Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 January	3 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lieze Stassen

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

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, but more than two years later, no additional sources have been provided that would indicate notability. Isolated news mentions, but not enough to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous AFD suggested she had coverage in notable Afrikaans media such as Beeld (aka- Netwerk24) and Vrouekeur. A search of those media outlets produces trivial mentions of subject, nothing of substance. CBS527^Talk 05:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable - I can't find any sources of any significance. Certainly fails WP:NMUSIC as there is not one, let alone multiple, independent secondary sources. However, as with al my AfD !Votes, if someone can produce sources to fit NMUSIC, I will sure reconsider. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NMUSIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siae Microelettronica

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

The page has been probably written by the company itself for promotional purpose, after failing to add the same content onto it.wikipedia. Furthermore, the page shows no clear evidence of notability --Vale93b (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Vale93b (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. --Vale93b (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the nom (Vale93b, please note that per WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE - in a deletion discussion, the purpose of writing an article doesn't factor in to a deletion discussion, nor does the quality of the article's assertion of notability. It strictly comes down to whether the subject is actually notable or not. Would you please be willing to clarify your nomination under those understandings? A Google News search reveals a few reliable sources discussing the article subject. Digging through the mountain of press releases wasn't easy, but some reliable, comprehensive, coverage does exist: [1], [2], [3]. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other regarding deletion, I just wanted to introduce more facts and point out the AfD guidelines. Waggie (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the page because, even if some reliable references are available, the subject has just regional-wide notability and it does not meet WP:CORP Vale93b (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO the page with the latest updates reflects the international character of the company and justifies the existence of the page. Besides the page is now written in a more neutral way and I propose to remove the advertisement banner and I vote to remove the deletion banner too.Vegas33 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC). To contribute with notability of the Company, I found and published also the reference to a noted Italian newspaper "Corriere della Sera"[4]. Vegas33 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm rather new to wiki, but in my opinion we should factor in both news and technical notability in the specific field. The company actually is involved in several projects in the telecom world. A simple search in IEEE returns about 10 recent peer-reviewed publications [5] which I think should be considered "independent sources" as per WP:CORP and which affect the international notability of a company. Besides, the company has earned wider attention for both its history (recent acquisitions-related news pointed out by Waggie) and also for researching, among others, a strongly debated topic, namely the exploitment of orbital angular momentum [6] through its subsidiary, Twistoff [7], [8] and several more technical publications ensued in various other peer-reviewed journals and conferences [9], [10], [11] (I guess a full list of these can be gathered, if needed). Hope this helps the discussion. FallBall (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added couple of informations related the company. These informations are valid and they validate the company existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolina.Sucharska (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page in the current revision seems to me a much more substantial proof of notability than the version nominated for deletion on 2 January 2017. Spurred by the initial objections, the content has been expanded and improved and I just finished polishing and adding proper references to independent and reliable sources to provide documentation of the significant aspects of the company and its historical relevance. I think the page should now be considered to stay, hence removing the deletion proposal template. Concerning the advertisement, no mention of current product names or families is present and only pictures of historical products are shown. The text seems to me rather neutral, a mere description of successive developments over time, and thus I also propose to remove the advertisement template. If there still exists reason for contesting notability or advertisement I will be glad to receive suggestions for action. QuantumPhil (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yikes, tons of sources. Saw some more in a quick google search. Plus, the company appears to have global reach. This article meets WP:ORG in my view. Needs some cleanup in terms of tone, though. South Nashua (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new article version respects and meets the WP:ORG and WP:CORP. A lot of references are been introduced in order to justify internationality and notability (I hope that the community will be improve the page with other available references). I vote to remove all issues present on the page. Robert3211 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Robert3211 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep;;; - Meets GNG, etc (especially given edits since start of AfD). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Guma

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

No inherent notability. Insufficient references to ensure he is notable. One single passing ref. scope_creep (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has been interviewed a couple of times but the video links provided were copyvio s hosted on his own site. The sources can be seen here [12]. Jbh ^Talk 04:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. Looking at google books, google news, and the google news archives, he seems to be more of an activist-journalist and to be involved in a number of stories. I'd say the answer isn't deletion, but rather improvement. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article probably should be stubbed until it can be re-written but the TV interviews are good enough to get him past GNG, particularly considering the region he works in. Jbh ^Talk 20:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Barry Cass

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

Delete or possible Merge into Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd. Don't see the point of having a separate article, which has zero encyclopedic knowledge, when it is so heavily covered at Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd. Merge or Delete. scope_creep (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, which is apparently the primary source of the person's notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd; WP:BLP1E. TJRC (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Siege of Wadi Barada. Also adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article per some concerns about potential source issues stated herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Barada offensive

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

Reason Rebell44 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article is full of false claims/propaganda and lacks any neutral or verified information.Rebell44 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revise I recommend it to be revised and removing Al-Masdar sources from it and keep reuters,it is very disputed that Fatah Al-Sham is there in Wadi Baradah.Alhanuty (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Siege of Wadi Barada, balance the sources with SOHR or something along those lines.--Catlemur (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with siege of Wadi Barada, per above. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with siege of Wadi Barada, plus it is not disputed that Fatah Al-Sham is in Wadi Barada - SOHR also reports it: [13]. Al-Masdar should stay, they are not more biased than most sources on this conflict. Applodion (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Applodion is right, I also saw sources from SOHR saying about clashes in region.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=58247 I would like to say, but i won't(First read idio.s than write something)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge sounds like the right decision here, to me as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Hiburan

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

unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fairly blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find any independent coverage (although something offline in Bahasa is a possibility). As parent company definitely meets CORPDEPTH, a redirect to a single-sentence (or tabular) channel listing at Zee Entertainment Enterprises for this and a number of channels at Template:Essel_Group would be reasonable -- suggest selective addition of non-notable articles to this AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agency59

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

When searching, note the company is former known as "Axmith McIntyre Wicht." The only thing I found remotely close to WP:CORPDEPTH is the article in the Calgary Herald under the company's old name. Everything else consists of quotes or mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG]]. CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough notable sourcesBurritoSlayer (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to say! Wikipedia is not corporate directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vecna. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Vecna

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

This doesn't establish notability. The reception is very trivial and really doesn't even belong in the article. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens below, or merge to Vecna. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-D&D instantiations of/homages to this D&D-originated artifact: [14], [15], as well as the in-jokes and other references documented in Vecna. If this must be merged, then having it as a section in Vecna is reasonable, but this is far too iconic to be simply a list entry. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vecna or Delete - Those are some supremely passing mentions. "Far too iconic" according to who? Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vecna. Vecna is likely notable, but part of that notability comes with the association with the hand and eye, which seem to be very much subtopics. Of the two sources mentioned by Jclemens above, one is a joke in an author's biography (it counts for literally nothing- it's not even something that could really be cited), and the other I cannot access, so cannot assess. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hand and Eye of Vecna, and Sword of Kas, were artifacts from AD&D 1st edition. Vecna, the lich himself, was only fleshed out (sorry, not sorry...) in later editions. So while Vecna may be a convenient article, Vecna himself is a derivative work of the Hand and Eye artifacts. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, and I didn't know it, but I'm not sure it really changes much. We're still pretty light on decent sources about the Eye, and the article on Vecna still serves as a convenient place to consolidate information. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vecna per J. Milburn. Vecna is notable, however the relics associated with him do not really have any independent sources showing that they are especially notable independently of Vecna himself. Like pointed out, one of the two sources brought up in the AFD is one sentence joke, and does nothing for establishing notability. I am unable to find any other independent sources talking about the eye in any depth. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Notability not present. Lacks anything that could be considered something people would search for or find remarkable. --JohnnyCashMoney (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Page deleted per CSD G4 and has been SALTed RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Masood Ahmad

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

Was prodded, removed without rationale, than was actually speedied, but in IP (I have my suspicions about who that IP might be) removed the speedy tag. So here we are. Complete lack of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want others to comment please. I have added references to the subject, but its the decision of Senior Editors.

This newspaper publication clearly quotes his name, so he can be considered notable : http://www.dawn.com/news/1305053

Shipping Master, being the one and only in Pakistan and responsible for public affairs regarding shipping can be considered notable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart205 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the same reasons in the first AfD and original nomination reason in the 2nd AfDChrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Comment - my apologies, Chrissymad - I didn't look under articles without the honorific. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Onel5969: No worries - I don't know that there is any harm in a third AfD! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link Confirming Shipping Master as notable: Oxford Dictionary Gives Definition of Shipping Master https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/shipping_master — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart205 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart205 A dictionary entry is not a reliable source when showing notability of an individual. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ChrissymadThen ,what about a mention in a leading newspaper publication ?

http://www.dawn.com/news/1305053 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart205 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No person holding a portfolio in the Ministry of Ports & Shipping has its page by virtue of his appointment. It is undue publicity. For ref. his immediate boss has no personal page at WP. Nannadeem (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has been deleted at least twice before. See Masood Ahmad. I've placed a speedy delete tag according and request that both versions of the article name be SALTed Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't any other way this is going to end. There are a couple (and only a couple) of reasonable comments in favour of Keeping this, but consensus is clear. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Cube

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Only sources are their own website, snopes and an urban legend debunking website. Article would need to be significantly rewritten to be encyclopedic and is questionably notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That various "fact checkers" (such as Snopes) found it necessary to "debunk" the site's satire, is the best evidence of notability a site -- any web-site -- can have.

The efforts to remove the article about the site can only be explained by the severe dislike of the site itself -- this becomes immediately obvious after reading the article's discussion-page... There are no reasons to delete it. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanBK: the snopes article talks about the faked newspaper itself and that it was once on the website, which is the only mention of the website in the article. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Chrissymad:, first of all, Snopes has multiple articles "debunking" The People's Cube's satire. The "rumors" they "debunk" have originated on the site, which makes the site notable. It is not any more a "faked newspaper", than is, for example, The Onion.

Personally, please, do not deny having been canvassed into this -- without ever participating in the article's discussion, you propose an AfD of the 9-year old article on the same day, an attempt for "non-controversial" PROD of it (by @Hongkai2000:) is turned down...пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanBK: I'm not sure why you think I was canvassed into coming here? The only reason I even noticed this page is because of a tweet that appeared in relation to a Wikipedia search on Twitter. Ironically, it was from The People's Cube canvassing for editors and Wikipedia experts to help fight the leftist Wikipedia editors.^[1] Frankly, I don't care about the website one way or another. The only reason I nominated this was per what I said above. So I guess technically, I was the opposite of whatever canvassed is? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@PanBK: I canvas you. Seriously though, this is not a vote. It is a discussion. Arguments are all that matters. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://twitter.com/ThePeoplesCube/status/815990773661528064

Delete - Not finding independent reliable sources for which this website is the primary (or even a significant) subject; there are only passing references. The mere existence of a meme originating from a website does not make the website itself notable (although the meme could be independently notable - the whole point of a meme is that it goes beyond its origin). Risker (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the applicable notability standard here is Wikipedia:Notability (web). Risker (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations of the site have, in fact, been offered on the article's discussion-page already. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in the deGrasse book is fleeting - a single sentence; it's not a significant subject of the book by any stretch of the imagination. We'd be looking for several pages of discussion, if not a whole chapter. The Snopes and About.com references mention that the specific meme started at the website, but the most common iteration of the meme is not that from The People's Cube, but a significantly modified one. The Cutts blog is, well, a blog; it's not a reliable source. That Google yanked TPC off its lists isn't notable, that happens hundreds of times (if not more) a day. I'm sorry that the website isn't as notable as you'd like, but it simply isn't. Risker (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact-checkers have "debunked" multiple "rumours" originating on the site -- that alone is proof of the site's notability. Discounting the reference in "Pluto Files" as "fleeting" seems like POV -- the requirement for a citation to involve "several pages" to count seems newly-invented. To summarize, the site is no less notable than The Onion's, even if it never had a dead-tree edition. Keep. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newly invented? The GNG required significant or multiple non trivial coverage since the early development of the guidelines which was in the days when a bunch of people still thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the 44th President of the USA as she'd manage to defeat this upstart senator .... [16]. Actually the time from now to when it was added to GNG is a few years more than the time from when it was added to when wikipedia first came to be. In other words, if that's "newly-invented" you have a very weird definition of "new". Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whenever the subject of "notability" comes up, I'm reminded of the persistent attempt to delete all articles about historical nobles below the rank of Baronet while keeping every single article about every minor video game character. "Notability" is very much a relative thing: I think "The People's Cube" is notable to anyone who is interested in political satire, just as nobles below the rank of Baronet are notable to historians and history buffs even if they may not be 'household names' to the video gamer set. I don't see any reason to delete this article. GBRV (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So...a misunderstanding of notability as it applies to Wikipedia and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Alright then. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a systematic problem with the way "notability" is analyzed, so I think my comments were relevant and not based on a "misunderstanding". This type of issue comes up constantly. GBRV (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is whatever you were referring to, you don't seem to have explained why this article is notable. It being notable to people who are interested in political satire isn't an argument based on any accepted guideline or policy. (Nor for that matter the baronet thing. Significant coverage of these people in sources published by historians obviously is a good argument.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Throwing out the existing unreliable sources leaves the article with very little good info to go on. However, as a general rule, I dislike subjective notions of notability used as the primary reason for deleting anything. I could just as easily point out the 260k google hits or articles where the founder gets into legal trouble (with the site mentioned multiple times). I think notability is a non-issue here. However, the lion's share of the article being a blatant copyvio is. I think this article needs to be rewritten, and some better sources (like the one I just gave) used. I don't think it needs to be trashed. Karunamon^✉ 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted upon further consideration. Karunamon^✉ 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You know, I wasn't actually going to !vote here but the sheer misunderstanding of notability as it pertains to Wikipedia on this AFD is astounding. You all need to read WP:NWEB and you need to understand that this is not the place to air your grievances towards Wikipedia policy. This article does not meet notability as it is currently written. Sorry it doesn't. All the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in the world is not going to change the facts of the matter. All the pleas from the website isn't going to fix the fact that there isn't enough independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. There is not enough there to show that the website merits an independent Wikipedia article of its own. I'm sorry. Facts are facts. And the fact is, the website doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. That is not to say that it will never meet said criteria. Just that at the moment it does not. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majora feels entitled to his own facts... пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. None of the article's current sources demonstrate notability and none of the article's statements are supported by a reliable source. There are a couple of reliable sources out there, but they only mention The People's Cube in passing and do not provide in-depth coverage. Worth noting that this article was started by someone affiliated with the site and included a lengthly "founder's bio", a copyright violation, that stuck around for almost 9 years. Canvassing has taken place both on their website and social media sites. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Site's satire has been reprinted in numerous places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101B:C048:223:32FF:FE9F:B256 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that this isn't a notable website is absurd on its face. It's been discussed, repeatedly, on Rush Limbaugh-the most popular talk radio show in the country. Its work has been cited by astronomer Michael Eric Dyson in The Pluto Files. Its dispute with Google was chronicled extensively throughout the blogosphere. Oleg Atbashian's writing has been published by websites too numerous to mention, including The American Thinker, PJ Media, and his political activism explored extensively by other websites, such as FrontPageMag.com. He's been interviewed by dozens of prominent media outlets, including The Rebel Media, and given speeches throughout the country to civic and political groups and clubs. His work has been cited by Michelle Malkin, among many others. His graphics have been used in scores of protests, both before and after the Tea Party revolution. The only rationale for deleting this entry would be extreme ideological bias against the ideas he's expressed. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not going to dispute that with you but I am going to ask for sources. Several people in this AfD have said ""he" or the website have been talked about at xyz" but so far no one has provided any sources and those of us who did do some searching came up empty handed for RS. I can say the moon is purple and I've talked about it on Anderson Cooper but it doesn't make my idea notable or true. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

