence that this musician is notable apart from the band, Nosound. A redirect to the band was reverted with the comment "A new major project under his own name, unrelated with the band, is to be announced in a few weeks." The article has a long history of COI editing and promotional contributions, and I'd like input from the community as to whether this satisfies WP:NMUSICIAN. Bradv 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this page to bring it more in line with wikipedia standards. I am not a regular contributor, but I did setup a lot of the Nosound discography and album pages. I am familiar with Giancarlo's work, but need time to read and understand why the page is up for deletion and what the requirements are to make it more valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougkost (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Trams Station


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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It was a tiny shop-sized "museum" in a shopping mall. For failing WP:GNG, on Apple Daily (this link), famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had an article half on the interview of the founder, and some routine and rephrasing on the founder's introduction on those tiny collections, which were routine coverage. Another article of the same newspaper, was an interview of the mother of the founder of the museum, yet with routine coverage on the museum.

Moreover, the current English version of the article looks like speedy G11 material.

While on Chinese version, this link (Oriental Daily) was about the tram, and one sentence routine coverage about the museum. While this link (Sing Tao Daily) was also one paragraph routine coverage about the museum and the rest were about the tram. Matthew_hk tc 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Trams_Station[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of independent sources have been added to the article to establish notability and squash this deletion proposal (finding ways to keep content is much more fun than making hasty proposals to delete content). It was a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, however, as I discovered that the museum closed less than a month ago. Jackdude101 talk cont 06:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Hong Kong 01 is a web newspaper, using it as a citation for routine fact is not a problem, but for establishing the most strict "reliable source" requirement, i am not sure . Also the two articles were interview of the founder and no support of private museums by the government respectively. And it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage Matthew_hk tc 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i would say almost every single Chinese cafe, noodle restaurant, etc. in Hong Kong, had news cutting on display in their shop front. They got even more attention when they are forced to close down due to not affordable rent by "Real Estate Hegemony" which fuels the tabloid journalism on how they found the shop. But end up they are all routine, trivial founding stories that looks the same, only differ in very specific detail. The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) was meant to be a bar for flooding such shops with routine coverage. Matthew_hk tc 10:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it is in fact notable is because it was NOT your average shop front; it was a small museum dedicated to the history of the Hong Kong Tramways. Also, the web newspaper links are interviews of the founder, but they are interviews regarding the museum specifically, and other aspects besides the closure are discussed. Of course, a web newspaper is indeed not as good as, say, a book on the topic, but this is not a featured article nomination; it's a discussion of whether the article meets the bare minimum criteria to not be deleted, and I feel that with the recent changes that you and I made, it passes. Jackdude101 talk cont 11:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All i could said interview did not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And from his mouth or his mum, the story of how he became a die hard fans and then founded a museum (or actually a for profit shop) is not notable. There is no independent review or article about his collection, or presumably not notable to have someone to write a serious review on it. Matthew_hk tc 22:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're repeating the same points, I'll repeat that it was a museum, as it had historical items on display, and almost every museum sells merchandise, so the related point you made is moot. It sounds like your grievances are related exclusively to the Mandarin language version of the article, because those sources you linked above are in the Mandarin version, but not the English version. The English one, however, has two independent articles (here: [41] and here: [42]) that talk about the museum at length. They are from the same publisher and present similar information, but having both is necessary because one mentions the September lease expiration date, but not the August closure date, and vice-versa. The presence of these third-party sources establishes notability, which makes the effort to have this article deleted dead-in-the-water. I should also bring up the following observation: through my interactions with people who seem to be from Hong Kong, or have some sort of real-life connection to it, they all seem to resent their own tourism industry, despite the fact that it's a major pillar of their economy. This translates into the absurd idea that any subjects here related to Hong Kong history and tourism should somehow be mutually exclusive. This is of course impossible, because there are many instances (such as this one) where those two areas overlap. My point is the nominator of this AfD appears to have a negative bias on the subject, and hence his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HK 01 was discredited as reliable source by newspaper of Hong Kong and it seem you have COI or personal tie to the museum and/or tram instead, which complete ignoring all the points of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a place of advisement of a tiny shop with a gimmick of museum. Matthew_hk tc 01:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a survey [43] of the "truthfulness" of media, interviewing 907 individuals, HK 01 was ranked 4.87 out of 10 scores. At least Apple Daily that famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had a score of 5.18 while Oriental Daily 5.59, Sing Tao 5.99 Matthew_hk tc 01:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have never set foot in Hong Kong and have no ties whatsoever to the museum. Even if I did have a tie to the museum, why would I be motivated to edit an article about it given that it's no longer in business? Perhaps it is you that has a COI or some sort of personal grudge against the museum or the organization that ran it. Also, the only place where I see HK01 mentioned in that link is in the comments, and not the article itself. That's yet another point of yours that has been shot down. Yes, the museum was small, and yes, it was in a shopping mall, but that's irrelevant because museums are allowed to be small and in shopping malls. Given that your arguments are centered on those aspects, they are weak at best, and definitely not enough to support this deletion. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restating deletion rationale: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), no non-interview, non-primary, secondary reliable source for the guideline. None of any provided source pass Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary.
HK01 is unreliable secondary source with more than half content is interview, which interview of the founder itself is not independent from the museum. Matthew_hk tc 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted that wp:notability link six times so far; your chances of getting what you want are not going to increase the more you post it. Also, the idea that HK01 is unreliable is not substantiated and is only your personal opinion. Regardless, at best the decision for this AfD is going to be no consensus if it's only going to be you and me bickering back and forth. So, I will ping a few other editors (@ASDFGH:, @Citobun:, @Davidng913:) so we can get this resolved. All of those editors made an edit to the Hong Kong Tramways article within the past year. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, HK01 scoring (4.x) in that survey, which less than almost all traditional paper media/newspaper (Ming Pao that reporting the survey by an independent org, School of Journalism and Communication of CUHK, had a score of 6.x), only better than Communist owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po (which had very very few circulation), as well as other media reporting that they made hoax political news coverage, it was still reliable? And it still dodge of the criteria "Significant, Independent" Matthew_hk tc 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements: "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization". None of the "non-routine" article coverage of the "museum" on newspaper was free of interview and free from alternative advertising. Matthew_hk tc 03:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. Everybody should be aware that sock-puppetry and conflict-of-interest is not germane to whether this place deserves a Wikipedia article or not. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just a supplement to his dodge to guideline, criteria and evidence. Matthew_hk tc 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's no dodging. I believe the HK01 sources are in fact valid. Furthermore, I would caution against domestic Chinese studies (within Hong Kong, as well) that grade Hong Kong news sites, given that the Chinese Communist Party tends to frown upon free speech, and such studies could have been done at their behest to discredit any organizations that have or could speak out against them. If you can supply a study created outside of Chinese-controlled territory that grades HK01, that would be more valuable. On a separate note, we haven't even discussed this other source in the English language article here: [44]. It's another interview of the museum's founder, but this one was done by HK Magazine, which at the time of its publication was a subsidiary of South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's newspaper of record. The museum is mentioned once at the top and at the bottom. That's not that much, but it's enough to confirm the museum's notability, and it's a little something extra to go along with the other sources. Jackdude101 talk cont 04:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The survey was carried by an independent depart of CUHK which in the past it had faced political pressure that the consequence was no one including head of CUHK can influence it at present. The survey may had bias due to sampling size (may be some people refuse to answer the survey, which this "refuse" may not be randomly distributed), but it was the most reliable survey in Hong Kong. For SCMP, all i could found that article is ANOTHER Interview which still fails the GNG and the specific companies and org guideline. Also, in my personal opinion, SCMP start to fail as this year promoting a nobody as the next Asian-American to be the next US President candidate. Since the acquisition by Alibaba Group in 2015, it seem a soft propaganda machine to me. Nevertheless, if you find any non-China politics article in SCMP, i would still consider them as reliable, as well as it still score 6.54 in that 2016 survey. But that article still did not fit the all four criteria Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary, which pass 2 to 3 criterion? Matthew_hk tc 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis (executive/activist)

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis (executive/activist)

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Barnitt

Patrick Barnitt (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 believe this person passes the notability criteria for inclusion. Most of his appearances in films are insignificant (failing WP:NACTOR) and as a singer he hasn't had a charting song or anything that would help satisfy the criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). There is also a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources discussing the subject. Flooded with them hundreds 14:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Herr Auto Group

West Herr Auto Group (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 questionable notability. Buffaboy talk 13:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrovector space

Gyrovector space (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)

Claimed as WP:OR in the lead. Mainly sourced by article authored or published by Ungar. Lack of secondary sources establishing notability. It appears from the long discussions in the talk page that this theory does not belong to the mainstream of mathematics and theoretical physics D.Lazard (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ungar and his associates have published massively on the subject and all independent sources seem to recognise his primacy in this field. It thus seems reasonable to me that Ungar is given a high profile in the article. SpinningSpark 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Path We Chose (band)

The Path We Chose (band) (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 notable band. Promotion written by a band member. No sign of any notabilty. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sourced to the like of imdb, press releases, youtube and primary. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Street. "BY PR Newswire" duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know – even if it had been a better source, there's still no in-depth coverage of the group... I was just saying that's literally the best source I could find, and it's still not an acceptable one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book in a Box

Book in a Box (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)