comment Well, here's a link to a conversation between Rush and Oleg: [17]. Here's Michelle Malkin effusively praising Oleg and his website: [18]. Here's an interview he did with Rebel media: [19]. And here's a link to a selection of interviews he's done over the past 5 years on the Web, satellite and terrestrial radio, and podcasts. [20] Which you might have noticed if you had taken a cursory glance at his website-you know, the one you're so eager to delete from Wikipedia. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthfulbarbarity: comment I don't think there was a doubt that any sources exist but not a single source that you linked is independent and reliable... Also one should not have to look solely at the subject's website to determine notability, that's the entire point I'm making. Anyone can claim anything they like about themselves - that's why interviews are generally not accepted as WP:IRS. And please stop accusing me of trying to delete a website from Wikipedia. I'm advocating deletion of an article that currently does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

comment Right. This comment basically proves for me that the "notability" policy as it exists here is utterly and completely broken. When someone can have this much coverage and it's all handwaved for contrived and subjective-looking reasons... Karunamon^✉ 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment and that is why articles require different types of sources. Anyone can write about anything and generate search results in google or publish it in a local paper. If this were the accepted standard, every person that wanted a Wikipedia page for their fly-by-night business would have one. That's not an encyclopedia, that is a directory. I could write pages upon pages about my experience with my first car or the comic that showed up in my local neighborhood newspaper. I could find notable people to also write about it and publish it or interview me. That doesn't make me or that comic notable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding because I'm new but it seems that this is not the place to challenge notability as a policy. The policy exists currently and until that changes, it has to be applied to any and all articles, not those that you and I selectively choose. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

comment ...in any case, I guess there's no point in litigating that here. I think it's blindingly obvious just by a count how this discussion will end. Karunamon^✉ 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Your comparison to blatantly self-promoting websites is revealing. This is a prominent website which has been repeatedly cited on national talk radio shows-the most popular talk radio show, in fact-podcasts, published articles, interviews, and books, and whose artwork has been broadcast on national television in a number of well-publicized protests. To try to minimize the significance of this website and its founder is illustrative of your real motives, which have nothing to do with the procedural minutiae you've been harping on. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ruthfulbarbarity for the last time, stop accusing me of having an ulterior motive unless you have some sort of evidence. I presented my reasoning and have not given any reason to doubt that. And since you seem to have missed my point last time, Popularity or a high number of google results does not mean notable and conversely obscurity doesn't mean something is not notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Delete fails WP:NWEB and the Snopes mentions don't amount to what we require under WP:GNG. Sorry, this isn't notable under Wikipedia policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are lots of mentions on lots of sites that fall far short of being RS. The best I could find was this [21] and this [22]. I don't think this is enough in-depth independent coverage in RS to establish notability. MB 03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker. Needs independent RS coverage. Snopes doesn't establish notability, otherwise we'd have an article on Brian Peppers. (Oh god I'm old enough to remember that edit war!) Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Brian Peppers" bruhaha. Also, expect a couple of SPAs to show up as TPC has put out a public call for help. Rklawton (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment The argument about a lack of "RSs" in this case is rather silly, since we're dealing with an element of pop culture whose notability must be established by other things in the pop culture, not by academic journals or top news sources. Do you think the thousands of Wikipedia articles about video games are citing the New York Times? No, they cite gaming websites which normally wouldn't be considered "RSs" except when dealing with video games. "The People's Cube" is a political satire site which is mostly going to be cited by other satire sites, political sites, talk shows, etc; and it's those types of things which establish its notability. We wouldn't expect it to be cited by the Journal of the American Medical Association. As for some people's interpretation of policy: if this article fails notability by that interpretation, then probably 70% of the other articles here would also fail by the same interpretation. An interpretation of policy which would rule out most of the articles here is not a reasonable interpretation, and it's stridently Deletionist. The trouble with Deletionism is that it pretends Wikipedia has a strict space limit like a print encyclopedia, thereby defeating the entire point of an online, open-ended encyclopedia. GBRV (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment While I mostly agree with your reasoning regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines being overly restrictive (I am often saddened to see decent articles getting deleted, merged, or gutted), I think there is also a matter of verifiability here. If there are no sources actually going in depth about this website, how are we supposed to write a reasonably detailer article on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Other things in the pop culture" still have to be reliable. That's a discussion for WP:RSN, not for here. Your estimate of the 70% is based on nothing at all, as far as I can see. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - To establish that something is popular in the culture, you don't need academic journals or other prestigious sources. The many articles about Pokemon characters often cite the company's own website as a source, since the New York Times doesn't have a database on the exact traits of every Pokeman character. But no one objects to that, based on the reasoning that a gaming database is the best available source for stuff like this. There's a tremendous double standard here. My 70% figure was a very rough estimate, sure, but think of all the tens of thousands of articles on video games and video game characters, soap opera characters, porn stars, etc, etc. How many of those articles would pass your litmus test? And how many of them are backed up with citations from prestigious RSs? And no, this isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that such articles make up such a large percentage of Wikipedia. They are in fact the norm, not the exception. My point was that some of you guys would need to delete most of Wikipedia to enforce your interpretation of the rules. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An editor has now substantially reworked the article. I have not reviewed the references or changes in detail; just noting this here for those following the AFD. Special:Diff/758140351 -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed this article on this very nomination. This is a FIRST for me where the AFD itself has coverage when I search for the article topic on google news. It seems like the source itself is trying to fight back against this deletion, interfering with our local affairs. Even if the article is kept, it is evident that this article needs to be closely watched against conflicts of interest by the editors editing it.

I am a bit split on this sites notability. In a YouTube video Fareed Zakaria complains about this site without mentioning it directly (as an obscure website). So on one end they aren't very notable based on my simple google search. On the other hand they caused enough grief to be notable?

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Our local affairs? This is not the Kiwanis Club. This is a global encyclopedia that allows anyone-and everyone-to edit articles and contribute to discussions, regardless of whether they are Wikipedians. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthfulbarbarity: While anybody can comment, deletion discussions tend to be an exclusive affair for the local Wikipedia community. We would not be much of a global encyclopedia if we let random external websites dominate and decide AfDs for us. Our policies and criteria are based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the purpose of an AfD is to discuss if the article meets these policies and criteria. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The "article" about this AfD is a posting on The People's Cube. It actually is fairly common for websites to rally their readers to AfD conversations. TFD (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Yes, but those normally don't show up in the google news feed. That can create a lot of noise here (as evident by the blatant canvassing). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete The topic has not, as required by ""Notability", "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." There are few if any mentions in mainstream media and none in depth. The "Snopes" article is about a rumor that started with the Cube, but otherwise says nothing about it. If readers want to know about the Cube, they can go to their website. TFD (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you talking about? I've referenced and linked to multiple non-trivial sources, on the Internet, talk radio, and television,which have discussed The People's Cube and Oleg Atbashian at length. Again, Rush Limbaugh-the most popular terrestrial radio host in this country-is just one of the people who have discussed this subject at length. Michelle Malkin, an extremely popular blogger and best-selling author has praised Oleg and his website on several different occasions. All of his major radio and Web interviews are linked to on his site, but these interviews took place on other forums. I don't see what part of this is difficult to understand. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin sites are not reliable sources. See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." What a talk show host says on their talk show is not a reliable source either. Even if they were, they provide only passing information. TFD (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was offering those sources as proof that the site and its author have recognition in the general culture, rather than claiming these sources are prestigious or neutral journalistic or academic sources. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Recognition in the general culture is not sufficient reason to have an article, there must be reliable sources that can be used to write the article. The Malkin and Limbaugh references for example fail reliable sources and should be removed. All we would be left with is information from The People's Cube and Snopes' statement that one of their satirical pieces was taken literally. And surely that is not enough to write an informative article. TFD (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - See my other comments about the normal manner for handling this type of thing in other articles. GBRV (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. It's been blogged about by other bloggers, but no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Wikishovel (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Same reason as Brian Peppers and Filthy Frank. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see WP:NEXIST Snit333 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Snit333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sorry, Snit333, but the point of this deletion discussion is that the (remarkably sparse) sources identified don't meet WP:RS. Risker (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – As I noted on the article's talk page before this AfD, I have, unfortunately, been unable to find the requisite level of reliable source coverage that WP:NWEB demands. I would like to note that personal blogs are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, since anyone can create and maintain one. Are there examples of coverage in high-quality mainstream publications? Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking !vote to give this a second consideration following discussion below. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would indeed be notable if there was an example of good, funny, right-wing satire, but the consensus appears to be that this isn't it, so has been generally ignored by the kinds of sources we require. Sadly, all right-wing satire appears to fail Poe's Law. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oleg Atbashians job in the ussr was a propagandist. To see him censored here creates a very dangerous precedent, esp in these times. I can unequivocally say that Wikipedia will not receive a single penny from me ever if he is censored. But I will work on a competitor and replacement for this anachronism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.81.215 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — 84.226.81.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nobody is being censored, and nobody is impressed by threats to withhold donations - you can't influence editors in that way. If the subject of this article has Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources then this article will be kept. If it doesn't, it won't. It's really that simple. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work like US politics. You cannot BUY your place on this site. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

KEEP. Not sure how this works. But why would you remove anything? You're supposed to be wikipedia. You shouldn't be any more frightened of libertarian satire than left leaning satire. So here is a link to Limbaugh... http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/08/03/mega_dittos_from_the_motherland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pork chop1948 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pork chop1948 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Pork chop1948 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The way it works is quite simple and straightforward. If the subject of this article meets the notability criteria that have been pointed out, the article is kept. If not, it isn't. It doesn't matter how many canvassed votes appear on this page - after all, this is a discussion not a ballot. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm from the French part of Switzerland and I know this parody website , some of their edits are even translated in French. This WP page meets the notability criteria for me. --LaMèreVeille (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I've heard of it" seems to be exactly the kind of argument to avoid in deletion discussions (see "notability fallacies"). The question is not whether you or me have heard of it — it's whether it's received independent, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And this website doesn't appear to have those. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have a feeling then someone will archive the entry to archive.is and/or the Wayback Machine and will upload it elsewhere. --Sd-100 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, so there's no great need to keep the page here then? Thanks for letting us know. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble might be one less page on Wikipedia might be the competitors gain including satirical sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Sd-100 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If other sites choose to have less stringent inclusion criteria, that's their choice. Good luck to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment If anyone really thinks that a double standard isn't being used regarding "reliable sources" and "notability", I invite you to look at any of the uncountable articles about the Pokemon video game series, such as Bulbasaur evolutionary line - the scientific guide to the various species of Pokemons. Here you will find a taxonomic chart that includes the full evolutionary sequence (Squirtle evolves into Wartortle; Mega Lizardon X does not evolve, and so on). What do you suppose the "reliable sources" are for this chart? Scientific journals? Biology textbooks? CNN? No, most of it comes from the game company's own "Pokedex". There are tens of thousands of similar articles dealing with other video games, using sources that most of the people here would not consider reliable but which are usually deemed usable for that type of context. Don't accuse me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because articles like these are practically the norm, not exceptional cases. I fully expect the Deletionists to go through and get rid of all of these articles. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards? The article you've linked has 72 references including reliable sources like IGN. Why are you insisting that this article survives with a lot less? Are you sure it's not you who has double standards? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it mostly uses the company's own website as a source for the "data" on Pokemons. You're also missing the main point, which was: it's common practice to allow a different litmus test for "reliable sources" based on individual context (in the Pokemon articles, gaming websites and the company's own website are allowed for certain things), but whenever anyone in this discussion asks for evidence of notability in the pop culture, they refuse to accept pop cultural sources and then claim there aren't enough sources. GBRV (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is, that isn't a standalone article...it's part of a character list. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, it's part of a very large group of articles on literally every single character in that video game series, no matter how obscure some of the characters may be; and yet here we're being told that a popular website isn't "notable" ? That's astoundingly ironic, and THAT was my main point. GBRV (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm working on a userspace draft of this article. Currently, it has most of the primary cites excised and the remainders used explicitly to support self published statements, and a heck of a lot more secondaries. However, I'm going to wait until this closes as delete before I even think of floating it in an RFC, given the !voting landscape I see here. This discussion is a mess thanks to TPC's canvassing, and the overwhelming sentiment here is to nuke it rather than fix its problems. Karunamon ^✉ 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you've found enough Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources to support the recreation of this article later, why not just add them to the article now? That'd remove the reason for its deletion. There's no rule that says articles can't be improved during AfD discussions - be bold, remove all the silly blog-based sources from the article now and add the secondary sources that you've found. My delete !vote was based purely on the GNG & WP:WEB policies - if you can remove every single primary, blog based or other useless source and add something real, I'll change my !vote on the spot. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:SNOW, and because the canvassing initiated by TPC has poisoned the well. I'd rather the new version of the article be evaluated on its own merits, rather than in the context of this bandwagoned and canvassed environment. On top of that, I find that RFC is much more friendly and much less "sudden death" than AfD. Let this one burn, and then I'll see if the community thinks it deserves to rise from the ashes. If it fails there.. welp, I tried. Karunamon ^✉ 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, nobody can say I wasn't 100% reasonable about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Exemplo347. I have not !voted here yet, because it has not yet become clear to me whether or not the site is notable; and I suspect the closing administrator will take the evolution of the article into account. It's clear that a lot of people think it is, and I appreciate the efforts of Anonymous555444666 who has been quietly working to improve the article during the AfD. Any administrator should have the ability to see past the !votes that are not rooted in policy, and should apply less weight to !votes that were entered prior to improvements and not updated. You should of course proceed as you see fit, Karunamon, but I'd urge you to consider simply putting your draft in article space, where it might further benefit from the efforts of others. Even if it's deleted, if you feel the deletion is improper, you can always seek a WP:Deletion review. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but I'm speaking from years of reading AfDs here. We live in a world where people don't often act rationally even if it is good faith at the end of the day. I'm concerned that any improvements made here and now will be deemed insufficient (seriously, look upthread - even one single N,RS should be enough to merit inclusion, yet here we are with a torrent of delete votes), and this held against the article. I want to have the "what sources are okay" and "how many are enough" discussion on the drawing board, not the slaughterhouse floor. Karunamon ^✉ 22:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are okay? Here is the policy - How many? Enough to establish Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources - there's no set limit. I've seen articles survive AfD discussions due to 3 articles about them in reliable sources. Note the "about them" part - passing mentions aren't enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does a rather poor job of explaining anything objectively, rather pointing at a set of criteria that will have to be interpreted. As in judgment calls made. The problem is, I want to actually go over the article and its cites (and not in the handwavy "not good enough" sense that's been done above) ref by ref, cite by cite, and gather input on what people think is okay and what isn't, and why. Karunamon ^✉ 23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take it through the Articles for Creation process then if you insist on doing it the hard way - if it's not substantially different to this article (should it be deleted after this discussion) then there's a good chance your new article will be speedily deleted under WP:G4. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. Hadn't thought of that. Alright, see below. Karunamon ^✉ 00:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NWEB Sources are all blogs or, at best Rush Limbaugh. Jbh ^Talk 22:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reworked version of the article has been posted. If there are still issues with the sources used, please enumerate those sources here, and explain why you think they fail policy. A number of unsourced statements have been removed. Karunamon ^✉ 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 - Alexa - does not establish notability. 2 (and 11) - Washington Times Communities - written by Abtashian - not independent source. 3 (and the others from) the People's Cube - not independent source for obvious reasons. 5 - only a passing mention of the site. 6 - passing mentions. 7 - article about a "People's Cube" toy, NOT the site. 8 (and the others that are just blogs) - self-created content. 9 - no mention of the site. 12 - about the Toy, not the site. 13 - passing mention. 14 - passing mention. 15 - passing mention. 16 - passing mention. 19 - yet another blog. 20 & 21 - not about the site. I haven't missed any out, I just don't like repeating myself. Now, you probably aren't going to understand the problem, so let me point it out in as few words as possible. None of these are articles about The People's Cube website, from Reliable Independent Sources - I can't make it any clearer to you. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Before anyone suggests that I didn't go through each one of these sources individually, I assure you I did, giving myself a headache in the process. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

WP:CIVIL, please. I do not appreciate the patronizing comments. See below:

Notability: Snopes, About (14,15) three direct mentions in books by various authors, one of whom is Neil DeGrasse Tyson (4,5,13) , and one more from a notable talk show host (8). All of these are secondary sources. One should be enough, have six. It is NOT a requirement of WP:N that it be established by one particular source to the exclusion of others. I question how you conclude that direct references of secondary sources talking about things the web site and its author has done or is responsible for does not establish notability of the site or its author. This is a standard of notability not used elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Primary sources: Only ever used to source a claim that.. the primary source said something. If the paragraph says "Exemplo347 said X", and the cite is Exemplo347's website, it is not unacceptable per WP:PRIMARY. No interpretation or WP:SYNTH has happened.
Passing mentions: I disagree with this interpretation. If a source is notable because of a certain thing they did, in this case, creating a bogus news article, it is not a "passing mention" to call out that thing they did (13). Snopes confirms that this image was being circulated via email, and debunked it. (14), About.com did similar (15). All of these are RSes.

I also find it very hard to believe that you critically evaluated 21 different citations in the 27 minutes between my comment being posted and your original reply. Karunamon ^✉ 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you'd agree, but I find your statement that you think I'm not acting in good faith to be rather offensive after spending my free time evaluating the sources you provided. I'm not going to help you any further or reply to you. Please remember to assume good faith in your future dealings with other editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to put it another way. It is not possible for you to have fully evaluated 21 sources in 27 minutes. This would require you to have spent absolutely no more than 1 minute and 17 seconds per source assuming you started looking immediately after I posted. If you want me to assume good faith, I'd thank you to not attempt to deceive me by claiming that you did work you couldn't humanly have. Deception is bad faith. Karunamon ^✉ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bullshit. How long is it supposed to take to determine that a passing mention is only a passing mention? If there's nothing more to read, you stop reading. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problems remain. Sources are either unreliable, or not about the subject. Namechecks is about as good as it gets. Sorry, I'm afraid you wasted your time. Guy (Help!) 02:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again. How is a book (many of them, by otherwise reliable authors) saying "Website X did Y thing, here is an evaluation of it" a mere "namecheck"? Please explain your reasoning. I've done so. There's entirely too much repetition and very little in depth reasoning being used in this discussion.Karunamon ^✉ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Karunamon for the effort, you have greatly improved the case for keeping an article. Those voting Delete should take a look and reconsider; I'm convinced it's not the clear-cut case it initially appeared to be. I'm still on the fence; I appreciate your efforts. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Peteforsyth that this is looking a bit closer to the fence than it did at the beginning. Now that sources have been offered from a few published books and reputable authors, I've temporarily struck my delete !vote above and will take a second look. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some more digging (and apologies for the watchlist spam, I just keep finding more). There's a blurb in WP:INTERVIEW that I think is very interesting: An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. With that in mind, here's an entire page of linked interviews going back to 2014. The top one is especially interesting - it is directly about the website. (direct link) I can wikify that interview list (since it's strictly a list of titles, dates, and links - no copyvio) and add it to the article if you think it's really necessary, but given what I just read, and the policy on interviews, there are at least 35 verified interviews with the author of this site that appear to be independent of the author himself. In my mind, that establishes notability all by itself to the word and spirit of the world at large giving attention to the subject. Karunamon^✉ 04:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are not reliable sources except for what someone has said. And lots of the sources are not reliable anyway, such as programs by Glenn Beck and Cliff Kincaid. Putting aside for a moment the details of policy and guidelines, do you think that anyone could write a faur and objective article about a website when the only information they have comes from the website or its owners? And bear in mind it is a "satirical" website that distorts reality for humorous effect. This discussion for example is referred to in its site as a "show trial." TFD (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. But as mentioned, they establish notability, which is the what the primary beef a lot of the !voters expressed above. Furthermore, your hypothetical is already doomed, since "the only information they have" does not come from the website or its owners. That would be the job of the other ~15 citations or so. This goes back to what I was saying earlier - if you think certain sources are "not reliable" on this matter, please lay those out here, in detail, so they can be addressed, and the offending text re-sourced or removed. I also have to point out WP:SELFSOURCE, to wit, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met (and I see no failures of the following list). Again, if you disagree, let's talk about the details, rather than these vague WP:WEASELey-sounding generalities. Karunamon^✉ 06:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It always ring alarm bells when someone links to a policy or guideline without explaining how it relates. WP:WEASEL for example links to "Unsupported attributions". It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, it is just a bogus argument from authority on your part. Also, note that WP:NOTABILITY is established by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by how often something is discussed in the blogosphere, unless and until reliable secondary sources pick up on it. If you don't like that policy, get it changed. Furthermore, while self-published sources may be used, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." They cannot be based on primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The intention there was your refusal (and continuing refusal) to point out specific issues with the non-primary sources used. WP:WEASEL is about the use of weasel words rather than quoting individual people. Your complaints are about unspecified bad sources rather than quoting individual ones, which I would like to fix if present. I have to assume that this means that you haven't actually examined them yet. Please do so. Also please see my above notes about interviews by multiple parties establishing notability per published site policy. Karunamon ^✉ 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At present, The People's Cube is happy to have a Wikipedia article sourced entirely to them, either directly or indirectly. They see it as a advertisement. But as soon as any piece of negative information is written about them or anyone connected with them in reliable sources, that advantage will disppear and this article will probably rank higher in searches than the company's website. Read "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing." And if you then decide you want the article deleted, it is going to be difficult, especially if the evil mainstream media have published an exposé article. TFD (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance this has to do with keeping the article or not. The subject of the article doesn't get to unilaterally decide if the article should exists or not, or its content. Karunamon^✉ 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. But they can lobby their readers to vote for keeping, which they have done in this case. If they get enough of their readers to do that, then they can win a keep vote. Even if they do not do that, they are perfectly free to vote in deletion discussions and to attempt to persuade other editors to agree with them. TFD (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except "rallying their readers" doesn't appear to have done much in this case, and this was with a stickied front page article on their site. What else are they going to do? I see few questionable comments by newbies, and the atmosphere was very much in favor of nuking it before I tried reworking it. Furthermore, they can canvass all they want, this isn't a vote. I also question what relevance their conduct has to keeping this article. What they might do in the future or are doing now is immaterial to the fate of the article. Karunamon^✉ 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. All the hand-wringing about canvassing is in my view a little silly. Our administrators know how to ignore !votes (on both sides) that fail to reference policy or advance an argument. I think I was the first to point out the canvassing, but I didn't mean for it to become a major focus of the discussion -- just that Wikipedians should be aware of it, if they found themselves confused by why there were so many !votes from new and less experienced contributors. I'm pretty sure the outcome will be just fine, and will not afford undue influence to the site itself. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Canvassing is certainly annoying. I came here from their appeal and I'm not going to opine in any direction as a consequence. Nemo 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mentioned the canvassing up, because A Certain White Cat commented "I noticed this article on this very nomination." [19:35, 3 January 2017] I wanted to point out that the article he linked to was a call for canvassing on The People's Cube website, hence it did nothing to establish notablity. TFD (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My strong inclination prior to this AfD was to delete, and the flood of ill-informed "keep" votes underscored that view. However, I have now reviewed the newer version of the article put together primarily by Karunamon, and clicked through to several of the sources. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable Wikipedia article. There's a fairly wide variety of sources, including significant coverage in books from academic institutions, and some from major newspapers. Further sources will certainly help in creating a more nicely-rounded article, but what's in there now is, in my view, enough to clear the notability guideline. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dewey Defeats Truman is famous for its inaccuracy; but inaccuracy, such as a fake newspaper headline from 1943, has the general effect of reducing the due weight to be given to the information. There is also a problem here of WP:SYNTH, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, which this topic as a whole represents. The attempt by the topic to preserve its article on Wikipedia is evidence that the topic hasn't attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, and is seeking to attract that attention. Wikipedia has a duty to not help in that attempt. It seems unlikely at this point that the world will ever care that this website existed, and a look at Google Books and Google Scholar is not a reason to think otherwise. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people advocating for deletion seem to have a tendency to ignore the massive amount of evidence which refutes their argument. The fact that information supporting notability is hosted on The People's Cube doesn't mean that evidence was created by the website itself. As Oleg has pointed out there are dozens upon dozens of instances of organic media coverage both online and off. Ranging from citations-and reprints of previously published articles-in Advertising Age, the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the New York Post to discussions of the website on Russia Today. Even if you adhered to the esoteric definition of notability used by some of the editors above, i.e. any reference on Web magazines and weblogs, no matter how prominent, doesn't count, it still wouldn't erase the dozens of references on cable television, published books, newspapers, and magazines.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth secondary coverage. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus and renominate if needed. The article that is being discussed now is fundamentally different than the one that was discussed originally, and the inherent complexity of considering every !vote in accordance with how the article was at that particular time makes this discussion nearly indecipherable. TimothyJosephWood 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Neutrality, there's no in-depth secondary coverage to differentiate this from a million other places where people talk online. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt obvious huge promotional pressure and this doesn't meet GNG. The revision of the article doesn't change that. Even what is there now, are passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After lots of revision to respond to this discussion the article relies so much on the NYT meme for content that it's now less about the site and more about the meme. Rather than prolong this process proponents of the article could spend some time gathering better sources with more focused references to the site, and then run a new draft by some of the more experienced names above.Seren_Dept 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I gave my word that I'd revisit this issue once all the unreliable references (blogs, passing mentions and references from T.P.C.'s own site) were removed, I've come back for a second look. As of this revision these are still passing mentions, except for one article dedicated to The People's Cube, by which I mean the toy - not the site itself. There is no reason for me to change my vote, and given the amount of time that has passed since this article's nomination I'm not convinced that the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage that Wikipedia requires will be found for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gamaliel. Oh god, I remember Brian Peppers, too. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a handle full of sources does not make it notable. QuackGuru (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said there is a lack of quality sourcing to support an article at this time. The site itself can't be used as a notability source either. Article in its current state is little different from how it was when first nominated, so that call to "close as no consensus" above is silly. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker. Simply, we lack more than a tiny amount of citable evidence for the notability of this website. -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't seen any significant, independent coverage, either here, in the article, or at article talk. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, no, and thrice no. Lacks reliable independent third-party coverage, and there is a clear attempt at canvassing here to keep this article afloat.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have been exciting! -but, unnecessarilly so. WP:WEBCRIT is perfecly clear: It has to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works- and not trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content in the sources. Unfortunately, that is all we have here- as they only give (at most) a brief summary of the nature of the content. No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage, and no major awards, etc., won either, which is another relevant condition. Hence this article fails both WP:GNG generally and WP:NWEB particularly. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no obvious evidence of notability and the burden of proof lies on the article's proposers here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been a rapid deluge of "delete" votes one after another. What's going on? Is someone canvassing? GBRV (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment My guess is attention was unintentionally brought to the AfD by the ANI thread. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Note that going back to the beginning of this thread, those in favor of deleting have outnumbered those in favor of keeping. The margin by which they are outnumbered has been growing at a steady rate since then. I'm fairly certain this isn't so much an influx of "delete" !votes, but an influx of !votes following the same pattern as before. As for myself; yes, it was indeed the ANI thread that brought me here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also came to this AfD via ANI. -- The Anome (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any evidence of canvassing (in either direction) then by all means, post it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (maybe) salt - There seems to be a great deal of interest in this topic and a number of people who support having an article on it, but there doesn't appear to be the number and degree of independent sourcing to establish a standalone article. If there were some other sort of list type article which could reasonably include this one, fine, maybe add it there. If there isn't, there seems to be based on the number of comments here to be enough basis to salt the article until and unless separate notability can be clearly established. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I looked at suggesting a redirect as a solution- but couldn't quite see where it would go- here, perhaps? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably List of fake news websites ([23]). Guy (Help!) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete It's disappointing, if all too common, that people attempt to recruit biased voters to an AfD. Though such behavior leaves a bad taste, it does not influence my recommendation here. I've reviewed the article as it stands now. The sources used to support it are, at best, weak. Reference 1 is a passing mention in a book. Reference 2 might be useful in the context of other references, but by itself is of minimal use; discussing the logo in the context of an opinion piece on a separate topic rather than the site itself. Reference 3 has a passing quote from Atbashian and doesn't discuss the site. Reference 4 is another trivial mention in a book. The remaining references are about the urban legend/meme, which as others have noted doesn't have merit for notability for itself. We should also perhaps take a look at a possible AfD for Communists for Kerry, which has even less references. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mjolnirpants and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Bullet

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

Contested WP: PROD. Article has been tagged as unsourced and lacking any claim of notability for over four years. The article subject is a cancelled video game which seems to have gotten no coverage in the media beyond the bare minimum needed to establish that it was in development at one point. Martin IIIa (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete video game that lacks claims to notability and doesn't have reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mundanes in Xanth