Cannot see how this book publisher can pass WP:NCORP. Founded in 2014, and employs 29 people. None of the cites amounts to much. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When we look a book publishers, we don't necessarily see them as corporations per WP:NCORP but have looked at the cultural impact of their work. /Julle (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response No we don't - notability isn't inherited. Each book published by a book publisher may have a cultural impact but that is down to the contents of each book, it is not attributable to the publisher. HighKing++ 18:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To say that a publisher would inherit notability from the books they publish, and that their work from a cultural aspect is irrelevant, is akin to saying that a writer is not notable because of notable books. A book is not something that comes in, gets clad in covers and walks out the door. A publisher forms and changes the books they publish. They decide on the norms of the cultural market. Much like a theatre troupe, which can also be a company, we have historically not judged merely for their financial success as corporations. This was, however, a side note; I have no opinion on whether it has any bearing on this publisher, which of course has to pass WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first glance this article appears to be sufficiently referenced but a closer look at each reference in the article reveals that not a single one meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most appear to rely on interviews/quotations with Tucker Max and are not intellectually independent and do not contain original and independent opinion or analysis. From WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Others I can locate such as podcasts or blogs are not regarded as reliable sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JT McCormick

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

Promotional article created by a now-blocked editor. Nothing in article or online seems to count towards WP:GNG. CEO of a company of doubtful notability founded in 2014 and employing 29 people. Edwardx (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Denson (innovator)

Chris Denson (innovator) (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 podcast he started Innovation Crush might be notable, but I'm not finding enough in the cited sources of online to meet WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-blocked user. Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camunda BPM

Camunda BPM (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 software. Google finds no discernible significant independent coverage by reliable sources for "camunda bpm" or camunda process. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you Google only "Camunda", how do you know how many of the hits are about the software at all, let alone independent reliable sources with significant coverage of it? And how could a source have significant coverage while never mentioning BPM or processes?Largoplazo (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Shapiro

Stephen Shapiro (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)

Looking at the cited sources and online, not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Neither of the books "24/7 Innovation" nor "Goal-Free Living" seem to have significant reviews. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nomination provides various rationales for deletion, also stating that the article is promotional, and the delete !vote following the nomination casually states that the subject fails "various" notability criteria, but doesn't state which ones or how so. The following keep !vote presents several sources that suggest WP:NAUTHOR may be met, but after two relistings, nobody else has offered any opinion about their veracity. Furthermore, the notion that the article is promotional was not concurred with by any other users. North America1000 02:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Kaputa

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC (no more than 39 cites on Google Scholar for any of her stuff). Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note that Rbworld528 has been blocked as a spam-only account. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Bundini

Rudy Bundini (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, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Scads of photo spreads can be found but they have led to no coverage in reliable sources of the subject of those photo spreads. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Regarding the two major claims made for him in the lead,

  1. I find no evidence that "Best Photo Model of the World" is a title conferred by anyone, this article being Google's only hit in a verbatim search for that phrase, "best photo model of the world". If it exists, it isn't noteworthy.
  2. The International Modeling and Talent Association (IMTA) does present a "Male Commercial Model of the Year" award, but that phrase gets under 50 Google hits, so the award itself isn't particularly noteworthy. In addition, per this and this, neither of the 2014 recipients of the respective LA and NY presentations of that award was Rudy Bundini. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Largoplazo, Rudy was using his birth name when he won the award. He changed his name when he finally reside in the US for personal purpose, I believe for some serious reasons. It could be life threatening situation. However, he wants to be recognized as Rudy Bundini now. I hope Wikipedia community can respect this that he will use Rudy Bundini name. Example, like The singer Pink, she might not use her real name for her stage name.
Could you please explain to me? Why is it winning the title best photo model of the world is not worthy? While people flew from all over the world to attend and compete. This is the the link, you can use the face recognition to see the title for the best photo model. I am creating this wikipedia page, it's not Rudy himself. I can put this on the references. However, someone removed my references that I have provided but I didn't have the chance to look at it yet. But I will create the references again. Here is the link when he won the title best photo model of the world and you can see Rudy was standing in the middle with the red title. http://www.bestmodeloftheworld.com/english/2013winners --Rbworld528 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBworld528[reply]
IMTA is prestigious competition. Many big celebrities were winning from IMTA. You can read from the following big names who won from IMTA. https://www.prweb.com/releases/imtamodelstalent/2014/prweb12061165.htm
IMTA is known in the industry for debuting the best new-to-market Talent and Models including Katie Holmes (IMTA 1993 & 1995), Ashton Kutcher (IMTA 1997), Eva Longoria (IMTA 1998), Ashley Greene (IMTA 2004), Aaron Paul (IMTA 1997), Elijah Wood (IMTA 1989), Riley Smith (IMTA 1997), Jessica Biel (IMTA 1994), Josh Duhamel (IMTA 1997), Rachel Boston (IMTA 1994), Cameron Ocasio (IMTA 2008), Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Model Jessica White (IMTA 1999), Vogue TV's Madeline Kragh (IMTA 2007), The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency's Brian Kehoe (IMTA 2001) and Elite's Heather Isaacson (IMTA 2008). For more IMTA Alumni, please see IMTA.com.
"Rudy Bundini was using his birth name when he won as a Male Commercial Model of the Year - IMD International, Medford, OR" https://www.pinterest.dk/pin/64246732159524385/
IMTA has an Instagram and it was giving the congratulation to Rudy. https://www.instagram.com/p/rIXfnrMGh2/?hl=en
I hope this explain your doubt about the titles that he won the competitions and he has large followers and big influences for many. So he deserves to have this wikipedia page for him --Rbworld528 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)rbworld[reply]
  • I don't know why you went through so much effort to demonstrate that IMTA is noteworthy. I didn't say it wasn't. I said I found no evidence that he'd won such an award from them, and I found evidence that he didn't.
Thousands of organizations host awards ceremonies that people attend and that give out awards with names like "Best X of the Year". Some of these ceremonies are nothing but vanity events that people pay to "compete" in and receive awards from. Others are genuine competitions but not well known. Just because I give an award called "Best Photo Model of the Year" doesn't mean that anyone has heard of this award or that it confers notability on every person I choose to give it to.
If Rudy Bundini changed his name because of a life-threatening situation, why are you outing him here? Are you trying to endanger him?
Anyway, I find no sources to cite stating that Misagh Daraei (the person identified in the Instagram pic) and Rudy Bundini are the same person. Without that, we can't say in the article that they're the same person, and we can't treat them as though they're the same person. If such a source can be provided, then the article would have to state explicitly that he was born Misagh Daraei and worked previously under that name. Largoplazo (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Largoplazo, I wanted to make the point that you said IMTA is noteworthy,but otherwise many big celebrities were came from IMTA competition. I created this page because of doing a lot of research too. For someone who won international model competition who might be for regular people who don't pay attention in Fashion Industry is nothing but for someone in Fashion Industry, this is a great achievement. Not many top male models to be recognized in this world, but they are exists. Many people saw their faces but don't know their name. Many people mostly know female top models but not top male models. They need to be recognized as well. I found it that you are so hard on Rudy. I don't only follow Rudy's career but also other top male models and also top female models. I don't understand either why you keep removing Rudy's profile on references, that's to show people that he is legit and exists. You can check wikipedia profile of another Top Male Models such as David Gandy, Fabio Mancini, Sean O'Pry and some others, They put their profile on their references and many other links as well. Why did you cherry pick Rudy? I hope you don't hate him personally and bias. Most of those top male models have similar page as Rudy. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBWorld528[reply]
May I please ask you question? Are you in the fashion Industry? For people in the fashion industry might know which one is worthy and which one is not. People in fashion industry might not recognize the competition for sciences or vice versa... can we judge each of competition?
What I know, Rudy had to travel the world for the competition, required a special visa and it's international competition and not local competition.--Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBworld528[reply]
Dear Largoplazo, You didn't give me a choice right, to show you the same face pictures that Rudy and the person who won is the same. You put his page to proposed for deletion. What choice do I have? I didn't mention name, you did. Sorry, I had to remove the name. I provided what he has done, his profiles on the model agencies, magazines etc but you keep removing them. What prove do you want? If you give me your personal information, I will try to connect you to Rudy. If other top male models can have their wikipedia page, why not Rudy? I made the list of his achievements and provide the links but you keep removing them. I hope you can give him a fair judgment and let's support top male models, which are not many in this world. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) RBworld528[reply]
I know some top male models as well, not just Rudy, I connect to them as well. I follow Fashion Industry. I created this page because of fairness and I believe top male models need to be recognized more and we need to support their existent. In the fashion industry or entertainment industry, many people/celebrities don't use their real name. I hope people in Wikipedia will understand this more. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Rbworld528[reply]
Determination of what topics may be included in Wikipedia is determined not by the fashion industry but by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the ones I reference in my deletion nomination. People aren't deemed notable because they've had to travel and obtain a visa. International doesn't automatically mean notable per Wikipedia's terminology.
The photo spreads prove that he has had work as a photography model. They are his work as a model. What WP:N requires is evidence that reliable sources that are independent of him (in other words, not the people who are paying him) have, possibly because of his work, found him worth commenting on in depth. Heidi Klum isn't judged notable just because lots of people have included her in photo spreads but because people have taken note of her, and her work, and have devoted vast coverage to her. I have a job, and I could show you everything I've created during my job for people who've paid me to do it, but I wouldn't warrant an article in Wikipedia unless people independent of me had seen my work, found it noteworthy, and given it, and me, substantial coverage.
I already explained everything that has to be said about his name. It isn't about whether it's his real name, it's about whether there is a shred of evidence that the person with the other name is the same person. We have plenty of evidence that Dwayne Johnson and The Rock are the same person, so the article on him reflects his experience under both names. Here we have two names and no evidence that they're the same people. If he's the person that received that one IMTA award, then maybe those who voice an opinion here will judge that to be sufficient evidence of notability. But we don't even have evidence of that right now, just your assertion that it's the same person.
I didn't do any cherry-picking. I came across the article while patrolling new articles and I saw that it looked like it didn't comply with the inclusion guidelines. I especially noticed it because of the user name you chose, which certainly made it look like you were associated with him, as though you could be part of his publicity organization. As for articles about other models, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Often when someone points out articles they think are comparable, either they aren't (because, for example, they actually have lots of independent reliable sources to back them up), or they are and the other articles are also subject to deletion for the same reason.
Wikipedia is neutral, and it is not a soapbox for achieving goals like getting more recognition for male models or anybody else. It isn't a vehicle for gaining attention, but for documenting that which has already received attention—that's what the notability guidelines are all about. Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence to support the assertion that he was an Olympic swimmer. In fact, I could find no WP:RS coverage at all. The Gay Times article is purely promotional.
Comment: I note that article creator has been WP:INDEFfed. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go2