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 07:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced fancruft on a bunch of minor fictional characters. Like the other Xanth articles on AFD, the title of the article seems to have been invented by the article creator, thus Deletion is the most appropriate action as it is not a valid search term. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the reason these articles exist is the author was trying to split up the list of Xanth characters by character types. I think trimming the list is a better idea. Not every character needs to be on it.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the length of the entries, it seems like these are not major characters so there is no reason to merge the information into a central character list. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Goossens

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

Article creator contested PROD. Run of the mill star high school baseball player. Apparently he is really good and his family tweets a lot about it. No significant media coverage outside what would be routine per WP:NHSPHSATH. Fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination. In no way passes WP:NBASE. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Delete not enough coverage to make this high school sports player notable. He may go on to amount to something, but we have no way of knowing right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are routine coverage, so fails WP:NHSPHSATH. In veritas (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Muhammad

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

This whole article is based upon the false views and judgements formed by the Jews and Christians only, and the point of view of Muslims has been thoroughly ignored. The article is conveying misleading information to the readers and is nothing but a hoax. Wikipedia is believed to be a source of authentic information based upon true and valid sources and reliable evidences, however, this article clearly ignores this fact. This article is nothing but a baseless discussion which shall not be attributed to the Biography of a Special Historical Figure with whom sentiments of billions of people have been attached. The article shall be deleted on the grounds that the following references are missing: -archaeological proof of existence of Prophet Muhammad; -books written by Muslim scholars evidencing his existence; -Other Christian research and books in favor; -lineage of Prophet Muhammad; -Important and Famous Muslim historical Scientists believing Prophet Muhammad; -Bible mentioning Prophet Muhammad; -Torah mentioning Prophet Muhammad; -Quran mentioning Prophet Muhammad; - Authenticity of Quran and the scientific proof of verses of Quran; -Auliya and Wali Allah following Prophet Muhamamd; -True predictions made by Prophet Muhammad; -Letters written by Prophet Muhammad to different rulers in the world; -Archaeological proof of the existence of other historical figures as highlighted in the Quran. Haxeeb1987 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Historicity of Muhammad[reply]

Speedy keep Vexatious nomination by a new account who didn't follow direction nor understands what AFD is for. Sourcing issues can be brought up on the talk page. This article is not a candidate for deletion in any form. --Majora (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Absolutely no violations of WP:DEL to be found. Bogus nomination. Karunamon^✉ 21:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an obviously appropriate topic for an encyclopedia to cover. On an initial reading I find that this article might give a bit too much coverage of a rather fringe view that Muhammad did not exist, but that is a matter for discussion about content on the article talk page rather than anything that means this should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly justification to have this article. This is not in any way an endorsement of its form or contents. I would also say the article gives way too much space the the fringe view that Muhammad never existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As pointed out below, significant coverage does not have to be primarily about her, but merely enough to write a full-fledged well-referenced article that isn't just a redundant fork of the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Foster Welch

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

There is nothing of substance int his article. It starts by noting that the subject failed to gain any notability, and then largely discusses Stephen Collins Foster and other related people. I redirected this to the article on the father but it was reverted. Notability is not inherited, even by curating the exhibits on the notable person from whom such inheritance is claimed. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grudgingly, as we don't have enough articles on women leaders on the wiki, I'm inclined to agree with the AfD. As written, the article doesn't make any strong case for her notability. I've tried a few Google searches to see if there is a stronger case made elsewhere, but not coming back with much either. I'd recommend merging any relevant details into the Stephen Foster Memorial article or somewhere similar. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Stephen Foster Memorial appears to be a major facilty at the University of Pittsburgh; Welch its founder. Founding what evolves into a major facility seems to me to be grounds for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be inherited; that is invalid reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Foster Welch was the curator of the Stephen Foster Museum, probably an unusual occupation for a woman at that time. The article has been improved and her notability has been established by the preponderance of adequate sources. Her notability is not dependent upon who her parents were. The museum she curated and operated was the precursor to the Stephen Foster Memorial and is important related to the development of that structure, its contents and to Pittsburgh. So even if her parents were not mentioned in the article, her notability is established. Her activities related to the development of the museum are documented in many newspaper articles. Don't ignore the references.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara, I'm still struggling to see what is notable about Marion Welch in her own right - the references that I can access seem to mainly note her date of death and grave, or involve her talking about her father. The Memorial is certainly notable, but that wiki article actually makes no reference to her that I can see, tracing its foundation back to the Tuesday Musical Club in 1927 and the work of Josiah Kirby Lilly. I was wondering... have any historians written about her, in terms of what you describe, as her unusual occupation? Is there any way you could expand on the sentence that runs "at that time she was involved in the planning and financing of the Stephen Foster Memorial", which seems to be the main claim for notability in the article? That would certainly help convince me. Without any further information, it does feel very thin, and below what I'd be looking for in terms of the WP:GNG guidelines. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a new article, and it has been so quickly nominated for deletion by an editor who deleted its contents yesterday, I unfortunately have to question the good faith of this nomination. Time that could have been spent improving the article was taken up with responding to the complete deletion of the contents yesterday. That issue had to be addressed. The content about her involvement with the current Stephen Foster Memorial has not be added yet. I would ask for more time to insert such material into the Stephen Foster Memorial article. This article is only twelve days old! It took me three months to work on my first large article Monarch butterfly migration. There are about twelve more newspaper articles whose content has not been added yet. This is not an urgent situation since you can observe in the editing history that is still being improved.

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

if you actually take the time to read WP:NOTINHERITED you will see that the title is a metaphor. Nothing can derive notability from something else; not a parent from their child or a child from their parent... not an architect from a building nor a building from its architect, and not the curator of a museum from the museum, nor the museum from curator. Each thing stands on its own. You too make an invalid argument. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic overstatement of WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is indeed not inherited, but it is derived from a topic's relationship with the rest of the world. The rest of the world provides the context in which to assess the notability. Someone's notability may arise from something that appears to be an inherited notability, but in fact isn't. It is too easy to dismiss something because it looks like it is inherited, when it might not be. It is not a black-and-white case of holding a child of a famous person to a higher standard and dismissing anything that might have arisen because of that relationship. Those quoting WP:NOTINHERITED need to be sure they are not exhibiting conscious bias against someone because they are the child of a famous person. Having said that, Stephen Foster's sketchbook (mentioned below) is a classic example of over-reach - that is a much better case to use WP:NOTINHERITED for. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. I'm probably teaching you "to suck eggs", as we'd say over here (!), but you might find the sandbox function useful though - it would allow you to work up articles "in slow time" and ensure that notability is demonstrated/explained before they go up. There are a couple of other visiting scholar articles with similar issues; I'd suggest clarifying Henry Overholt (apparently "known for being the great grandfather of Henry Clay Frick", which isn't really a criteria) - and Stephen Foster's sketchbook (I can't work out why the notebook itself is notable) if you get a chance. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-we need to allow appropriate time for this article to develop; it's only been created 2 weeks ago. As a WVS at Pitt Barbara is working on creating new articles on women, and the sources are there for Marion if you give it time.Kirkcudbrightshire (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcudbrightshire, it might be worth highlighting that you are employed as the programme coordinator for the WVS at the University of Pittsburgh (I know it is on your user page under conflicts of interest, but worth reiterating if you're engaging in debate on articles created under the scheme). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kircudbrightshire is not the program coordinator. That would be the WikiEd Foundation. Kirkenbrightshire has clearly identified his relationship to articles that utilize the contents of the University of Pittsburgh archives. He is an archivist. And along with WikiEd, wants to see library content in the encyclopedia. He is a librarian/archivist and 'steers' me to the historical resources related to people, places and things related to Western Pennsylvania. Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Probably one for you to take up with Kirkcudbrightshire; his Wikipedia user page currently says: "I'm currently the program coordinator for the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program at the University of Pittsburgh." He goes on to note, under the subtitle "Conflict of Interest", "my intention is to improve encyclopedic content about the collections held within the University of Pittsburgh Library System, specifically the Archives Service Center" - which is fair enough but is, as he observes, a conflict of interest when editing this sort of page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-this article is a great start and will allow others who are interested in this topic to contribute to it. There is a wealth of information about this remarkable woman out there, and this page will be a good one to watch as it matures and grows as more folks involved with the materials have a chance to work on it. However, you have to give it a chance to do so. --TheLeaper (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or draftify the latter seems more appropriate like since it ~appears~ there are people who want to develop this. As of now however no notability is demonstrated and hand-wavy claims that refs with substantial discussion of the subject exist, are not sufficient in a deletion discussion. This article should not be in main space now. We can close this AfD if the creator will move the article to draft space themselves, or just express consent to that if they don't know how to move it. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move the article. If you would like to propose a move, I suggest that you nominate it for such a move. I oppose such a move to draft space at this time. There are at least ten more references to add to the article. Consider it a stub, at least. In this AfD discussion allow extra time for those (like me) who set aside family time during the holidays and give me and other editors make future responses to the AfD and article improvement.Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Weak keep or draftify I did some digging and found some sources which I added to the article. She was clearly well known during the time as the keeper of Foster's legacy and turned up at events honoring him. She was known as a composer during her lifetime, though her work seems to have gone missing even though she was reported to work on it up until her death. I say weak keep though because most news articles I can see don't focus on her (though I did find a few that made her the main focus). Looking at sources I do not have access to, she seems well covered often in Pittsburgh news and in some monographs. I think a full article can be made out of what exists "out there." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the problem here one of relying too much on as-yet-unpublished archival materials? The better way to write about someone like this is for someone (whether they be a professional writer or historian or an amateur researching the topic) to write articles and books about this person, based on archival materials and other historical sources, and for that someone to get those articles and books published, and then for those books and articles (if they are assessed to be reliable and authoritative on the subject) to be used as sources for a Wikipedia article. If not many publishers will publish on this topic, that may tell you something. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The archival materials are published and will soon be inserted. Referencing the archival materials is a referencing challenge and will take some time.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It seems that the article is growing in the right direction and should be given an opportunity to do so. This should have been started as a draft (for future reference for the article creator) but I think we're a bit past that now. An AfD can always be retried if the article ultimately fails to carefully establish notability. Right now, it's admittedly at the level of just hinting notability. I'm sanguine with giving this some time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable in her own right as the curator of a museum and archive in a major American city, and renders the argument regarding inheritance irrelevant. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article needed work, I have cleaned it up somewhat, added a section on cultural contributions, did a bit of restructuring and added a citation re: the legacy of the memorial. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as hard over as some above, but I do still have concerns. There is a range of material on her going to events honouring her father, which does feel like WP:NOTINHERITED to me; it could easily go into her father's article. Beyond that, the only cited statements relevant to notability we seem to have at the moment are that a) in 1914 James Park asked her and Jessie Rose to become the live-in caretakers of her father's old house, where she lived until 1935; and that b) one of her compositions, "Beautiful Dreamer", was published. Personally, it still seems a bit thin to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment. so many of the "keep" !votes made above have nothing at all to do with Notability/deletion criteria in WP. Unclear why so many strangely invalid !votes are being made here. Jytdog (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket invalidating of others' !votes doesn't build up your own, and doesn't assume good faith. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we continue to neglect to admit that it really doesn't matter if an editor believes that the topic to be un-notable. It is the references that determine notability, not what we think about the person described in the biography. She appeared on the front page of the Pittsburgh Press when she died! Why wouldn't this one reference be enough? Why would an editor here believe that their opinion expressing the doubtfulness of her notability trump a major publication of the time that was subject to editorial oversight that placed her on the front page? If there is such a thing, she was certainly notable in 1935 when she died and was active in civic events and as a composer. I would dearly love to see if those who oppose the creation of a biography of a notable historic woman happen to be of the male persuation, but then it would be me that wouldn't be assuming good faith.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment - On 12/22 the article contained 4 references, some of them better than others. Now six days later, there are 14 references. I would say the article is improving. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment - May I ask why the section was removed regarding the subject's role as caretaker (a.k.a. curator) of the historical home and it's contents? Also a reference that was removed in that section that was briefly tagged with "citation needed" but then the section disappeared. Trigger-happy deletions are counterproductive if there are editors working on improving an article (such as Barbara (WVS)). Give this article more time - women were not well represented in Foster-Welsh/Welch's day, and it takes time to find references. To complicate matters, there are two spellings of her last name on record, another reason to exercise patience, in my opinion. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged twice now. I checked through the University of Pittsburgh Press published history of the Foster family and the official history of the 1937 memorial before doing so, but couldn't find any material backing up those claims in those sources. I also left a message on the talk page of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know it's unusual to relist after the amount of discussion this has had, but it seems to me that the core question about this article still hasn't been answered; Does the subject, on her own, meet our notability standards? It would be useful for somebody to indicate the two or three best sources; those which are in reliable sources, and which discuss at length the subject herself, as opposed to in association with other people, events, or positions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, so far I haven't found any strong reliable sources for Welch that focus on the subject herself. The most focused seem to be her obituaries, e.g. Stephen Foster's Daughter Dead, but they do tend to position her in terms of her father's fame. I asked the same question earlier in this debate, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are more references and content to add regarding Welch and her position of museum curator from 1914-1935:

Emerson, Ken. Doo-dah! : Stephen Foster and the rise of American popular culture. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998. pp. 310-12
Foster Hall Bulletin, Number 10. May 1934, Josiah Lilly, pages 12-15
Mornweck, Evelyn. Chronicles of Stephen Foster's family. Published 1944 various pages on Welch
archival images of the museum curated by Welch.
news stories about the controversy between Henry Ford and Welch regarding Ford's claim of 'possessing' and then moving the museum to Dearborn, MI
Court cases initiated by Welch regarding properties and copyright infringements.