Go2 (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)

Somewhat promotional article for a non-notable defunct company. All the sources in the article are dead links and have been for some time, and I can't find anything beyond passing mentions and coverage of unrelated companies with similar names. No plausible redirect or merge target since xAd, the company that absorbed it, itself isn't notable. Reyk YO! 11:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 06:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UltraMixer

UltraMixer (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. This was prodded before by User:Tutelary, prod was removed by creator (User:Slajar, standard WP:SPA likely empoyed or hired by the company related to this product) who expanded the article - but IMHO this still fails notabilty; refs are either primary sources or mentions in passing. No reliable, in-depth coverage of this software that I can see. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" agrees that the sources are bad, so... Sandstein 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StationRipper

AfDs for this article:
StationRipper (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. There are some mentions in passing, but I am not seeing any in-depth coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ward99 (talk)

The p2p articles did, as I recall, talk specifically about the app. The other two do in passing. Doing a quick search there seems to be a lot of sites talking about it and is included in a lot of articles about ripping internet radio. It's also the first google hit for record internet radio.

Agree that sources need to be updated. I don't have a lot of time to do this now - I worked on the article way back in the way (and still is a piece of software I use daily). I personally think it's well known enough to keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward99 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. The inclusion standard for software is not anybody's presumption about how well-known it is, or where it ranks in a Google search — the inclusion standard for software is being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But Slashdot and p2pnet are both blogs, not reliable sources for establishing the notability of anything, and StationRipper is just namechecked in, not the subject of, the only two references here that are reliable sources. When trying to establish notability, what we're looking for is dedicated coverage about the thing in media, not blog posts or its name getting mentioned in coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one !vote, not enough to determine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mills (businessman)

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ingmar Bergman#Marriages and children. Consensus is that notability guidelines are not met, but that does not preclude a redirect to her father. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Bergman

Lena Bergman (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 notable as an actress in her own right, just minor roles in her father's films. Notability is not inherited. --woodensuperman 10:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films". None of her roles are significant. --woodensuperman 07:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch

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

fails WP:GNG, promo. Based on passing mentions, plain listings, related websites and dead links. The Banner talk 10:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kochi

Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kochi (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)

As far as I can tell, this article is unverifiable original research, and the road itself doesn't appear to meet the road notability and general notability guidelines.

The road notability guideline indicates that notability generally exists in the case of major international, national, or regional highways. Though the claim that this is a "major road" is asserted within the article, I could not comfortably find enough information online to convince myself that this is the case for this road.

Regardless, both notability guidelines call for secondary coverage in case of doubt, and I could not find any significant reliable, secondary coverage mentioning a "Subhash Chandra Bose Road" in Kochi in order to verify the information presented in the article. EclipseDude (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or Flight (Supergirl)

Fight or Flight (Supergirl) (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)

Only four reviews mentioned, the fourth (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Faced

Red Faced (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better Angels (Supergirl)

Better Angels (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi Kailash29792, it would be nice if you explained why you believe TV Fanatic (TVF) does not meet WP:RS (does its "About us" page give concern?) as this appears to be a key point in your nomination of this, and another 12(?) afds (it may have been appropriate to raise your concerns about TVF on the article talkpage and WPTV project talkpage before coming to afd?), anyway, even if the TVF review is discounted, it still leaves two reviews that is enough for a standalone article? note: i am not going to add this comment to the other afds, editors may assume that it also applies to them. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, apart from sourcing, one reason I nominated this for deletion is because of its lack of comprehensiveness and scope, as wells as prominent focus on the plot only. Ditto for the other Supergirl episode AfDs. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad (Supergirl)

Myriad (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunter (Supergirl)

Manhunter (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falling (Supergirl)

Falling (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kailash29792, did you do a WP:BEFORE job before nominating this article for deletion? The current state of an article is not what matters when it comes to WP:Notability. This Supergirl episode is one of the more applauded episodes from the series. I would see about cleaning up the article and expanding it, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. I could always recreate the article if it's deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude (Supergirl)

Solitude (Supergirl) (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)

Only two reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, Justice and the American Way (Supergirl)

Truth, Justice and the American Way (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarro (Supergirl)

Bizarro (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Childish Things (Supergirl)

Childish Things (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Bonds

Blood Bonds (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Takeover (Supergirl)

Hostile Takeover (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 10:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human for a Day

Human for a Day (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Girl Who Has Everything (Supergirl)

For the Girl Who Has Everything (Supergirl) (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)

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Trade Watch (Australia)

Global Trade Watch (Australia) (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 working references. No longer exists. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linq3

Linq3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article for unimportant company. Claims a technical innovation, but it's actually pretty trivial, and there is no indication that it is unique. The references are either from its own site, or press releasers from local business journals--a notoriously undiscriminating type of source, or routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There reference which verify its existence, but they all fall well short of WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This company's technology is a big deal in the lottery industry, which is very large - lots of Americans play it. Completely turning the way that people play the lottery on their head w/ modernization is quite notable, in my opinion. There are plenty of these sources, too, in my opinion. (14 at last count - including Time Magazine, Georgia Business Daily, Progressive Grocer [industry trade publication], etc.). This article is encyclopedic because it should be noted who invented this transformative lottery technology. Thanks for considering my views. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Michael Powerhouse (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete. Utter corporate spam crap with gems like created the technology that allows people to and Five plays on the Lottery Cards cost ten dollars., totally fails WP:SPIP. References are the usual promotional churnalistic pieces or company announcements, totally fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor company with 48 employers "that creates new products that expand the way consumers access and play the lottery", notability is not evident and the article is promotional WP:ARTSPAM. Previously deleted on 2018-04-09 under G11. Sam Sailor 08:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement or promotion. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. JimRenge (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbelsonTaylor

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

Promotional article on a probably non notable advertising agency. The promotionalism consists of multiple quotes from the company's staff, excessively detailed listing of executives, a list of minor awards for specific advertisements, a celebration of the importance of one particular rather unimpressive ad. The references consist of the expected promotional press releases and announcements. This is essentially the same as what the company would write as an advertisement for itself. It tells what the company wants the readers to know-- and that is the definition of promotionalism . It would do well for their own web site--and thats a good indication of what should not be in WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTPROMO. I don't see any sources passing WP:CORPDEPTH either Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with DGG that the article is promotional, I started to neutralize it, but most of the content is referenced by either their corporate page or sources with questionable independence or reliability. Bloomberg's profile is a valid source, but not enough. My problem with the only claim of notability is that it's sourced by an article written by Illinois Business Daily, they have written a couple more articles on the firm including a non-notable award [64]. The tone of the article that supports the claim that the firm is the "world's largest independent full-service advertising agency that focuses exclusively on health & wellness" suggests that it might be a press release There are very few reliable sources that mention the subject but there is no in depth coverage. I could also find an article about an award written in the Chicago Tribune but again the award is not notable and no in depth coverage. In my opinion it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG so there is no point in trying to rewrite the article to remove the promotional material. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poorly sourced, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From WP:CORP, per WP:ORGIN, "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." The article currently has 19 sources ranging from Bloomberg, PharmaVOICE, Illinois Business Daily, and MM&M - Medical Marketing and Media. These outlets are unrelated to AbelsonTaylor. Secondly, the opening paragraph states clearly why it's notable: "largest independent health and wellness advertising agency in the world." Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC) - NEW COMMENT 9/20: I found an in-depth article about the company: http://www.medadnews-digital.com/medadnews/april_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1379162#articleId1379162 I will be using it in the article today w/ new edits. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Michael Powerhouse (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    See WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization...Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." Lots of sources are cited but they don't have any real depth. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add that the new alleged "in-depth article" is an interview with the CEO allowed where he is to unashamedly promote his ad agency. Totally fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utter spam crap with gems like AbelsonTaylor's colleagues have voted them the Most Creative Agency 11 times and the Most Admired 6 times, fails WP:SPIP. References are the usual promotional churnalistic pieces, totally fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Insurance company Limited

AfDs for this article:
Universal Insurance company Limited (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)

Directory listings and nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: If the company has 3000 employees, would that make it notable? BeŻet (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly consensus can change, but if you're renominating after 8 months, you'd do well to put some effort to rebutting the keep arguments of last AfD; and the businessrecorder source mentioned last time is reasonably significant, meeting WP:NCORP standards. That plus what appears to be another significant profile (though I cannot access it) and that the location of the company means that sources are often not going to very easily googleable pushes me to keep Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Business Recorder reference mentioned above has no journalist listed and appears to be a company profile generated from various reports and company announcements with no indications of intellectually independent analysis/opinion as is required. Also, two references are required from difference sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ask for Galobtter's source at RX
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 13:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. keep (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkerson

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

This is a vanity article with promotional links and mentions.. The specified person is one of many youtubers Unaccountably kept in July 2017; didn't really meet our standards then and certainly doesn't meet them now. . The sources are just mentions, or interviews where she says whatever she wants to. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a second, repetitive nomination by DGG, advancing the same tired 'reasons' as with his first AfD nomination (which resulted in Keep) -- that the subject is a YouTuber (not a reason for deletion), that this is a vanity article (more like DGG simply doesn't like it. YouTube is proving to be a powerful new medium, and Wilkerson is one of its stars, getting millions of views, and helping all kinds of do-it-yourselfers finish many projects (including myself -- I'm a handyman and her advice is sound and helpful). She's received plenty of coverage in traditional media which are reliable and in-depth, not mere mentions as DGG suggests, with coverage of her life and her projects such as in Popular Mechanics and also here with coverage here and even international coverage and also here in Australia and in Woodworkers Journal. Notable person who clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC) While pageviews is not an official reason for inclusion, I'd just like to point out that Wilkerson gets 81 pageviews per day, on average, over the past 90 days, and for me, it's a sign that people out there are interested in who she is and what she does, which is usually a strong sign that she belongs in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ultimately I find the delete opinions more convincing, particularly Chrissymad's analysis of the sources present in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elsinore (band)

AfDs for this article:
Elsinore (band) (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 was inexplicably kept in 2010 but I see no evidence it actually meets inclusion criteria. The most significant source was from the AV club but aside from that everything appears to be hyper local and they don't appear to have charted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NBAND. The AV Club link comes up as a 404, and there is no real information in the article past the lede. Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those arguments justifies deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my reason for nominating had nothing to do with the 404 as it was easily available via archived versions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rest, this is exactly why I nommed it - the huffpo piece is an interview in a blog, as are most of the rest or hyper local blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources listed above are clearly neither blogs nor 'hyper local'. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, Michig. This, aside from two sentences is an interview, this is a blog, blog, two sentences in a blog, announcement, hyper local show listing/interview, hyper local. And to be honest, as far as the Demig reviews go, I'm not convinced that the same person reviewing a band 5 times (Mark Demig) constitutes the multiple sources covering it required. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two of Mark Deming's reviews among the 14 sources listed, not five as you state. There are also two reviews from PopMatters and one from Exclaim!. As for the blogs, these are newspaper staff blogs, and are reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs by nature are not useful for establishing notability since they are not subject to the same editorial oversight. Also you're not addressing the fact that they are hyper local. Riverfront Times is local and not significant. As far as the reviews, All of the reviews and biogs on AllMusic are written by the same person and the two popmatters reviews are 3 sentences each. Pastemagazine is a blog. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Allmusic bio and reviews are significant coverage in a reliable source. The PopMatters reviews may be fairly brief but still valid. The Exclaim! review is significant coverage in a reliable source. Paste magazine is not a blog. If newspapers and magazines publish 'blog' posts by their staff on the newspaper/magazine website, we should assume that they are happy that they are of sufficient quality, i.e. they do have sufficient editorial oversight. All newspapers are local - if the coverage was all local to the band there might be an argument for not treating it as evidence of notability, but it isn't. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that Paste is not a magazine in and of itself but that particular piece is a blog as you can clearly see if you click the link. None of this amounts to the required in depth coverage. And a piece that is almost entirely aside from 2 sentences an interview is not independent coverage.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the amount of information about this band, it is unfortunate that this article has remained in the state that it's in since the first Deletion discussion 8 years ago. Michig, you seem to know a lot about this band, I invite you to incorporate the sources you found into the article so that this doesn't happen again. Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin half of those sources are problematic as they're blogs or typical local paper "this show is happening" announcements. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear, let's remember to WP:AGF here and watch how we interact with other users. Claims of "blackmail" are ridiculous. I was noting that this is a three-sentence article that has twice survived Deletion discussions. In that time none of the 14 sources that Michig was able to find have been added to this article to bolster its notability and create an article that would in any way meet WP:NMUSIC. My suggestion was that if so many sources are able to be found on this band (despite the fact that Chrissymad has suggested they would largely not meet WP:RS for notability), then the information in those sources should be added to the prose of the article. Unless of course the articles brought up have nothing of substance in them, and are merely passing mentions of the band and therefore would not meet the Wiki standards for notability. Both you and Michig are strong supporters of keeping this article, go ahead and improve it. Bkissin (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, how about _you_ remember to WP:AGF? You vote to delete and challenge others to improve. This is bad behavior. Deletion discussions are not to be based on "improve, or else...". Until you understand this, I really think that WP would be better served if you avoided deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, instead of nitpicking Michig's refs, howza about you use those cycles to engage in a bit moreWP:BEFORE before nominating? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear How about you stop with the personal attacks and ridiculous accusations? I did do before and I still agree with my nomination as well as my analysis of the sources. If you think my nomination was in bad faith, take it to ANI, otherwise chill out and stop attacking people for following guidelines and policy. Further, you're the only one asserting "or else" nonsense.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, I do not think that your nomination was made in bad faith. I don't think that I have been "attacking people for following guidelines and policy". You clearly disagree with me, but given the statements made, I think that "nonsense" is a little harsh. Oh, well. I will try to "chill out". Thank you for your feedback. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the quantity of sources listed above, it's the quality of the sources that matters. When making an argument for keep, you don't need to WP:REFBOMB the AFD. Just pick out two sources that are reliable, significant, and independent. Chrissy has done a good job of analyzing the sources listed above and showing that they're not up to par. If someone can show that there are at least two high quality sources instead of making everyone sift through a refbomb, that would help. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the refs identified above are sufficient for this to pass WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not seeing any high quality sources. All the sources appear to lack significant coverage, or are not from a reliable source (i.e. a blog etc). We need at least two sources that are significant, independent, AND reliable. Despite the ref-bomb above, this does not appear to be the case based on my perusal of them. I can't find anything better either, so have no choice but to !vote delete. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not going to apologise for actually bothering to conduct a search for coverage and presenting what I found here, and I would also remind other editors that WP:GNG is not the only route to establishing notability. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not asking you to apologise for doing a search, though I would have preferred a bit of sorting by quality. Whether Parasol Records qualifies as "one of the more important indie labels" is a bit debatable, but coverage in sources trumps any of the Subject Specific Notability Guidelines. While WP:NMUSIC states that topics that meet those criteria "may be notable", it does not create inherent notability, especially when we search and can't find adequate sourcing to meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I dug up some minor sources, and actually listened to Yes Yes Yes. You can stream Nothing for Design on Amazon if you're curious. They're OK. They seem to be a band that was always just on the edge of success but didn't quite make it. If their URL hadn't expired, this would be a full keep. They have more recent musical and video output, but not much written about it that I can find.[[80]] [[81]] The Nate & Margaret movie I red-linked to looks just notable enough if someone wants to add the article. [[82]] [[83]] [[84]] 78% on Rotten Tomatoes FWIW [[85]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nongnakham F.C.

Nongnakham F.C. (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)

Sources in the do not demonstrate notability via the GNG (see WP:NTEAM) and better sources could not be found. References are either not reliable, not significant, or not independent. I searched but could'nt find anything better. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Boson (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Pruitt

Jimmy Pruitt (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:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON, because of no national awards or regular season NFL game action.

The only news coverage cited here and found elsewhere is WP:ROUTINE for an under-the-radar college football player who got an NFL free agent contract, such as this feature article in the local newspaper during his college career, as well as news articles about signing, getting injured, and being released from the New Orleans Saints.

Two other AfDs of San Jose State football players De'Leon Eskridge and Chandler Jones concluded with similar results. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Frugoli

Tina Frugoli (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)

Recent article. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... But that seems like less of an argument and more of an innuendo: "This article hasn't been around long enough to have been thoroughly scrutinized, so let's begin with the assumption that it might be a good candidate for deletion, before we even begin looking at its sources." Shouldn't you begin by saying, "The sources in this article do not adequately convey the subject's notability" if that, in fact, is what you believe to be true? Arguing to the age of the article is like an ad hominem attack: it isn't actually relevant, though maybe it is just too tempting not to mention it. What if we had to stick to the article and its sources rather than its age or what color it is or how fast it can run? I am not saying the sources here convey notability, I am saying aren't they supposed to be the thing that matters? Or would you rather slip poison in my tea? A loose noose (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok , you found me out--I'm CIA. The article age comment is a code I use to signal my comrades in an undisclosed location. Seriously now, ad hominem ("against the man") attacks are not possible on ideas. That's just fallacious. You might be reading too much into it. For example new articles have AFC and the new articles feed for a reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Come on, it isn't that hard to find something on her, even if you don't think it is enough to qualify her as notable! A loose noose (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governors Cup Lagos Tennis

Governors Cup Lagos Tennis (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 meet an Tennis Guideline notability, nor does it meet NSport notability. The ITF Futures events are minor-minor league tennis. That's not a typo. The ATP Tour that we see on tv is the major leagues. Then the Challenger Tour is the minor league. By consensus, we have determined that the Challenger Tour, though a minor league, is notable enough for tournament inclusion. The minor-minor ITF tour is not. This is shown in our guidelines. There are over 600 mens low level ITF tournaments alone... another 500+ for the women. Tournament winners go home with as little as a $1000. When these ITF Futures players eventually graduate to playing in the minor leagues like the ATP Challengers or WTA 125ks, they still aren't notable... not unless they actually win the title. This article should be deleted and if in the future it becomes a notable Challenger event, it can be recreated, but not withe the minir-minor league ITF info. Even the sources say the hopeful inaugural tournament is still 18 months away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that GNG always trumps any Wiki-project, but does that GNG also cover the double winners of every year of this minor league tournament? I checked their website and they don't even find it notable to list past winners. They do mention a couple past winners if they happen to later make it to the ATP or WTA tour level. You can bet that if it ever does make it to a Challenger level event and they do start listing winners, that it will only be Challenger winners only. The futures winners will be dropped by the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most notable and top priority Nigerian events/tournaments/articles have difficulty maintaining an online record for themselves, I know this because I have been documenting alot of such on Wikipedia for years. It is an African thing, thank God that is changing now. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with an encyclopedia that prides itself on sourcing, that makes it tough to include those results here if they aren't notable enough even from the event itself. I don't know Nigerian so I can't really tell about GNG. Perhaps it is covered in the largest newspapers there which would give it a thumbs up on GNG. But I do know tennis, and on a tennis scale and Wikipedia Tennis Project scale it's not remotely notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm struggling to find coverage that isn't either WP:ROUTINE or just a passing mention, I don't belewve GNG is met but I'm going to wait a bit longer before !voting. Iffy★Chat -- 08:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Per Iffy, which sources do you believe are enough to qualify for significant press coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE?
In countries like the US, France, Australia, etc. where the top tennis players are opportuned to participate numerous grand slams and masters series, the challenge and future events might be of little value, so I can understand why the consensus among WP:TENNIS will be that articles on futures and challenge tournamnet shouldn't even be created. However, for African players, tennis is an important game amongst ourselves and it is a tournament such as this that provides the opportunity for top African players to play among themselves and against medium-level/emerging foreign players. Here are a few sources in highest level Nigerian newspapers, used as a reference point for top seed Nigerian women tennis player, Zimbabwean top players, medium of assesing Nigerian Tennis, interest from some popular tennis stars, ranked as one of the biggest in Africa, tournament for emerging players worldwide, this is a critique review, but such reviews only come when you are notable, Nigeria's biggest tourist atttraction, rated high by the government, spectators are paying to watch the games, Likened to an historical competition, etc. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One major correction. We do create tournaments for the minor league ATP Challenger events. Even though they are the minor leagues and aren't shown on tv or reported much in the news, we do create them. But Tennis Project has drawn the line at the minor-minor league tournaments such as the ITF Futures. If the Nigerian event "ever" makes it to the minor league Challenger tour, there are no issues at all with Tennis Project. But right now it one of more than a thousand other tiny events. If it passes GNG because of special circumstances, then that's fine. But that would be for GNG notability, not for Tennis Project notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator agrees it does not meet WP:NTENNIS. They are arguing for GNG. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that this is a big tourist attraction. The source that claims this doesn't cite any figures (e.g. attendance). Some of those other sources are WP:ROUTINE (just reporting that the event is happening and the results). Others are not WP:RELIABLE (Nadal is not coming to play at the tournament, even if it becomes a Challenger; 540 players are not going to compete in the event. It's more like ~32.). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just some clarification, My stance was that I understand why some editors will think it does not meet WP:TENNIS, that does not mean I agree with it, I can't totally agree to a discussion I wasn't part of. I was just trying to be diplomatic about my rationale, seeing things from all angle. And are you really calling Vanguard (Nigeria) an unreliable source?? Just because you don't like how they write their publications does not mean they are not rs. Be specific about which of the sources I posted are unreliable. The information above was from Vanguard (Nigeria), The_Guardian_(Nigeria), P.M._News, The_Nation_(Nigeria), Media Trust and The Eagle newspaper, so which of those sources are unreliable? Also, there is a long qualification process for many unseeded players before the first round of the main tournament. I have at least 2 references of different editions that show that more than 32 players usually participate. So it is incorrect to say that only approximately 32 players take part in it.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the Vanguard source: "The Governor’s Cup, an ITF sanctioned Future’s tournament, according to them, will now be upgraded to a Challenger Series event. And that, according to them will attract the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and the Williams sisters to Nigeria." That is not true. None of those players have played in a Challenger tournament in the past decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated comment: Infact I think the current system makes it impossible to have a modest universal representation of tennis players and tournaments, as only the very best of the best will be eligible to have articles on Wikipedia. I am aware the football WikiProject have a consensus that stipulates that as soon as a league is a professional league, then the league and its players are likely to be notable if sources are found. This ensures that even if the quality of football isn't so great, just by being a professional league, they may be good for WP. But I feel like the present system of tennis WikiProject will exclude alot of African players from WP (except South Africa). Nowonder there is currently no active Nigerian tennis player with a WP article, and I'm sure that is the same for many other African countries. If I was part of the RFC that led to the consensus, I would have had alot to say on it, so I would not say I totally agree that this tennis event article fails WP:NTENNIS.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are Nigerian tennis players that meet WP:NTENNIS if they have played matches as part of the Nigerian Davis Cup or Fed Cup teams. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related discussion on - Talk:Governors Cup Lagos Open. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm on the fence here with as this does not meet WP:NTENNIS because its a minor-minor tournament as people don't add these sort of articles in terms of notability, but then again this is successful under the WP:GNG. So I am going to wait until further talk on this discussion until I make my decision for now. Not Homura (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. Opinions are split. There is consensus to not keep the article, but not consensus to delete it. This is the compromise. Content may be merged from history per editorial discretion. Sandstein 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Raymar

Robert Raymar (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)

Unelected official (fails WP:NPOL), no significant coverage (fails WP:GNG), previously nominated for deletion in 2008 and closed as no consensus due to confusion. Failed judicial nominees typically aren't notable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated here hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but this is based entirely on primary sources that do not count as valid support for notability. If he could be shown to pass WP:GNG, then this would be a different matter — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' I find that nominees to the several circuit courts of appeals are always signficant, regardless of media coverage, because that such nominations tend to greatly reflect the policies of the President of the United States and of the United States Senate, considering that confirmation hearings are most usually conducted. Furthermore, proper coverage could possibly be found in the records of the United States Senate. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one may merely require better sourcing. (There is a weird thing where President Clinton nominates Raymar, then decides to give the judgeship to the sister of his pal Donald Trump, instead. politics is stranger than fiction.) Alternative merge target is Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Former deputy attorney general of New Jersey and was the subject of a major tussle of the upper house of a national legislature. Jarvishunt (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His roles as a state official and a failed federal judicial nomination where his nomination was never considered, all of which is covered with sources in the article, with additional coverage in books (see here), newspapers and magazines using the links provided here, all establish notability per WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theeb Alyami

Theeb Alyami (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:BLP1E, that event being this person's recent and tragic death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' It's a little weird to invoke BLP1E for an individual who is only known because of his unusual death. Nevertheless, there's no indication that he received the sort of in-depth coverage needed to build an article beyond the current couple of sentences and in particular, the current references contain basically no biographical info. Pichpich (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Per WP:NOTNEWS, we need to consider the "enduring notability of persons and events", and there is nothing to suggest that there is any inherent and lasting notability for the person concerned. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when an article is written with the date lacking a year it shouts "this is a news article, not encyclopedic". Though that problem could be fized easily, it is systematic that the article itself is not encyclopedic nor is its subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goria dance

Goria dance (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:BARE (has 1 source, which I already added to Goria Puja) and WP:NOTDICDEF (1.5 unbolstered sentences saying what it is, and ditto) seem to apply here. I was able to already fold the 1.5 sentences of this 5.5+ year-old article into the broader Goria Puja (also a stub but not quite as short). Thinking Delete since there isn't much substance for it to be a redirect etc. but I'm not hyper-opposed should doing that be seen as better TheTiksiBranch (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: A-D". Global Vision – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: R-Z". Global Vision – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Dutta, Subrata Kumar (1 January 2005). "Uprooted Reangs: Strangers in Their Motherland". Akansha Publishing House – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Singh, Kumar Suresh; India, Anthropological Survey of (25 September 1995). "People of India". Anthropological Survey of India – via Google Books.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Criss

Andrew Criss (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)

Straightforward GNG fail. I found one source in a search, published in the "Chestnut Hill Local" news. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Dubreuiel

Bryan Dubreuiel (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)

GNG fail. No RS found in search. Tagged for notability since 2010. (I am very curious also to know what the "amplification" section means.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Levin (artist)

Dana Levin (artist) (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)

First of all there is a Dana Levin (poet) who generates lots of results in a search for sources. This Dana Levin does not seem to meet NARTIST. The sources are so poor that I am not sure if she meets GNG either. Items like the "Interview with Artist/Teacher Dana Levin" by Art Renewal Center are not RS as it is an interview and it is about a scholarship they gave her. Most other sources given are exhibition blurbs (not independent) or passing mentions. I could not find enough in a search to establish notability, although I could be wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Linkrot is not a reason for deletion. I have added the archive URLs for the pages that could not be found, except one, that I marked as a dead link. Please review the sources. Tweaking a search to exclude the poet and require painter yields some results for me; https://fineartconnoisseur.com/2015/12/hidden-behind-reality/ for example. --Vexations (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That finaeartconnoisseur article is made up of single sentences about the artist, followed by long quotes of the artists. It is pretty close to an interview. I'm pretty sure it's paid promotion, as it ends with an explicit suggestion to visit danalevin.com, the sister site in the masthead is artmarketing.com, and the advertise with us page of the FAC site says they will assist with not just ads, but "tactical placements". So, it's not RS. Vexations you are usually spot on, bang on and exactly right, but I think not in this case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet decided whether I think the sources can sustain an article. I am very suspicious of the wacky Art Renewal Center and their promotional efforts, and I dislike abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes more than just about anyone. But I am a firm proponent of considering the sources (carefully). We should not delete an article because it has dead links and we should not casually dismiss the subject as "yields no results in a google search" when that is demonstrably not true. That the source I found in about ten seconds is not great may be true (although it appears to have the kind of editorial oversight we require from RSes), but it does proves that sources can be found. This is just due diligence, per WP:BEFORE. In stead of googling for Dana Levin without quotes, try "Dana Levin" ~artist -poet, for example. --Vexations (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am aware of BEFORE and how to do a boolean search in Google. I did my due diligence, and as I point out in the nom, I searched not for the poet but for the artist with a search very similar to what you suggest. Where did you see me say "yields no results in a google search"? What I said is " I could not find enough in a search to establish notability," which I believe is still the case. The coverage is minor. Pinging @Theredproject: for his thoughts using private art school exhibitions like the Florence Academy as sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all at the top of this thread. --Vexations (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fence Cutter (Band)