The article is filling out nicely and continued improvement is anticipated. My editing history is an indicator of my work in the improvement of topics - especially those related to the history of Pittsburgh and the archival holdings of the Pitt Library.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." All significant coverage contributes to WP:GNG, even if it is one sentence or part of a sentence. Nor is WP:GNG the primary notability guideline, which is WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question asked in good faith could someone please explain what this phrase used by editor Hchc2009 means? "I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs?"
When I looked on Urban Dictionary, the definition is "a command to "get lost" or "buzz off". The English Language dictionary and slang usage defines the term to mean "take a hike" "fuck off", "piss off" or "go away". Other definitions are obscene, and I won't go into those here. The intention of my question is not to escalate this discussion into a dispute, however I find this conversational tone to be disrespectful, irrelevant and unproductive. To my way of thinking, we are working towards a positive common outcome: improve the encyclopedia in an inclusive manner. To speak in dismissive and disrespectful ways does not further this common positive outcome. There are editors who are diligently trying to save this article on an early 20th C woman composer, curator and teacher (myself included.) The article now has 30 references - why is the notability of the subject and credibility of sources such as the New York Times being argued ad infinitum, and editors being told that they are learning to "suck eggs"? Civility is constructive. Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"To teach someone to suck eggs" - Netherzone, there's actually a Wikipedia article on this, Teaching grandmother to suck eggs, which defines it as "an English language saying meaning that a person is giving advice to someone else about a subject of which they are already familiar (and probably more so than the first person)". The same definition is given on the Free Dictionary, "to try to tell or show someone more knowledgeable or experienced than oneself how to do something". The Cambridge Dictionary similarly defines it as "to give advice to someone about a subject that they already know more about than you". ABC News did an item on it here. It is a reasonably widely used term, if a little archaic, and certainly isn't offensive. I fear the user-generated Urban Dictionary is slightly off on this one. As per the Wikipedia article suggests, it is certainly usually used as a phrase to mollify the impact of advice that might seem obvious when given to an experienced person.
e.g. in the discussion above, another editor was saying "I would ask for more time to insert such material into the Stephen Foster Memorial article." Personally, I tend to work up new article material in the sandbox, so that when I put up an article, minimal notability is demonstrated. It saves a lot of problems. Since the person I'm talking to is a visiting scholar, and probably more experienced than I am, though, I prefaced the advice with the phrase to show that I'm consciously aware of that and trying not to cause offence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's notability is defined as being that the topic is "worthy of notice". That's it. The WP:N nutshell explains that notability is understood as that the topic attracts attention from the world at large over a period of time. This source shows the topic receiving attention in an event with 50,000 people.
I had the occasion to read a 2007 version of WP:Deletion policy, and it says, "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship."
It should be quickly apparent from this 2007 concept as applied to the discussion here to focus on the idea of original research. Is "Marion Foster Welch" the construction of multiple small pieces of evidence that don't quite fit together? I'm not buying it.
As for verifiability, does anyone doubt that the scholarship here is sound? I think we are comfortable that this is not a controversial topic that will require attention to keeping a neutral view. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, for me the link to her unveiling her father's statue is actually an example why I'd still recommend a "merge" into the Stephen Foster article. Marion Welch is mentioned in news articles of the period, but almost always in the context of Stephen Foster, her father. She unveils a statue to her famous father; she's appointed as the caretaker of her father's old house; researchers come to ask her about her father; her obituary even headlines with her being her father's daughter, etc. I'm not seeing significant coverage addressing Welch directly and in detail, which is part of the current criteria. I'd agree with you, through, that Original Research isn't required, although the fragmentary nature of the secondary sources has made editing quite difficult. I also definitely think Welch's role in Stephen Foster's legacy should be reflected somewhere on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this Afd now. With due respect to the delete comments, I've reviewed many of the sources above. In my opinion, not only does the subject meet our notability guidelines, the article can be upgraded to Good Article status quite easily now. Continuing this Afd, especially after consensus has been reiterated, is an investment of time of volunteers that can be better utilized otherwise. Thanks. Lourdes 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stackdriver

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

Very promotional article. Unsure of notability, the vast majority of hits are of the routine type. If kept will have to be virtually entirely re-written. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:GNG: [24] [25] [26]. A rewrite would be in order, as per my the last link the company was acquired by Google years ago. Daß Wölf 02:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says that they are assembling a team, the second is that there is public beta, and the third is that they were bought by Google. This is not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED, the uncited names of BLP is an extra concern, and there doesn't seem to currently be a suitable redirect target. Since Google is still creating this product, notability can be expected to increase over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view the coverage is sustained, and it meets the bare minimum level of notability required. Given the nature of the product, the fact that it has been acquired, etc., I don't think the tone of the article is a big deal.--greenrd (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a weakly sourced WP:PROMO page often parroting what the company personnel were telling the tech press. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roni akurati

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:COI. The user name of the author of the page is the same as the last name of the subject of the article, which could potentially mean a conflict of interest. Aside from that, the subject simply does not have enough notable accomplishments to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, not to mention the only source cited was iMDB. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create a page for this young emerging actor who is getting popular by his upcoming movie " Growing Up smith". He is only 14 years old and has done several television and theater work. His movie has won several awards at various film festivals prior to release. I am new to Wiki, so please let me know how I can contribute to his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akurati04 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akurati04 -- your personal interest does not in any way validate Roni Akurati's notability. Far worse, your own username and stated intentions clearly demonstrate a conflict of interest (COI). Quis separabit? 23:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this page was previously CSD'ed (by RHaworth ) and should be CSD'ed now as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for sure for all the above reasons. Quis separabit? 23:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are actual from third party sources. Roni is a notable actor. His facebook page is verfied by facebook as an actor. I used the name as the user name is available, but can wait for others if any one has questions on references. Akurati04 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This England (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Smerus (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article has met the technical requirements of GA status, no one seems to have considered whether or not it has met the basic requirements for notability. WP:NALBUM lists the following criteria for notability:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.
The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.
The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

None of the criteria 2 -7 have been met by this recording, which therefore fails notability. by these guidelines.. The guidelines further state "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". no evidence of particular notability is supplied in this article.

WP Classical Music Project has provided additional guidelines for notability of a classical recording: viz-

The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer. Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article.
The recording has won a number of major awards.
The recording has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to classical music; for example, it is a recording of an historically important performance or has influenced the interpretations of other performers.

Criteria 2 and 3 are not met by this recording. Nor is Criterion 1, since the only sources quoted relating to the recording itself are newspaper reviews or press releases by the orchestra. The recording therefore fails notability by these standards.

The only justification could therefore be "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer" under WP:NALBUM. The only independent citations in this article (that are not individual blogs) specific to this album are reviews from journals. The journals cited are largely Canadian newspapers, which cannot be regarded by themselves as sufficiently satisfactory secondary sources for classical music recordings. I therefore submit that the article be deleted for failing to meet notability standards.Smerus (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How remarkable that an article of so little consequence could achieve GA status and be considered for FA status! Because, after all, it is a good article - well written, well organized, and as comprehensive in its coverage as humanly possible, given the total inconsequentiality of its subject. Well, the best work of mice and men ... Ravpapa (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: Hmm, ok, this is an interesting and unexpected turn of events. Since I created, expanded, and promoted this article to GA status, and have now nominated it for FA status, I'm not really sure how to respond here. I think it would be best to just let other editors review the article and its sourcing. I am more than happy to address any concerns or questions, or contribute to this discussion as needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have expected that when requesting the deletion of an article into which such significant work has been put, the requester would take similar effort to get the facts straight. The journals cited are not "largely Canadian newspapers". The only Canadian source that I can see is CBC Radio. The Philadelphia Daily News, the Huffington Post, the Portland Mercury, etc, are most certainly not Canadian. They also all seem to meet the very first criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." My personal view is that this criterion is too wide - it would capture too many insignificant music albums - but it is what it is. Another Believer was entitled to expend significant effort writing the article on the basis that it met this Criterion and we are bound to accept and be grateful for that effort. (It is also irrelevant that the Classical Music Project has imposed "additional guidelines". There is no reason why there should be additional requirements for different types of music.) Syek88 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would suggest the nominator step back and think about what the criteria are, and more importantly why we have them. Notability guidelines do not exist in a vacuum, and were created for a specific purpose. Read WP:WHYN. They are not there simply to create hurdles for hurdles sack. They are designed to have articles that can meet other polices/guidelines, and to not have one sentence articles. In other words, notability guidelines exist so that we can have good articles. Here, we have a Good article, and assume it passed those criteria to make GA, and thus, it would pass the GNG. That is, to have an articles pass GA, it inherently passes the GNG. In sum, notability criteria exists to ensure we have well-written, balanced, full articles on topics, which is what GA has determined this article is. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My limited experience of the GA nomination and review process leads me to believe that it is not particularly robust. It would surprise me if a non-notable article made it to GA status, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that GA status guarantees that the GNG has been passed. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the risk of stating the completely obvious, this article clearly meets Criterion 1 of the WP:NALBUM GNG:

Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries (note2: What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.)

There are multiple published works that are reliable, not self-published by the Symphony, and independent from the album in question, all works that have published on the subject of the article:

The Oregonian, a regional newspaper (and by regional I mean the West Coast of the U.S. —the left side of the map— south of the Canadian border, north of the Mexican border), a newspaper currently with readership only slightly smaller than The Seattle Times Philadelphia Daily News, a newspaper on the East Coast of the U.S. (not a "Canadian journal") The Huffington Post, a website known for covering American/international politics, but also arts and entertainment CBC Radio 2, which actually is Canadian, an FM station serving 2.1 million listeners, weekly, if you believe the WP article Multiple other sources, with smaller readership, but nevertheless reliable and independent, including the Portland Mercury, Oregon ArtsWatch, and The Columbian, a Pacific Northwest newspaper in Vancouver (Washington, not B.C., Canada)

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upon reflection...A student once wrote about "not meaning to cast asparagus on that, but…" In my response above I may have been guilty of inadvertently tossing asparagus at my Canadian friends and the Canadian side of my family, which was not my intent, and for which I apologize. Of course there are plenty of excellent independent, reliable, third party sources from Canada— the one Canadian source cited in the article named the album its "Disc of the week", after all. I suspect there may be something else going on in this AfD discussion, though, and a fundamental difference about the asserted non-notability of the album. The review by Stephen Ritter, who has a 20-year career reviewing for American Record Guide, Fanfare, and Audiophile Audition, described what I have been thinking: he wrote,

What surprised me is the choice of repertory—one just doesn’t associate, rightly or wrongly, English music with the forest-laden American west coast orchestra. Boy, how silly an assumption that is! Not only do they play with a brilliance and verve equal to any on record—orchestra that is—but they are entirely attuned to the "English" idiom, however we choose to define that elusive terminology. Well, it's true to an extent; we have all heard Gershwin played by non-American orchestras, and for the most part in my experience something integral is missing, though I have always been one to assert that any orchestra can play any music anywhere and anytime. Some Brits also assert the same thing when American orchestras tackle British music—that something is missing. (Ritter, Audiophile Audition)

Or, in this case, that an American symphony’s recording of British music is non-notable, and that any (assumed) provincial publications writing about it "cannot be regarded by themselves as sufficiently satisfactory secondary sources for classical music recordings". Wait, was that asparagus on the screen? —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the coverage does seem a bit thin. I'd note this old chestnut of an AFD, which I believe clearly established that topic-specific guidelines do not supersede WP:GNG (or actually, in that case, WP:BIO): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination) The topic-specific ones are useful for making clear determinations, but the more general guidelines apply regardless. Oddly, the Oregonian's coverage does not mention the album by name, but on review it does cover it in some depth; the Mercury is not an especially significant publication for this purpose, and said of its list of reviews, "We had so many responses that they didn’t all fit in the paper, but we've got them all here" -- and only one of the dozens of reviewers included This England. I think this one should be eliminated from the Wikipedia entirely. The Philadelphia Daily News review does stand out, since it's far from regionally connected, and the review is substantive. I haven't looked at the other sources closely, but by my interpretation of the GNG it would only take a couple more to make it qualify, and I'm going to guess that a few of the other sources are similar in quality/applicability to the Oregonian and PDN. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grand'mere Eugene's rationale. I did the same search for sources. Icebob99 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar (activist)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. No inline citations. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - written like a LinkedIn profile (complete with it being self-written) and lacks clear notability in the article. Not to say he might not meet it but as its written, not so much. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatpipe networks

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

Not a notable corporation. Google search shows only the references that any company will have, and references to fat pipes as a term. References listed are local. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam on a run-of-the-mill business. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have said this is a big ad. In addition to searches above, I checked HighBeam and found only press releases and routine announcements, mostly in local SLC outlets. WP:NCORP failure. Brianhe (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Companies in Atlas Shrugged

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

The novel is notable, but the fictional companies in it are not. Even in-depth sources about the book have little or nothing to say about most of them. Any relevant details would belong in the plot summary or discussion of themes in the Atlas Shrugged article, not a separate list. RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total fancruft layered on top of boxen of advocacy. We need to be taught carefully that things don't inherit notability from other things. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. - it was deleted ten years ago, so technically this could be speedily deleted. It's still not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because there companies exist in Atlas shrugged does not mean that they are notable. Notability is not inherited. The sources don't merit inclusion at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is against having such a broadly defined list. This does not preclude a well-defined list that deals specifically with boomer lit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of American writers of the Baby boomer generation

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #6 and #12. It also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." This applies to the article because it is just a list of authors with no context. It also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #6 because it is a non-encylopedic cross-category. -KAP03 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the influence that being a part of the post-WWII baby boomers had on a generation of American writers. This is not some kind of WP:SYNTHESIS derived list, the influence of the post-war generation is well documented. Could we please try to give some WP:POTENTIAL and not WP:DEMOLISH things while they're being built. (edit: fixed the sentences)--Prisencolin (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baby_boomers#Impact_on_history_and_culture is about as much as we have on this period. If this list is deleted perhaps you could work on expanding that, explaining the impact on American letters? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this AfD is disruptively premature. Give the article creator more than ten hours to work on it, for crying out loud! This should be closed with a trout to the nom, who really needs to take a break from bringing lists to AfD until he has a more firm grasp on which lists are acceptable and which are not. Lepricavark (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lepricavark: That argument is a form of WP:NEWARTICLE and should be avoided on deletion discussions. KAP03^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the argument to be perfectly appropriate. There would have been no harm in allowing the article creator to work on it further before bringing it to AfD. WP:NEWARTICLE is an essay and I am not obligated to abide by what it says. Lepricavark (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN in addition to the WP:NOT sections pointed out by the nominator. @Lepricavark: articles in the mainspace need to comply with policy all of the time. If users want to experiment on something they need time to bring up to standard, they can do so in the Draft or User namespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have been better to start the article as a draft, but bringing it to AfD so hastily is an egregious overreaction. There is no harm in letting the creator work on the article in its present state. The nom has brought quite a few lists to AfD and his success rate strongly suggests that he does not have the competence to be nominating such articles for deletion at this time. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read that essay you just linked, specifically the section "What 'Competence is required' does not mean". There is "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent" and "It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to incompetent people". You are labeling this editor as being incompetent and you are being uncivil. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is not to be uncivil. There are serious issues with this user's participation at AfD. Different phrasing might have been better, but I felt it necessary to emphasize my concerns with this individual's frequently bringing lists to AfD. As it turns out, this list is likely to be deleted, but I wonder if the outcome might have been different had the author been given more time to work on the article. Lepricavark (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in a sense akin to Lost Generation. I wonder if the creator might have been started by building a case for such a list by expanding Baby_boomers#Impact_on_history_and_culture, as i state above, or even starting an article on the subject matter rather than jumping to a list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In a sense, WP:PROSE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. Although I have to admit I'm having trouble finding a lot of sources within the context of the Baby boomer generation specifically. Perhaps if anything the outcome of the AFD would be to should be to re-title this page along the lines of "List of American writers born in the 1950s and 1960s" or something. I'm not sure what prose article created in that vein would be titled as the actual time periods that there writers were active tends to vary and "American literature written by writers born in the 1960s" etc sounds a bit wonky.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin, I just don't believe pursuing articles listing baby boomers is suitable for inclusion. We're talking about an entire generation, with each year alone containing numerous individuals of each category. I find it simply too unwieldy to have. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 08:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree it would be enormous and hard to maintain, so subdividing into further lists could be an option. Maybe something like "List of American writers of Generation Jones". Speaking of long lists of people, I'd like to bring List of 20th-century writers to attention.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The notion that we can group all writers born in certain years who were Americans together is a bit much. Even if we can, no good reason to then sub-divide the lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These new list of baby boomer articles have next to no value, aside from being trivia pages that span a very wide time frame. This specific one is listcruft. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any reliable coverage from secondary sources to justify a stand-alone list Spiderone 06:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete So what exactly is the huge difference between someone born in 1964, and someone born the next year? Funny thing: people talking about the boomers as social cohort disagree on its end. We don't need this as a not-well-defined list. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously the exact year cut-offs are trivial (maybe aside from the end of world war II), but it's meant to mark a general trend that exists. There a lot of evidence, contrary to your own personal observations that there are in fact common traits shared by people of this generation. Not saying you're views are irrelevant, but the researchers think it's a coherent group, but of course with everything there are outliers.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not obvious to me, so it is not obvious. Categories are hard and bivalent, so the fact that the end of the period is not well-defined is a substantial problem. I do not agree that there is so strong a consensus about the group either. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we were to have such lists, we would need to define a series of generations and have a succession of such lists. Furthermore, as I was growing up, though born in 1951, I was told that I was not part of the baby boom, which happened when soldiers returned from WWII and started families, resulting in a spike in the birthrate. Nevertheless, I accept that the term is now used for a longer period by social analysts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Boomer lit (see comments below) - if there's a literary movement/identity associated with it, no objection to merging into that article (or starting that article), and likewise no objection to touching on this in the cultural identity section of the baby boomer article, but this seems arbitrary (people born in particular years already have lists about them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything written by people in this age group would be boomer lit. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
maybe keep I was all set to iVote: delete : Baby Boomers should get over themselves. Then I thought, AGF; be nice. And saw User:Rhododendrites comment, which I was all set to echo. But then I thought, wait, you can't just assert that unless you ran a search to see if it is valid, after all, maybe there really is a movement of Baby boomer lit. So I ran a quick search on: "Baby Boomer" + authors, and found all of this [27]. It starts with the Baby Boomers' we-have-ours-so-screw-you private club, the AARP, inviting Boomer Erica Jong to "select 10 essential books of the boomer generation." Next I googled "Baby Boomer lit": [28]. Here's an entire special issue of the Los Angeles Times book review that is more or less a List of American writers of the Baby boomer generation. Rhododendrites was just being clever, but it looks like this list really is a valid thing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Lo: Boomer lit. I was tempted to nominate it for deletion as a neologism (the sources, which are not that many, seem to be about it seem to indicate it's just about a big target market to be catered to, spanning many genres, rather than a literary genre in its own right), but there's one particular thing that runs through the sources that gives me pause: the idea of literature which focuses on, to use a goofy phrase from one of the sources, someone's "transition to second adulthood" or a coming of age story for when someone comes of a different age. So there's some cohesion to it. I'm not so sure it's notable, but it's enough to change my !vote. Not to keep, but to merge. And if someone does want to nominate the main article for deletion, we can explore more the merits of the concept at that point. As long as we have that article, I don't see any reason not to merge, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 KM.RU and Nival Networks data breaches

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

Non-notable event, of no widespread impact or notice. Calton | Talk 15:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the redirect Cyber Anakin (hacktivist) should go. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin. --Calton | Talk 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Transwiki into Wikiversity From WP:Event the event do fit the following criterias:

WP:GEOSCOPE Vice Motherboard, which first reported the event, is an American news magazine. News.com.au has mirrored the coverage, providing wide geographical scope to the event.

http://news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/teen-cyber-anakin-hacker-wants-revenge-on-russia-after-the-mh17-crash/news-story/bb2eecdc37c54f2b5b3800dd26ef4caf

Update: I have found a lot of mirrored coverage done by Chinese and Indonesian news providers, expanding the geographical scope of the original Motherboard coverage. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPTH The original Vice Motherboard article has an in depth coverage about the event itself, ranging from the motive of the hacker to the analysis of the breaches.

WP:PERSISTENCE I have came across cybersecurity case studies citing the event as a case study.

Links to these case studies: https://www.elevenpaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Breaches-2016_T1_EN_v1.0.pdf and https://issuu.com/assumptioncollege/docs/infosecurityalert_sept2016

WP:PERSISTENCE said that "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." I fully believe that the event fits the description.

Update: Regarding the case study, I have found more of these on the Internet. It is interesting to note that one of the case study is Chinese, which helped expand the geographic scope of the awareness of the incident.
- http://www.86nsn.com/uEditor/UploadFile/201638165754699.pdf
  - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have found a case study report from the CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) of the Czech Republic. The case study report mentioned the event. I firmly believe that this will boost the WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE aspects of the case that supports the retention of this article. https://www.govcert.cz/download/bulletiny/container-nodeid-1167/nckb-bulletin-1603.docx Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIVERSE At least two reliable sources has provided their own take on the coverage. One is Vice Motherboard which is obviously a news provider, cyberinsurance.com is a data breach notification service which also provides their own take of news coverage on whatever data breaches they came across or detect.

I am giving a score of 4 out of 5 main criterias, and from my analysis I do fully believe that the event met a bare mininum requirement for inclusion as an article. Thank you.

(Originally posted in the article's talk page)

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: User:CapitalSasha was the newpage patroller who gave the inclusion of this article a green light. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- My argument against Calton's nomination reason #1: With the analysis of the criterias, specifically regarding the WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE, I firmly believe that the "of no widespread impact or notice" part of the initial nomination reason put forward by Calton is a moot. By being mirrored by multiple news writers across the globe (USA, Australia, Indonesia, China) and being cited as case study by multiple sources which ranged from a Spanish telecommunications company "Telefonica" to the Czech CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team), you should see that the said last part of Calton's initial nomination reason does not accurately reflect the reality. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument against Calton's nomination reason #2: As for the first part of Calton's nomination reason which is "Non-notable event", in order to defend my case, I have to delve into the Oxford dictionary and focus on it's interpretation of "notable".

- https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/notable

- From the dictionary itself, the word is an adjective whose definition is Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable . Note that I emphasized the or word inside the definition to avoid any people here from confusing or misinterpreting the meaning to Worthy of attention and notice; remarkable. Based on the definition and taking account with the uniqueness argument that I've made at the bottom of the page and most importantly, the fact that the event has been reported by a news magazine and multiple news reporters, who has noticed the initial Motherboard coverage, decided to spread the information and the notice of the incident by mirroring the Motherboard coverage, which in turn will arouse the notice of readers beyond the pool of readers who read only VICE Motherboard, therefore fulfilling the most lenient interpretation of WP:GEOSCOPE at least. Besides that, this event has been cited in multiple case study reports ranging from a telco company to a national CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team), which is an evidence that these entities has noticed the incident and decided to spread the information and the notice of the event further to the readers of their case report by including them into the concerning case study report, and fulfilling the description that "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." as outlined in WP:PERSISTENCE. Again from the definition, if the event itself is indeed not worthy of notice, then it is safe to assume that the Motherboard news coverage will not be mirrored by other reporters including news.com.au and the event would not be mentioned in the case reports, including the case report that is as authoritative as that of Czech national CERT. I personally think that if the event is indeed unworthy of notice, the Motherboard reporter who first broke the news would treat the event just as an routine aberration and chose not to waste time to cover the news at the very very first place. In summary, from my argument, I fully believe that Calton's nomination reason that the article is based on 'Non-notable event, of no widespread impact or notice.' does not accurately reflect the reality and thus resembles more like a baseless accusation. I rest my case for now. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important update: I just found that I am a WP:Inclusionism regarding this matter. I hereby base my premise on keeping this article with every single Inclusionist arguments that I found here, in addition to my DIY arguments that I've outlined on this AfD a while ago.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an inclusionist -- a, frankly, stupid term to begin with -- but an SPA, a single-purpose account for whom EVERY SINGLE EDIT IN YOUR WIKIPEDIA HISTORY has to do with inflating the importance of a single obscure script kiddy. And it seems glaringly obvious that it's you. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- It's called niche interest, boy. I said at the last time that I am focusing on a single subject just to prevent this kind of Greek drama. For the last time I have to reiterate that I used to fix the typos by IP. Sounds a bit ironic. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:PA at its finest Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, forgot to mention that you are living in Japan apparently. We're kind on a same boat now ;) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know why? Face based culture where failures are not tolerated. I mentioned this a while ago in a talk page to Coltsfan. I and him also discussed about the inherent instability of human nature shortly before an admin closed the previous AfD.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to consider the possible fact that WP:Deletionism is now dominating the discussion now, so if the consensus turns against me, I may opt to transition the article to Wikiversity instead, where collaboration instead of endless arguments about keep and delete is permeating its atmosphere. Makes sense for me to warn any potential first time article creators about this to prepare for this kind of nasty politics.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bad feeling that the Wikipedia project is going to be turned into a Britannica 2.0 because hardcore WP:deletionism like Calton is gaining more and more ground as time passes. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the sources. Lots of "claims" "perhaps" "maybes". The notability was successfully questioned during the discussion of the article Cyber Anakin. The lacking of notability is the same here. Coltsfan (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the three words mentioned by coltsfan has to be taken into account since it would affect the context if not done properly. For example, the word "claim" in the article references the alleged connection between the hacker and a relative/friend of a MH17 victim, not the database intrusion itself.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't confuse the notability criteria of a living person article with that of an event article.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and WP:EVENT are two different things Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and selectively merge Even the article creator/defender admits that all the reliable source coverage amounts to a single Motherboard piece being "mirrored." So aside from that, I don't see this as passing WP:SIGCOV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At the same time, I don't see why we couldn't also selective merge to List of data breaches. I've modified my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think for the sake of this discussion, it's time to better set aside debating about shibboleths on how to define and interpret 'significant', 'notoriety', and so on and focus on the core reasons that drove me to create a page for the event and for the case that defends the event's existence as a stub article. Everyone may see this matter differently due to their interpretations and opinions. Some might advocate keep, some might advocate delete, and some might propose somewhere between the two and so on. But there's one overlooked attribute that it seems that only I and some other people (possibly including the new page patroller User:CapitalSasha who gave the green light for the event to be included as a stub article at the first place) are noticing. It's about uniqueness of the event itself.
Aside from the KM.RU and Nival incident, I can't find any signs that showed that another computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident had taken place.
I have tried in vain finding another hacking event with the similar attribute, for example, US entities gets hacked because the hacker's motive is mainly about avenging Iran Air 655, Russian entities gets hacked because of avenging KAL007, and so on. I suggest all people who is looking to take down the article to carry the burden of proof and use Google to find any and all signs of another "computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident". So far I have found only one computer hacking event which fits into the said unique attribute and therefore made it to stand out from the rest of the usual and routine hacking incidents. The attribute is what lifted the event covered by the article from a large pool of hacking events.
From my legwork and conclusion, I am 99.9% sure that the KM.RU and Nival breaches event is the first instance of a computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident and therefore warrants enough uniqueness to stand out from the rest of the hacking incidents. Thank you Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am 99.9% sure... It's a meaningless "first", even if true, but do you have any ACTUAL evidence of that? "Because I said so" is not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for making me to consider Wikiversity as a transwiki target. I've modified the position now ;) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to delve into the Oxford dictionary and focus on it's interpretation of "notable"...

Who cares? Wikipedia doesn't use a dictionary definition, it uses its own: WP:NOTABLE. So everything you wrote is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 06:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who. There's one thing we could agree upon, that is the WP:deletionism will not care just as you. Happy New Year 2017. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it doesn't depend on whom: Wikipedia follows its own guidelines, not some self-serving junk you've whipped up, so unless you actually use Wikipedia's standards, no editor -- and I mean NONE -- will be convinced. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your opinion, I can take note of that. Are you psychologically projecting yourself into other people? Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is more analogous to a scenario where a brain cancer patient is beheaded in attempt to cure the brain cancer. This is super lame.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is being listed on rescue list. Good luck. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the rather nebulous comments above, this is not a notable event. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I never !voted on this, as I was the one who advised the author to create it during his disruptive behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin. However, after reviewing the very few sources that are available on this, it is clear that there is not enough for an article. This is a minor one-time event, if it really did happen, and not significant. Furthermore, the author has now been blocked for his disruptive behaviour, and so this can probably be closed speedily. Brad v 15:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. This is a redirect, not an article. Please take to WP:RFD, if you wish. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Pakistan Coast Guard

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

There is/was nothing named East Pakistan Coast Guard in the history or at present. This is a way of dishonouring the Bangladeshi organizations and other things by Pakistanis. This can be called vandalism. SRS 00 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that the company's coverage in reliable sources is not deep enough to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TVC Capital