Fence Cutter (Band) (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 clear indication of notability; fails WP:NBAND. I'm not finding any non-self published reliable sources. Aspening (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publication - The band Fence Cutter is a regional band with significant popularity within the hardcore seen of the Central and Northeast Coast of the United States. This popularity can not presently be measured by past based metrics of units sold or radio play or seats sold at large venues. All these metrics are becoming obsolete due to social media’s just-in-time distribution of music and the rise of distributed small venues. Please except this article in lieu of the of present forces in the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholumbenruvin (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable band lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are facebook page and bandcamp. reddogsix (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band Fence Cutter is a regional band with significant popularity within the hardcore seen of the Central and Northeast Coast of the United States. This popularity can not presently be measured by past based metrics of units sold or radio play or seats sold at large venues. All these metrics are becoming obsolete due to social media’s just-in-time distribution of music and the rise of distributed small venues. Please except this article in lieu of the of present forces in the music industry. Sholumbenruvin (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Systems theory. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence

Interdependence (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)
Interconnectivity (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 essay full of woolly original research by way of synthesis. (I noticed this during this old AfD and then forgot about it.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Interdependence to Systems theory, where it is dicussed as a core concept of systems. This is a concept that has applications in many fields. Forming a WP:DABCONCEPT article could be one approach to handling this with a minimum of synthesis. Until that is created, (with appropriate sources), systems theory is already a fairly reasonable broad concept article that has discusses interdependence as a core feature of all systems and has a proper summary-style approach to most of the kinds of systems discussed in the interdependence article. Until a proper article can be re-created, I think the redirect would be the most helpful approach for readers trying to understand such a broad concept as interdependence. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein: Interdependence and Interconnectivity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I remember the "interconnectedness" AfD, which I described at the time as unscientific woo-woo. This essay is full of similar woo-woo and original research, plus a lot of vacuous management jargon. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not pacify shareholders with verbose platitudes. This is a hopeless case. Reyk YO! 09:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD 38801 b

HD 38801 b (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 exists, next please. Nothing notable that I can see. Habitable zone? Something, but not so very rare. No popular coverage outside of the standard databases. The only specific technical publication is the discovery paper, although a handful of other journals mention it as one of many objects in lists. Therefore, fails WP:NASTCRIT. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A Response To Lithopsian and a general message for other users who come to this discussion: "It exists, next please"? No need to take an antagonistic approach to begin your input. "Habitable zone?", I can understand you questioning this, but at the same time, it is never once claimed in the article that the planet being located within the habitable zone of it's system makes it more noteworthy. As for everything else you said, I respond to that as follows... If HD 38801 b doesn't meet the requirements for existing as a stand alone article than how come this, this, this, this and all the other short, small articles about astronomical objects that one could pick at random do? Failing to meet WP:NASTCRIT in one way or another isn't exclusive to the article in question. And of course if they don't meet the criteria then why not nominate them for deletion as well. If it is not clear what I am trying to illustrate, it's this, HD 38801 b is an article in an uncountable sea of short 1 to 2 paragraph articles about obscure astronomical objects that one would most likely only come across via a list, and that don't meet WP:NASTCRIT. By saying that HD 38801 b should be deleted, you in a way create a divergence of conclusions / consensuses that one should come to: This first of which being that if this article for the reasons you stated is problematic then delete it, along with all others like it (as i pointed out) and rid the site of hundreds of articles that were fine prior to the existence of the one I have recently introduced ; Or Keep the article and the others like it, and change the guideline (If of course there isn't a WP:MASSCREATION decision that supersedes WP:NASTCRIT about certain objects like these anyway, but I'm not sure). I know that This is a difficult decision to come to a conclusion for, but understand that more is being discussed here, that more is at stake, and that WP guidelines can be changed and are/should be set only in accordance with the community's wishes (WP:PG), which in this case don't seem to conflict with what I'm advocating for / proposing. WP:NASTCRIT seems to have been ignored by everyone who has made or contributed to an article on an obscure astronomical object, and yet the website has fared well, so changing it shouldn't do any harm. This is all just my opinion though and I would greatly appreciate it if as many users as possible gave their input in this discussion.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't take this personally. It is well-documented but often forgotten that WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. WP:WAX explains that the existence of other non-notable (in a particular editor's opinion) articles does not justify keeping this non-notable article. WP:NASTCRIT (and the whole of WP:NASTRO) has been extensively discussed and occasionally revised; it gives specific criteria for which of the billions of documented astronomical objects are considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so explaining why this article meets those criteria is a good way to have it kept but complaining about the policy or its application to other articles isn't. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue, now having looked at WP:NASTCRIT again, and doing more research, that HD 38801 b meets criteria 3: "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone. http://exoplorer.org/en/exoplanets/hd-38801-b. The 1st of these 2 new sources seemed like it might have allowed this object to meet criteria 3. There's also the information that Graeme Bartlett mentioned which I think may have been overlooked. Basically, I think there is evidence for this object being notable. Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was not aware this source was out there, this refutes the claim that this topic doesn't meet WP:NASTCRIT by the way. Thank you.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery paper doesn't really count for notability since it's not independent coverage. The secondary mention in the first review is pretty minor though HD 38801 b’s low eccentricity, the authors note, is of special interest since it cannot be explained by tidal interaction with its host star since the latter’s radius of 2.5 R⊙ is too small to effectively circularize the planet’s intermediate orbit. I'm not sure if that really fulfills GNG or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that there's no question weather this meets WP:GNG, I think it does due to the fact that it is mentioned so much and there seems to be significant coverage on it, the greater controversy lies where we argue whether HD 38801 b meets WP:NASTCRIT which is like a more specific WP:GNG, but for astronomical objects. (I would also argue that it meets WP:NASTCRIT)Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything presented here that would satisfy NASTCRIT nor that it is mentioned a lot since pretty much everything is WP:INDISCRIMINATE mention if anything. The strongest thing is very brief mention in a secondary source, but I'd say that's really satisfying WP:DUE for inclusion in a different article rather than satisfying any kind of notability unless that piece of information is expanded by another source in terms of importance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that is does meet WP:NASTCRIT (specifically criterion 3) per my last response to Lithopsian. I argue for this because the 1st source i provide (http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone.) is an article that mentions a number of exoplanets within the habitable zone (Including HD 38801 b). This source may not seem like a whole lot, but it does however establish that HD 38801 b would then be apart of a small, exclusive group of exoplanets that appear to, and do in fact merit notability and extra attention both outside and inside of Wikipedia. We even have a list of potentially habitable exoplanets (that does need expansion) that this and other planets could be added to.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, this are yet again WP:DUE arguments, but not making a case for notability. For NASTCRIT, we do not have the in-depth coverage needed by multiple independent sources. Pretty much the only thing we have is the review very briefly mentioning eccentricity. That alone isn't enough for notability. Had the review gone in to more depth beyond passing mention maybe, but it's not very convincing when that is the sole strong source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but per SpinningSpark this planet's low eccentricity values provide notability. (He also gave a new source to my knowledge)Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same source Graeme Bartlett brought up in this thread that we've been discussing already (i.e., zero eccentricity), so it's not new. It's also pretty weak in terms of WP:SCIRS too. A single primary research article carries different weight depending on topic, but it's generally pretty low-tier compared to reviews, books, etc. That's not enough to establish notability, and we haven't really been left with anything else that begins to approach notability in this AfD to-date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TriPoint Global Equities

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRITE, which is stricter than WP:GNG. The Forbes, CrowdFund Insider and Reuters sources do not provide in-depth coverage. The CabotWealth, Fatburger, and SeekingAlpha sources are insufficiently independent, and the Benzinga coverage appears to be a textbook case of a company-sponsored article in a secondary source as covered at WP:ORGCRITE due to the article's reliance on direct quotes from the company's promotional material. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. A prior version of the article (which is referenced) has been restored. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology & Education (NIPTE)

National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology & Education (NIPTE) (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)

All useful content and references have been removed from the article Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Everybody agrees except for a wall-of-texting, likely WP:COI, WP:SPA. Sandstein 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMandarin

EasyMandarin (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 appears to be an unremarkable language school and the article makes no claims to notability. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do.