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

Company article tagged with {{advert}} for three months. Little work done since article was to reduce heavy advertising bias. Asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Most of the subject's coverage in the news is local and/or press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article being tagged with the maintenance tag stated isn't a ground for deletion. The nom should have endeavored to work on the issues raised before coming to the AFD. There are also a number of news sources covering the source that accord it some notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a policy-based comment? Not only the fact of simply tagging which is not going to actually solve it, but we have to nominate such questionable articles because it's actually in policy. Also, as I showed below, all that's literally available is simply local business announcements, notices and funding columns, that's not substance since it's simply republished words. Also, "work on the issues", that can't happen because it's a policy-violated advertisement, see WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not my problem to 'work' on the issues raised on a blatant advertising article written by SPA account and a likely paid editor and the idea that I'm going to work on this article to fix it somehow, when there is 10,000's of other deserving articles is contemptible and utterly crass. scope_creep (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Bigelow, Bruce V. (2015-01-16). "TVC Capital Raises $115M, Keeps Focus on Software, Value Investing". Xconomy. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego-based TVC Capital, a small private equity firm that specializes in growth-stage investments in software companies, has closed its third investment fund with $115 million in capital commitments.
  All of the firm’s existing institutional investors participated in the fund, TVC Capital III, along with three new investors, according to Jeb Spencer, a co-founder and managing partner. The new investors include Horsley Bridge Partners, a global fund-of-funds institutional investor based in San Francisco.
  ...
  The nine-year-old firm raised $75 million for its second growth equity fund in 2012, and currently has about $225 million under management.
  TVC has so far realized three successful exits from its first fund: the sale of El Segundo, CA-based Accordent Technologies to Polycom; the sale of San Diego-based Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae; and the sale of Seattle’s Mercent to CommerceHub, a Liberty Media subsidiary.
2. Bigelow, Bruce V. (2012-09-14). "Software-Focused TVC Capital Raises $75M, Emphasizes Value Creation". Xconomy. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  TVC Capital, a boutique private equity firm based in San Diego, has raised $75 million for its second growth equity and buyout fund. The firm targets software companies and software-enabled service businesses that are profitable or growing to profitability, provide customers with a “mission-critical” service or product, and are seeking capital to accelerate growth.
  ...
  The firm realized two successful exits from its first fund last year—the sale of Accordent Technologies to Pleasanton, CA-based Polycom (NASDAQ: PLCM) in a $50 million cash acquisition, and the sale of Del Mar Datatrac to Pleasanton, CA-based Ellie Mae (NYSE: ELLI) in a deal valued at more than $25 million. Current investments include Seattle-based Mercent, which provides retailing data and intelligence for online merchants, and San Diego-based iQ for Business.
  TVC Capital was founded in 2006 by Jeb Spencer and Steven Hamerslag.
3. Bigelow, Bruce V. (2014-09-23). "TVC Leads $9.5M Round for Centage to Expand Financial Software". Xconomy. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  The San Diego private equity firm TVC Capital specializes in software deals, but TVC is not a venture investor.
  TVC says it invests in high-growth companies with untapped potential. You could say that Jeb Spencer, TVC’s co-founder and managing partner, views prospective early stage deals in the white-hot consumer Web sector as all sizzle and no steak. As Spencer has explained through the years, he prefers to make investments in software deals that are all steak and no sizzle—or maybe a little sizzle, but not too much.
  As an example, Spencer points to Centage, a software company based in Natick, MA, that has developed Budget Maestro—budgeting and forecasting software designed for small and medium-sized businesses. In a statement going out Wednesday, Centage says it has raised $9.5 million in Series A funding from TVC Capital and Northgate Capital, a global private equity and venture investor based in Danville, CA.
4. Freeman, Mike (2016-03-11). "TVC Capital invests $8 million in software firm". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego’s TVC Capital said this week it has invested $8 million in Celigo, a Bay Area provider of software that integrates cloud-based applications into a single secure platform.
  ...
  TVC Capital has more than $235 million under management. It is focused on investments in business software startups. Its portfolio includes Accordent Technologies, Levels Beyond (Reach Engine), Del Mar Datatrac, Limeade, LiquidPlanner and others.
5. Adamek, Steve (2015-01-14). "TVC Capital Closes $115 Million Fund". San Diego Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego-based TVC Capital, a software-focused growth equity firm, announced the closing of TVC Capital III with $115 million in capital commitments.
  ...
  TVC Capital III will remain focused on investments in and acquisitions of software companies that are generating $2.5 million-plus in revenue.
  TVC Capital was founded by Jeb Spencer and Steve Hamerslag in 2006, and the founders continue to serve as managing partners of the firm. According to TVC, it has approximately $225 million under management.
6. Zanki, Tom; Kiernan, Kaitlyn (2015-01-15). Park, Andrew (ed.). "Software-Focused PE Shop TVC Rakes In $115M For 3rd Fund". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  TVC III ranks as the largest fund in the firm's arsenal, suprassing the $34 million and $75 million raised by its first and second funds, respectively.
  ...
  Founded in 2006, TVC focuses on software-oriented companies generating $2.5 million to $10 million in annual revenues and are at or near profitability but need capital to accelerate growth.
  The firm, which manages about $225 million in assets, hunts for businesses it believes have distinct competitive advantages and superior products. TVC said its prospective portfolio companies often operate in sectors with less than $1 billion in total revenues and are often passed over by traditional growth equity and venture capital firms.
  The firm's first fund, TVC I, has completed three exits since 2011, including selling Accordent Technologies to Polycom Inc., flipping Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae Inc. and unloading Mercent to CommerceHub, a subsidiary of Liberty Media. TVC II recently sold Anametrix to privately held Ensighten.
  ...
  Institutional investors backing TVC include Tao Capital, Northgate, and Horsley Bridge Partners.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TVC Capital to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this alone is violating WP:NOT and I'll show why (also, simply because there's a mountain of quotes above means nothing because I'm summarizing everything it basically means and it shows):
TVC says it invests in high-growth companies with untapped potential. You could say that Jeb Spencer, TVC’s co-founder and managing partner
San Diego’s TVC Capital said this week it has invested $8 million in Celigo, a Bay Area provider of software that integrates cloud-based applications into a single secure platform....It has under management....As Spencer has explained through the years, he prefers to make investments in software deals that are all steak and no sizzle—or maybe a little sizzle, but not too much

TVC has so far realized three successful exits from its first fund: the sale of El Segundo, CA-based Accordent Technologies to Polycom; the sale of San Diego-based Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae; and the sale of Seattle’s Mercent to CommerceHub, a Liberty Media subsidiary (Obvious named mentions of others shown and wording in a form of a press release)

San Diego-based TVC Capital, a small private equity firm that specializes in growth-stage investments in software companies, has closed its third investment fund with $115 million in capital commitments....All of the firm’s existing institutional investors participated in the fund, TVC Capital III, along with three new investors, according to Jeb Spencer, a co-founder and managing partner....The new investors....The firm's funding....in a deal valued at more than $25 million. Current investments include Seattle-based Mercent, which provides retailing data and intelligence for online merchants, and San Diego-based iQ for Business.

Notice the maintained consistency of always republishing what the company said itself, that shows there's no one else involved but the company itself since it's their own business plans and that's all; that's not independent and if all we have to show for it is their funding notices and seeking of it, it shows they're not even establishing with sustained funding hence the need for asking money in PR. No major company will be as seriously PR-focused because they would be stable, this is not and it shows. Also, note how Xconomy is actually an known republisher of PR since it's simply a business financials website, and then the Union-Tribune is a local news source, hence going to obviously advertise its local businesses to local investors and clients, therefore it's unsuitable. If anyone had actually cared to examine these, they would've noticed that PR consistency, and there's nothing else to call it since it's exactly that. Notability wouldn't even ever matter because this is such a blatant advertisement, it entirely violates policy and, because of policy, we delete it, not because of "hoping for improvements later" which is simply a "let's buy time" excuse, not a policy based one of course. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.xconomy.com/author/bbigelow/:
Bruce Bigelow joins Xconomy from the business desk of the San Diego Union-Tribune. He was a member of the team of reporters who were awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for uncovering bribes paid to San Diego Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in exchange for special legislation earmarks.
Bruce V. Bigelow shared a Pulitzer Prize in 2006. I do not believe he would be republishing PR. His author biography further states:
Before joining the Union-Tribune in 1990, he worked for the Associated Press in Los Angeles and The Kansas City Times.
This demonstrates that he is an established journalist who has worked for reputable publications.
Cunard (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he wasn't (though I don't see how he's connected to the 2006 prize, apart from working at the same firm). Editorial reliability is primarily a function of the publication/employer, not of the employee. ST made other points too about covering the local San Diego beat and the quality of the writing. czar 07:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the quotes about Bruce V. Bigelow's biographical background to demonstrate that he is an established journalist who has worked at reputable publications. The quality of his writing is fine. That he interviewed the company's employees for the pieces and noted that he interviewed them is good journalistic practice. The articles do not read like advertisements for the company.

From http://www.xconomy.com/about/ethics/:

Our editorial principles are old-fashioned and simple. We believe that our content is only of value to our audience if we ensure that it is trustworthy. To that end, all editorial decisions will be made by our writers and editors and will remain independent of our business operations. We promise that our underwriters, advertisers, investors, and partners will have no special influence on the content we present, either on the site or at the events we hold—although at certain events, we may invite some sponsors to introduce speakers or moderate panels. What’s more, to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest, staff and freelance writers will not write about companies or fields in which they invest or for which they perform any non-journalistic work.
We recognize that there’s an important distinction between content generated by career journalists who are committed to the ethical standards of the profession and that generated by experts and insiders like the Xconomists (see below). The Xconomists offer a unique and important perspective on business, technology, and society, but they are also enmeshed in many of the potential conflicts of interest from which journalists strive to free themselves. We think the best strategy here is transparency, and so we have designed the site to clearly indicate which content comes from which type of author, the professional journalist or the expert. We also encourage readers to find out exactly where the Xconomists are coming from by clicking through the links below to their bios.

No one has provided evidence that Xconomy has violated its published ethics statement. No one has provided evidence that Xconomy is not an independent source of the subject. It therefore can be used as a reliable source to demonstrate notability.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Xconomy is not a local source so meets the criterion. The San Diego Union-Tribune, a metropolitan newspaper, is a regional source so meets the criterion. I've also added Law360, a nonlocal source that meets the criterion.

Cunard (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with their ethics statement, and it adds little to the discussion about the quality of writing, especially if the writer is acting as his own editor. I cannot qualitatively say that the Xconomy sources, especially alone, are robust enough (whether by content or by reliability) to support a full article on this topic.

czar 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & SwisterTwister Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice how it's created by a SPA account, in October. As soon as it was nominated he came in the 22nd to clean it up. References added are PR and nothing else. scope_creep (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister's assessment of Xconomy's reliability smells right to me. Lots of repackaged PR and not an indicator of independent notability. czar 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was edited by scope_creep to add "comment for delete". Cunard (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Law360 article to the list of sources about TVC Capital. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ST's analysis is spot on of the coverage. WP:ROUTINE also comes into play. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for events. Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement/promo piece. News hits are all routine mentions. Fails WP:NCORP. MB 04:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a rewrite on the article and removed the advertisement tag, so that should resolve that objection. I also found a Questia article preview:

Bergsman, Steve Mortgage Banking, Vol. 69, No. 8, May 2009, The Return of del Mar DataTrac Questia preview, archived 2017-01-07. "In the history of technology companies and financial backers, Del Mar DataTrac Inc. (DMD), San Diego, boasts one of the more unusual stories. The mortgage banking technology firm has been acquired by the same private-equity firm not once, but twice, in less than a decade. * TVC Capital LLC, also based in San Diego, first acquired DMD...in 2001 when the private-equity firm was known as Titan Investment Partners. In 2005, Titan sold DMD to Fiserv Inc., Brookfield, Wisconsin. * However, the acquisition didn't work out as planned and Titan, now known as TVC, jumped at the chance to buy it back - which it did in 2008."

Additional search terms:

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

Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Unscintillating (talk · contribs)! The firm's name change from "Titan Investment Partners" to "TVC Capital" is a very nice find! Cunard (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the full article through HighBeam. Titan/TVC is mentioned mainly in passing. The article is primarily about Del Mar Data Trac with TVC as the company that has owned it twice. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" is not a term that appears in WP:GNG. I also searched for "passing mention" on a Wikipedia search, and the first page mostly only shows it used in AfDs.
As for the article being primarily about the "small, undervalued company"; as per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Significant coverage can be seen in the web.archive.org preview without seeing the full article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors use terms like passing or incidental mentions to distinguish them from "significant coverage" required by GNG and WP:CORP. Also, the WP:CORPDEPTH section of the relevant WP:CORP guideline specifically names such merger and acquisition coverage as routine, not contributing to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a company going about its business; the coverage is routine & there are no indications of notability or significance. WP:PROMO applies as well, as the content is advertorial in nature (and that's after the re-write). The sources offered at this AfD are not convincing that the subject meets GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons stated by MB. 1292simon (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it's almost entirely about funding, isn't that deep, and is mainly local. At this point in time, it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Generally references discussing funding are considered routine and must pass a high bar in order to establish notability, right? I don't see enough outside of that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Collection (Olivia Newton-John album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, no sources found at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one source is found and doesn't appear to be significant. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a brief Allmusic review ([29]) but not much else. Like most compilations it doesn't seem to have received a lot of attention and an article doesn't appear to be justified. --Michig (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, @GirlTrucker81: @Michig: hi, would you accept Tim Ewbank Olivia: The Biography of Olivia Newton-John as a reliable source?

Also this article has nominated as fall-out of the current ongoing AFD on the original album of which this is a reissue. Although that sold, please click: it appears, a minimum of 500,000 copies (Hallmarks albums of this period were all Gold or Platinum were figures are available) because it was sold outside the Billboard system we don't have a Chart number. And yet it's original material, new recordings by two major artists ONJ and Vince Gill. This album we're looking at now was reissued to return the exclusive songs to normal record shops without having to buy 3 Hallmark cards to also shell out $7.95 for the original album.

The thing is that the songs/recordings that make up this 2nd album are as much part of the Olivia Newton John discography as any other song. It doesn't make sense to delete these 2 (actually 1) Christmas albums when it's the first such album the artist did. I personally would like to see the two articles merged, so the info on the actual recordings/songs can be in the same place. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original album may be notable. This compilation (it doesn't appear to be a reissue of Tis the Season) doesn't seem to be from what I've seen so far. Ewbank's book appears to be ok as a reliable source - how much coverage of this album does it have? --Michig (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Independent evidence has been presented above that justifies the article's retention. Bubbatex (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbatex: Where? The only sources are passing mentions at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As listed above: 1) Allmusic review by Heather Phares ([30]), 2) Allmusic review by Rob Theakston ([31]), and 3) Tim Ewbank's Olivia: The Biography of Olivia Newton-John. Also mentioned at 4) Inquisitr ([32]) and 5) the Songwriter's Hall of Fame ([33]). Bubbatex (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's 2 brief reviews from the same website, two maybe not reliable sources that give it the briefest of mentions (one of which is copied from the singer's website), and some unspecified coverage in a book. It's still looking pretty thin for supporting an article. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I do not believe the sources provided above give enough indication of notability to support an argument that this should have its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike my delete vote if users really believe there is enough of info out there to expand the article (especially since someone has volunteered to do so). Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – With just a quick Google search (and news/book search), there is plenty of info out there. In fact, I'd be happy to expand the article. Carbrera (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide links to a few examples of this coverage? --Michig (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: Where did you find any of this coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. It seems as if almost all of what I saw was directed towards her Christmas songs and not the album in general. However, I don't see the need for this discussion to result in a "delete". At worst it should "redirect" to Olivia Newton-John as it still receives quite a bit of page views, and yes I know this past month was the holiday season. Carbrera (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually shocked that there wasn't more coverage of an album by someone of Newton-John's stature, even if it was a compilation album. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not inherited from performer nor justified by page views. Has no significant coverage in WP:RS and no safety under WP:NALBUMS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon heloise ancient rebirth

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

This self-published book does fulfill the WP:NBOOK Domdeparis (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have received exactly zero coverage by anyone outside of a few obscure internet forums. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article needs to be deleted. The book is a a self published one, and it sells all over the world, including Amazon, Google books and many other vendors like http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/enwiki/w/simon-heloise-sergiu-prodan/1122618012?ean=9781517183479

http://www.prince-books.com/book/9781517183479

http://m.yes24.com/Goods/Detail/20324647?acode=101

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781517183479/Simon-Heloise-Ancient-Rebirth-Volume-1517183472/.

https://www.tanum.no/_skjonnlitteratur/romaner/simon-heloise-sergiu-prodan-9781517183479 I for one bough the book when it was on the top 10 bestseller books at the Super Hero category on Amazon UK.