While fixable, the content appears to me to be promotional, e.g. by listing the days and times of classes. Both references provided are dead links. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have reverted by edits. So I have tagged this as advertising, to deal with verbiage like "Classes meet two weekday evenings from 7pm to 9pm at the Jing'an Temple campus. New courses start monthly" and "EasyMandarin is located at 172 Yuyuan Road, Suite 1501 (near Wanhangdu Road) in Shanghai, China. The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote for now given that citations have been provided independent sources Language magazine, The Beijinger and Time Out Shanghai. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reference to top publication (Time Out Magazine) praising the school has been added (to show notability) and dead links have been removed. Dead links updated using Wayback Machine archive. This article has been included since 2010 and when the article was created the debate already took place whether it is a school or a organization. Wikipedia administrators have already agreed that it is a school and thus allowed publication. Removed advertising verbiage as noted by editor, AngusWOOF. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Thank you for your feedback. I have since edited the page based on your feedback. I only left the part "The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7" since this is a local landmark and is related and relevant to this article, and I do not believe it is advertising verbiage. I hope you will reconsider and help remove this pages "marked for deletion" status. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parkertony Can you find another publication that discusses the school? Time Out can be one, but really need another for the multiple sources in order for it to meet WP:GNG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Yes, there are several others. This link is for The Beijinger (a very popular online publication) talking about the school - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-tests. Will find more and add to the page in the upcoming days. Unfortunately the Wikipedia page was not updated in a long time and the previous reference links were dead - thank you for pointing that out. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" template from the page? Thank you:)Parkertony (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks like a brochure though with the course titles being bolded. Did you see the version I rewrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=859372215&oldid=859371709 That would have satisfied the advertising tone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You will need an article that has significant coverage like this one for Victoria Shanghai Academy from South China Morning Post [89] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Beijinger is a Listings magazine so not sure how reliable it is for being independent of the advertisers they list. Could someone look up the article and check whether it has significant coverage on the school? Links are timing out for me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Links now work. Striking previous comment. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also potential confusion with Easy Mandarin UK in Belgravia [90] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF I re-implemented your edit as you requested and agree that it removes the advertising tone and looks less brochure like. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" banner if okay with you? Thank you. I'll fix the dead link soon with Wayback Machine. Parkertony (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more notable references for the page after the weekend in the upcoming days. I will also re-publish some of the dead reference links that I found on Wayback Machine. Could someone please advise on best practices using Wayback Machine archived reference links? Parkertony (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Parkertony (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parkertony For the wayback ones, you can post the bare links here and in the article, and we can convert them to the archive citation format later. Right now you need to provide more RS citations to keep the article around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOFAdded back dead link reference to comprehensive interview with school founder by radio86.com (radio86.com was acquired by https://gbtimes.com/). This is significant school coverage; however, it is in the Danish language (audio is in English). Could you please help convert for archive citation format? Thank you. Dead link is http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai , Wayback archive with interview audio can be found with the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120313001140/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai.Parkertony (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added StudyTravel Magazine reference. It loads as a Microsoft Azure PDF. Not sure how to cite properly, but would look like this: Hancox, Nicola (January 2018). "China" (PDF) StudyTravel Magazine p. 50-51 Retrieved 17 September 2018. Parkertony (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the citations, yes, that's close enough. Curb Safe Charmer do you have any concerns on the magazine sources added? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF It appears that Curb_Safe_Charmer is on holiday as written on his user page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer. Would you consider a "keep" vote in order to reach a consensus? Or, if other editors are interested, please chime in. When Curb_Safe_Charmer added this AfD he said it was "fixable", and I do believe his issues were addressed - removed promotional verbiage, currently appears to meet WP:GNG by restoring dead link citations and adding 3 new citations. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frayae Could you please provide examples of why you would tag this as G11? What is not written in the neutral tone? WP:G11 states that it is better to replace content with text written from a neutral point of view than to delete the article. Why are you not convinced of notability? It has 5 references, including industry magazines and one from a well-known publisher, Time Out Magazine.Parkertony (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article including the title is advertorial. If you replace the entire article then I may reconsider. Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD section is meant for discussion purposes so editors can come to a consensus conclusion about whether or not to delete an article. Details do matter here and it would really be beneficial to editors and administrators if you can expand on your view that the article is not written in a neutral tone. Could you please provide some examples? Additionally, how do you conclude that the title, the actual name of the school, is advertorial? Requesting to replace the entire article is not constructive. Could other editors please provide input? Parkertony (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely accurate. Your replacement article is at User:Frayae/sandbox/Easy Mandarin Chinese School. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant difference in your replacement article appears to be the removal of the "overview" and "location/transportion" sections. Do you believe these sections are not written in a neutral tone? Please advise. I think the article would be better to keep those sections in order to provide readers with relevant content related to the organization. Perhaps we can work together to improve the original article rather than gutting it entirely. Appreciate your help and thank you for your input. Parkertony (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The location is noteworthy because Jingan Temple is a landmark.Parkertony (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frayae I have an idea. Would you be okay keeping the original article if, instead of replacing with a new article called "Easy Mandarin Chinese School", we replace the original article content mentions of EasyMandarin Chinese School with just "EasyMandarin". We would take off the words "Chinese School" from the name for consistency with the title like the replacement article you prepared. The first line would read "EasyMandarin (simplified Chinese: 易在汉语; pinyin: Yì zài hànyǔ), also known as "Easy Mandarin", is a language school located in Shanghai, China." If I make this change and include all of your changes to the wording in the first section, would you be more comfortable with it? I want to run this by you before I make the edits. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frayae Me again. Would really appreciate if you can help salvage the article. I submitted this article as a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program, and I made every effort to abide by the rules of Wikipedia - particularly to keep the neutral tone and not be promotional. I really don't want to see my one contribution to Wikipedia get deleted. Other editors have already made what I believe to be significant changes to the article in order to meet WP:NCORP. If you see any other changes or deletions that could help, would you please edit the article directly? Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Parkertony: Unfortunately the subject does not meet WP:NCORP, the only way to improve this is to add more reliable in-depth sources. The draft I created was simply an example on how to deal with the promotional content and in no way helps salvage the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frayae I see that you recently edited the article Hutong_School which I believe is a very similar subject with very similar references. If EasyMandarin article provides company history and more content (partners, etc) taken directly from the subject's own website just like the Hutong_School article, would you find that more acceptable? Really appreciate your feedback. Thank youParkertony (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would not help. The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - fails WP:NCORP. The article largely relies on reviews from Time Out Shanghai and The Beijinger. However, reviews in local newspapers do not constitute in-depth coverage. Many restaurants and other businesses are reviewed in major newspapers (just read the local sections of the New York Times or Washington Post), but that does not make them notable. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe The Beijinger reference is not a review. It is a reference to the school's online language proficiency tests. The article has 5 references. The two that you mentioned are more well-known, while the others are industry magazines as well as a news organization that covers China - GBTimes. Coverage is also fairly significant in the following reference http://web.archive.org/web/20110814181711/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai Parkertony (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Hutong_School. This article has similar content and references.Parkertony (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe Again, The Beijinger reference is not a "review" as you wrote above. Have you actually viewed the references for this article? Kindly asking for you to provide more relevant and preferably actionable information so we can fix the article. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See The Beijinger reference here - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-testsParkertony (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Beijinger reference is basically a review of its website service. -Zanhe (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ZanheThat is one way to look at it. In any case, reviews from mainstream local media establishes notability. Do you not agree?
"In-depth" coverage can be found in the industry magazine references provided. Did you look at the other references in this article?
Do you have any suggestions on fixing the article?Parkertony (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Desmay What aspect of the article do you believe appears to fail WP:NCORP? Could you please provide examples? The article has been edited quite a bit since the proposal for deletion, and several edits were specifically made to address the issues raised regarding NCORP.
Did you look at the article Hutong_School? This active article has similar content and references. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDITORS PLEASE READ: After editor Frayae voted to delete the article in this AfD (please see above), she later edited a similar organization -Hutong School. I then asked her if she would be satisfied if this article would be edited to a similar tone and content as that article (which mainly references it's own website) and her reply was “The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable”. I then wondered why she would not tag an “unacceptable” article for AfD when she is a very active editor on Wikipedia (with hundreds of edits per day). This made me think what is going on here - why is the article in this AfD being singled out? I decided to do more research. Upon further investigating, there is a case to be made that the article EasyMandarin is written similar to (or better than) nearly ALL private schools and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia with regards to WP:NCORP. In my estimations, I would say around 80% to 90% of the articles on private and (small) public schools are written in a less acceptable way than the article being discussed in this AfD. Please see for yourself – you can find most schools listed by year in “Category:Educational institutions established in 20XX”.

Please see (random selection of 30 articles):
Cairo English School
Fuzhou Sanmu Middle School
Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute
Nord Anglia Chinese International School
American International School of Guangzhou
AMC Dental College
Caritas Academy
Frida High School
Skylace
Draft:Silk Mandarin
Abbotsford Virtual School
Xiwai International School
American Sports University
The SMIC Private School
Hallmark World School
Yew Wah School of Shanghai
Daystar Academy
Petchey Academy
J.P. World School
Mountain View Academy
Pritzker College Prep
Seongnam Foreign Language High school
Tula’s Institute
Leopold Mozart Centre
Acropolis Technical Campus
Gary Comer College Prep
Accrington Academy
A. P. Møller School
Ark Academy
Affinity Business School

While the article for EasyMandarin has what I believe to be some reliable third party references with significant coverage and there is an argument to be made (that I personally believe) for WP:GNG, nearly all of the schools in this list make no claim for notability and most only reference their own website (no 3rd party references). It seems like editors are being a little strict with the article being discussed in this AfD. I hope some editors will be fair and reconsider their vote or other, more lenient editors will chime in. Parkertony (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is history to this, I haven't read all the related history but look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which suggests that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the correct guideline. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those schools are notable but have poor sources, tag them for {{refimprove}} and {{primary sources}}. If you're unsure about their notability, tag them for {{notability}}. You could also bring up a cleanup request at WP:SCHOOLS. Use AFD only for the cases where there's no hope to establish notability after exhaustive searches. But they don't need to be discussed in this thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Frayae -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance states:
In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.
My argument to keep the article in this AfD is not that it should get a free pass, but rather that in comparison to the large majority (I believe to be around 80-90%) of private and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia, this article is more acceptable with regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. Notability is subjective and I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school.
After the article was tagged AfD, editors reestablished the two dead reference links and 3 new additional references to reliable secondary sources were added. Some of these sources are industry specific publications (i.e. Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine) that editors may not be familiar with, but are well-known in the industry. On top of the fixed and new references, the article was edited to remove and clean up promotional verbiage and maintain a neutral tone. Please see link to comparison showing difference between article prior to AFD tag and article in current current state with post AFD edits addressing editors concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023Parkertony (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not first tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to allow for time to fix issues. It went strait to AfD.Parkertony (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you concerned about regarding the "new editors" commenting above? Why not try to address those concerns? I thought that this section was meant to be a discussion forum, but it feels more like a bully section and is clearly a case of Groupthink. The easiest thing to do here is for an editor to skim the first line of the nomination, skim the article, and simply write "delete, per nom". This requires no thought whatsoever and provides no constructive feedback. Did you know that the article has had a makeover since the article was nominated including bringing back the dead links that were an issue per nom. Again, here is a link showing before and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023 The commentary above raises important, relevant issues that directly impact whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia. In order for Wikipedia to be consistent, editors should compare apples to apples. This article is a private school, so wouldn't it make sense to take a look at a sample of other private school articles on Wikipedia? My argument is that this article is more acceptable than most private school articles and therefore should not be deleted. Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OSE point to Wikipedia article consistency being an important factor on deciding whether or not articles should be included in Wikipedia. Take a look at at this article for example, Western International School of Shanghai. It has zero references and was mostly edited by a user named "Wissmarketing". This article was not marked AFD and has been active since 2008. This article is not an outlier at all, neither are the 30 schools that I listed above. 90% of private school articles have a less acceptable level of acceptance on Wikipedia as the article in this AFD. If this article gets deleted, then there is a solid case to delete hundreds if not thousands of other private school articles on Wikipedia. I am sorry if I am being repetitive and lengthy, but it seems like my commentary is being completely ignored or misunderstood by editors. Parkertony (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. the issue is simply that editors have limited time to delete articles. There may be hundreds or thousands of bad articles, but their existance can't be used to argue that they should all be kept. You linked to WP:OSE, but have you yet read WP:ININ? For more detail you can also look at Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FrayaeThe argument is not to keep the article in this AFD because it is similar to thousands of bad articles that exist on Wikipedia. I don't think any Wikipedia editor would try to make such a ridiculous argument. My first and foremost argument is that I believe the subject of the article is notable and that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. My second argument which brings into account the guideline WP:OSE is that compared to an entire category of articles written on Wikipedia, private schools, this article is more acceptable. Since the article is about a private school, it would make sense to look at other private schools on Wikipedia. Appreciate you taking the time to provide your input and analysis for this AFD discussion as I believe this is how AFD is meant to work. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: In their reply to the article, Parkertony (the article's creator and only main contributor) wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." I thought the nomination was perfectly clear, but as the nominator I will reiterate that the article makes no claims to notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses. It is an encyclopedia. Why does an article about this school belong in an encyclopedia? I see nothing in the article's content to justify its inclusion. It appears to me to be a business listing. As for the newly added references, we should all look at them one by one and narrow down which, if any, meet the criteria described in WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: In their comment above, Curb Safe Charmer (the nominator of this AFD) opens with a note about me claiming I am "the article's creator and only contributor". This article had 38 editors contribute to it according to the statistics https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/EasyMandarin. I am not sure why the editor thought this was relevant to note, but yes, I created this article for a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program. I am defending this article not only because I created it, but because I believe it is a notable school with proper references and written in a neutral tone according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a history of accepting Private_schools such as the one in this article, and currently continues to do so. There is an argument to be made that both private and public schools are run as businesses, and there are thousands and thousands of school articles included in Wikipedia. The reason that I wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." was because the editor that tagged this AFD for discussion went on holiday (accordging to their talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer) after tagging AFD, and was not participating in the discussion that the editor created. The article in this AFD was not given an opportunity to fix the dead links and other article issues raised. Rather than being tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to fix, it was immediately tagged WP:AFD which automatically adds a bias and paints a negative picture of the article for editors viewing and evaluating for the first time. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT:Regarding notability. I believe that the school being selected and written about in Time Out (magazine) article "The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai", being written about in industry magazines (Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine), and the founder being interviewed and school written about in a China news site (GB Times) meets notability guidelines. Of course, some editors may not find that these items make it notable. As mentioned above, I think it is a good idea for editors to also look at the level of notability that was and is acceptable of other private school articles on Wikipedia as a reference to maintain consistency in the encyclopedia per WP:OSE. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: As this AfD is focussed on the strength or otherwise of the references, here's my assessment of those:
Analysis of references
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
radio86.com: Learn Chinese in Shanghai Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an interview with the founder
studytravel magazine Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN A single sentence attributed to the school's founder
Timeout - The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai Red XN ? Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Just a paragraph providing the writer's opinion on the school, the classes on offer and prices. Not in depth coverage.
languagemagazine.com: So you want to learn Chinese Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Appears to be advertorial, probably paid promotion
thebeijinger.com blog: See How Your Mandarin Measures Up With These 5 Digital Proficiency Tests Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A link to an online test on the company website


Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer Why do you believe the Timeout reference is not significant? The Timeout article talks about the school location, school trips, classes offered, and prices. What more do you expect a secondary source to write about a school? Same goes for The Beijinger reference - the reference includes a full paragraph dedicated to the school describing, in detail, the school's online language proficiency test as well providing a link to them. Please keep in mind that this article is about a school and look at the precedent that has already been set on Wikipedia regarding schools in your evaluation. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown–Penn football rivalry

Brown–Penn 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)

One in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").

Non-GNG callouts:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems to have a rich history and I'm confident that the sourcing is a surmountable problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paulmcdonald: Could you please post your new GNG-sufficient citations? I'm happy to add them to the article on your behalf and switch to Keep, if sufficient. Right now the article's nominal topic is entirely unsourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's one found through the Wayback Machine. Most of the games occurred before the internet existed, so offline sources would require research. I have no problem assuming good faith that they can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not a rivalry citation -presumably everyone is already in agreement that the series and game results have occurred (also true for almost any two teams from similar locations and/or leagues). The nytimes.com and newspapers.com courtesy links (above) also don't seem to return GNG coverage of a rivalry. So I presume we are in agreement that no GNG-sufficient citations have been identified to date. No intent here to badger you, only trying to reiterate that we have no supporting citations for the article's nominal topic. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, and a quick before search for the rivalry brought up just this Wikipedia article and a brief blurb from 1935 in which "rivalry" was used simply to colour the article. Not actually a rivalry. SportingFlyer talk 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal due to concerns being addressed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Maestro

AfDs for this article:
Keyboard Maestro (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)

Seems to be promotional due to it relying on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG due to the primary sources appearing to be too close to the subject, and thus being potentially unreliable. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have no idea of your processes. I don't see what has changed from the previous AfD - the sources remain, and presumably there are others. If someone wishes to edit the article and increase reliance on those sources, by all means do that. It seems counter productive for me to do that as that would remain as a primary source, and similarly counter productive to delete the article before doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNLewis (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the previous nominator I accept that the references found in the last AfD, just over a year ago, are still valid. The current state of the article is no reason to delete the article, but are a reason to have the nominator rewrite the article based on those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal as concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rovčanin

Rovčanin (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)

Set index article with no actual pages listed besides the region the name comes from. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Besides the link to the region, I added links to articles about three notable people with this surname. It was quite easy to find them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The list added by Antidiskriminator makes the rationale for deletion moot. In any case, I would challenge the notion that the article is set index page. Its subject is a surname, not a list of surnames. A surname can be notable regardless of whether or not notable people with that surname have Wikipedia articles. SpinningSpark 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JustUsBoys

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable adult website. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:WEB. Awards are not significant / well known. Created by Special:Contributions/Brycethomason with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Heinrich Hass

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER; for Navy personnel, SOLDIER requires a command of a capital ship, not submarines. Significant RS coverage not found: [91], just a few passing mentions. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. The impetus behind creation appears to be an OR-like connection to U-96 / Das Boot movie, as OberRanks created a number of similar articles. No de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether to redirect to Debt#Criticisms can be discussed separately. Sandstein 18:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of debt

Criticism of debt (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 is unfortunately a bit of a mess right now, as it confuses a lot of different terms and concepts. I think it should be deleted until something better gets created. It conflates many different ideas like usury, credit and public & private debt, that all, while related, are not the same. I think for such a specific article to exist it has to be well written. BeŻet (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to parent article Debt#Criticisms. I am, somewhat regretfully, mostly in agreement with BeZet on this. There's a lot of potential for this to be a great article, as there's a lot that has been written about it, but at the moment it seems partly a POV Fork, but is overall just incomplete. In comparison, the section Debt#Criticisms, while certainly not perfect and definitely under-cited, is more representative and probably a better start. It's also not so long that it would require a split-off into a separate article. Some of the religious content might warrant a merge, but much is better covered in other articles, like usury, Islamic banking and finance, and Loans and interest in Judaism. MarginalCost (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and expand. This is a big topic with many aspects: private debt, national debt, business financing, debt of developing countries, debt-dependence, slavery, credit theory of money, financialization, religion, history, etc. Do you think that a long criticism section would be accepted in the 'debt' article, or would it be rejected as unbalanced or POV? In the latter case, we need to keep, rewrite and expand the Criticism of debt page. Perhaps rename it to something else? Perhaps make a sub-category page under Category:Debt? What do you think? Bolarno (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just think combining everything into one article is a bit pointless, because it's a lot of very different things. For instance there are economists who strongly criticise financialization and the influence of private banks, but are not opposed to debt per say. I think these topics should be discussed separately, because I don't think there is a single theory or (serious) school of thought that criticises every form of debt. It just seems to me that the original creator of the article was a bit confused by the term. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen H. Cassidy

Stephen H. Cassidy (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 local politician who does not satisfy WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO and despite numerous references does not satisfy significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While San Leandro is large enough that a well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, it's not large enough to hand its mayors a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because they existed. But the referencing here is overwhelmingly too dependent on primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, while the fewer sources that do count as reliable source coverage are just the purely local coverage that every mayor of everywhere could always show — and even those skew much more strongly toward namechecks of his existence as mayor in articles about other things, rather than the coverage about him that it actually takes to count as support for notability. So no, this is not sourced well enough to make him more notable than the norm among an otherwise "not inherently notable" class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I wrote during the AfD for Denis Law, under WP:NPOL, "an article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence would need adequate sources (in total) that provides a framework to create an article to sufficiently describe the subject and/or their agenda/actions." In this case, there appears to be sufficient detail about the actions of the subject for both his service as a school board member and as mayor. --Enos733 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. There are lots of sources, but they only cover the ongoings of the city council and don't talk about him in depth. SportingFlyer talk 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Elected politician as Mayor of San Leandro; copious coverage = GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_18&oldid=860155543"