I'm not done yet with editing the article, just because no major newspaper wrote something about this book doesn't mean that it is not notable

The fact that it sells in paperback form from Europe to Australia and Korea means it is very notable, other wise no vendor was willing to distribute it in their stores. By the end of the week I hope to finish up the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob09der (talk • contribs)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, yes, things do need to be written about in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Such sources must indicate how the subject meets notability guidelines, in this case those for books. Please review the guidelines, and if you have such sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having independent RS to indicate notability, which even the page creator seems to concede. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm going to search more deeper for a more notable reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob09der (talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoGoVan

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

GoGoVan, a van hire company, has repeatedly been spamming itself to Wikipedia over the past few months.

GoGoVan (deleted 3 times)
GoGo Tech (deleted through AfD)
Gogovan (deleted 2 times)
GOGOVAN (deleted 2 times)

Past iterations of the article bore an almost comically promotional tone and were easily deleted through the CSD WP:G11 criterion.

Now I suspect that GoGoVan has hired one of the increasing numbers of PR firms that do these sorts of cookie cutter Wikipedia articles on startup companies, with the usual undue fixation on how the startup was funded, which is necessary given the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources on other aspects of the company.

Article creator is a single-purpose account with undeclared conflict of interest, in violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Past GoGoVan promotional accounts have been warned of this repeatedly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion or a vehicle for advertising.

Given the multitude of different accounts that have been spamming this company to Wikipedia over the past year, I strongly anticipate "keep" votes from WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts. There are digital marketing companies here in Hong Kong (and elsewhere) that keep these sorts of accounts on hand for use promoting different clients.

I recommend we blow it up as an undisclosed sock farm and start over. GoGoVan, if your company is notable someone will eventually make a page independently. You don't need to do it yourself. Citobun (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Article does appear to be a little promotional to me. If I saw it without knowing the history, I would assume it was an okay page. Quite a lot of unneeded wiki-links, (14 links to Hong Kong alone). Is this a common thing for promotional pages? If I consider the history, as well as the page information, I would say delete. After the recent edits to give it the neutral point of view. I say now keep. This article now gives you the information. lbmarshall (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait until it gets secondary sources, e.g. coverage in books, journals, or other non-newsy sources such as Hoover's Company Profiles. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't particularly enjoy being the unpaid editor of someone else's commercial, but it took all of 15 minutes to render the article more or less neutral. I also don't particularly enjoy rewarding paid sock farming, and this has been proposed as a deletion criteria, but thus far it has failed to gain consensus as far as I can tell. Unlike AfD, G11 is based on article content, and not the notability of the subject. The current article, for better or worse, does contain what appears to be in-depth sustained coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately for us, vengeance is also not a valid deletion criteria, but if someone wants to propose a consensus on the issue, I might be in favor. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pace Timothy, this is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia. Numerous accounts registered over a period of months for the sole purpose of repeatedly creating an article on a frankly trivial company. I would be astonished if this was not COI, and I do not think we should ever reward spammers. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: AfD is not limited to deletions based on the lack of notability. WP:DEL-CONTENT explicitly says that "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be ... completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." In fact, AfD is for deleting for any WP:DEL-REASON. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I believe in its current state, after a handful of removals, it meets that standard. I have every sympathy, and if someone wants to get consensus on undisclosed paid editing as a valid reason for deletion, I will vote in favor, but that is currently not a valid argument for deletion, and the arguments above which rest on it should be disregarded. The requirement that it receive coverage above and beyond "newsy" articles should be disregarded as well as trouted as completely arbitrary. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it is distasteful to condone an article that was created in this manner, but in its present state there are no issues with verifiability or NPOV, and the topic is notable having sufficient levels of coverage in independent RS. With thousands of drivers and users, and having spread throughout Asia in a couple of years while creating a new service industry, it doesn't seem "trivial" to me.MB 04:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although created as promotional spam, I think this article is now a perfectly acceptable article.Oliverrushton (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article as it stands isn't overly promotional and meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After rescued by editors, it does seem to be fine now and with reliable sources used. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Comment’’’ As the creating editor, I would like to apologise for the issues with all the previous attempts on behalf of GoGoVan. GoGoVan outsourced the previous attempts to a Wikipedia freelancer and until recently, the company didn’t realise the harm/damage he had caused.

As a member of GoGoVan’s staff, I was recently tasked to create a neutral page. This was following the poor attempts by the freelancer and to abide by Wikipedia’s policies as I did so. I would therefore like to distance myself from all previous attempts as they didn’t have anything to do with me or this account. I see the article has now been edited down to improve the article, so thank you to those who have helped so far.

In regards to the conflict of interest, it was never my intention to deceive. GoGoVan takes ethics very seriously and it was always the intention to notify Wikipedia editors of my conflict after I created the article. However, this has all developed very quickly since I uploaded the article two days ago and I am still reading up on the best way to declare my conflict of interest and exactly what to say.

I would hope that this can be a fresh start with creating an article for GoGoVan and the discussion can remain positive and constructive. I also hope the content can be judged as a standalone attempt. Killbill263 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik A. Gohel

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

This article has superficial referenciness, but the sources are remarkably thin. I found the article because he was listed on the advisory board of a predatory open access publisher, never a good sign. Look at the section "CSI contribution" for example. A secretary of a local chapter and participated in a committee. The guy only achieved his PhD in 2015 and it was not from a significant research university. I do not think this meets WP:GNG, and I have suspicions that the creator, a WP:SPA, may have a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost no one is notable within 2 years of getting their PhD, even from the top universities, no indication this guy is an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This article includes international achievements of Hardik A Gohel and also having good publications and awards in youngest age. Content and References are now almost improved and will be more satisfactory by the time. Wikipedia can move this article in biography of living person but I am very sure this article will be popular like a viral as it is having average 90-95 views within 3 days of creation . I request you to please keep this article. Please support. Meera Mac (talk) 6:07 PM, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Meeramac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CheckUser blocked.

Keep this article as this is just a start class and I am assuring it will improve within a month or two. The profile is above average and content and references should improve which can be done by the time. Hagohel (talk) 8:16 PM, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Hagohel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CheckUser blocked.

Positive for article Hardik A. Gohel

I have read the article, Hardik A. Gohel. I am considering it enough strong for Wikipedia — Agupadhyay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CheckUser blocked.

Delete. Sources don't demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I accepted because of the sole claims of IEEE membership which satisfies notability, however, it's unsourced and there's nothing else convincing. If sourcing can confirm the IEEE membership, then that's different. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IEEE membership satisfies notability? As far as I know anybody with a bachelor's degree in a related field qualifies as a professional member. Not a very high bar. - MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC explicitly lists being a fellow member of the IEEE as sufficient. Normal membership might not satisfy the requirement though. Regards So Why 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Meeramac and Agupadhyay are Confirmed socks of Hagohel. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hagohel.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author requests deletion, other page uses conventional titling Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perak FA (2017 season)

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

I just have accidentally make another page with the same purpose. Both page created by me. Bromalayan (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7. C 679 14:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Mujtaba

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's an MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA. The article has no sources so WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Thakur

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

The subject fails to pass WP:GNG and I can not find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. GSS (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that he may be notable, author just needs more reliable sources. I would delete it in its current state, although. If the author adds sources, it would be nice if somebody would ping me. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see reliable sources that would help support notability. Ditto for ping if more sources are found. PS. The creator is asking for more time to fix article at Talk:Kamal Thakur, so let's give him 2-3 weeks with a relist in AGF if needed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz and Piotrus: I dont mind waiting for couple of weeks so let's see what author can provide that we failed to find. Cheers – GSS (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: I agree, how about 2 weeks or so, including the speedy deletion closing time. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: How about if an Admin close this AfD as per the present consensus and the current state of the article which fails to pass WP:NBIO and then userfy or draftify this article where the author can work for as long as they want. I tried my best but again my search attempt as per WP:INDAFD comes up with nothing. GSS (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Yeah, I think that we should do that. Hopefully this article will eventually be moved back to the mainspace when it is ready. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an AfC submission, with guidance on how to submit for review. If the author (who seemed desperate for the opportunity for improvement at first, but hasn't touched it in two weeks) can't find sources to establish notability in six months it can be deleted as abandoned. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School of Physics & Applied Math

AfDs for this article:

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

Not verifiable. Cites only unofficial Facebook page. Unable to find any independent reliable source to prove its existence, let alone notability. Created in April 2016, it was promptly tagged by JHCaufield for sources and notability, although Xx236 removed the latter tag with the assertion "Schools are notable". Worldbruce (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't aware that It is not a regular institution.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to verifiable.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the last AfD, no other sources have become available in the interim. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WRLD (musician)

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

Non-notable musician - TheMagnificentist 07:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel like there has been another AfD recently but I'll reiterate my previous thoughts. Non-notable and self-promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Delete as my PROD still applies, and our policies alone support deletion. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as another week hasn't suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-country skiing at the 2017 Asian Winter Games

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:FUTURE. This is because it is a future event where nothing can be said about the topic with WP:RSs. KAP03 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate this article because it has the same problems mentioned above. KAP03 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A new user created these two articles, which I planned to get to after the holidays (please compare with other similar articles here). If anything a redirect, but not deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two total articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I vehemently disagree with applying WP:FUTURE to events thare are only two months from taking place. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (both). They do not fail WP:FUTURE. The events are scheduled for next month, preparation is well advanced, and they are almost certain to take place. The events have been considered notable for the past three games. There is coverage of countries' preparation for the events.[34][35][36][37] It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that there will be more extensive coverage when the events takes place, and it will be possible to expand the stubs. Deleting now would be mindless. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Articles have no references and are written in future tense. Right now, the articles do not meet Wikipedia standards, and are intended as works in progress. WP:FUTURE requires event notability, which is generally understood to be equivalent to that for Balloon Boy to satisfy WP:Notability (events). Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VF2689

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

Delete. Article about an unlicensed low-power radio station, which is sourceable only to its own Facebook and a one-line namecheck of its existence in a nationwide list of "this week's events in radio" on a non-notable radio hobby WP:BLOG. Unlicensed VF radio stations are not automatically notable per WP:NMEDIA just because they can be technically verified as existing; one of the basic preconditions for a radio station to get a presumption of notability is an actual license from the appropriate broadcast regulator. One notable problem here is that while the article asserts that it's an active radio station, the {{Vancouver Radio}} template lists it in the defunct radio stations section -- and that's exactly why VF stations don't normally qualify for articles, since there's no reliable sourcing by which we can properly verify whether it's active or defunct, or when and why it went defunct if it is. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this [38] from Apr 2016 that said they were in violation of programming, and this [39] that says it was launched as a 41 watt station in 2015 and due to license violation must "drop illegal commercial South Asian format and revert back to Tourist Information station" in late 2016. So they must have been licensed if there was a CRTC violation of the license. WP:NMEDIA says a radio station can be notable with "a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming". Clearly does not meet 1 or 2. Could meet 3 based on broadcasting in Punjabi language in Vancouver, but that was illegal and presumably has stopped. (And the violation was not significant enough to establish notability on that account). No idea if they complied and went back to providing tourist info like traffic & weather, or just folded. MB 04:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. T. Canens (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gtkam

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

Non-notable software (tagged for over 7 years, and I can't find anything substantial). DMacks (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. T. Canens (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utshorgo

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

Non-notable TV movie. Article says it aired on a Bangladeshi satellite channel, which per WP:RPRGM would make it "likely" to be notable. The two sources cited, however, (download sites) do not appear to be reliable. It's recent enough that any sources that took notice of it ought to be available online, but searches of the usual Google types, by Bengali name, English name, Bengali script name, and by various combinations of writer/director and starring actors found no independent, reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parvathy Ratheesh

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

Only faintly satisfies WP:NACTOR. Think it's too soon to create a page for this actress. Also, notability is not inherited. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spammy and weakly sourced. WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Erez

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Berlatsky

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, which basically just states that he exists and fails to demonstrate why his existence would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia. For referencing, what we have here is entirely primary sourcing that cannot carry notability, such as directories of his published writing on the websites of the publications that published it and the sales page of his book on Amazon.com — but a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the bylined author of "references" with other subjects. And the only reference here that even comes close to being independent of him is a blog entry that does more to elucidate that blogger's opinion of Berlatsky than it does anything neutral or verifiable about Berlatsky. This is not the kind of substance, or the kind of sourcing, that it takes to make a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited three reviews in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep He is the author of one significant book, which has received a number of reviews. He's also edited a large number of volumes in the hish chool reader series"Opposing viewpoints", but that's not a significant contribution to notable . We usually want more than one important book before we consider an author notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter's Tulpa (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless (Candyland song)

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

Fails to meet WP:NSONG. I can't find evidence that the song has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It received a spot on a chart, but per WP:NSONG, this only suggests that it "may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful". That search was unsuccessful. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Candyland_(musician)#Critical_reception contains three independent reviews of the song. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Burger

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

This is essentially an pure advertisement for a non-notable organic burger. The onlynon local RS is a short note in Esquire as part of an organic food issue; this is not significant coverage. of this story. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be kept because the references are adequate (I agree the article still needs work) and the organization seems like it has enough notability to keep the page (it does need some work in dialing down the promotional tone, but I think deletion should be the very last resort). As noted by BissellStreetBill on the article's talk page; similar burgers and companies that produce them also have articles such as the Boca Burger, Amy's Kitchen, Gardein, Beyond Meat, and the Impossible Burger. Daylen (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC) See updated comment below[reply]

Hi Daylen. The promotional tone is not really the issue at this venue. What we really need are examples of reliable, third-party sources that discuss this burger in a non-trivial way. This ideally means it is the topic of the source, or at least has a lot of coverage. A newspaper article discussing the burger would be fine. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Insufficient coverage in independent RS to meets WP:NCORP. MB 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; content belongs on the company web site not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are references listed in the article (along with quotes from the Wikipedia article):
1. Andrew Hickey, “Growing Organically from day one: Carol Debberman’s vegan, organic Sunshine Burgers are capturing the national market”, The Ulster County Press, February 20, 2008, retrieved May 17, 2016.
2. To help expand the business, Debberman began taking the prebaked veggie burgers around nearby Manhattan, to various natural food stores and restaurants and moved to New York City.<ref>3 Joe Bevliacqua, “Notes from Napanoch”, Ellenville Journal, April 1, 2007, retrieved May 17, 2016.</ref>
3. Debberman attributes the name of the business to sunflowers seeds, an ingredient in every Sunshine Burger. “It was the hippie times when I took the name Sunshine Burgers. Everybody was into that flowery type of thing.”<ref>5 Doug Blackburn, “Burgers to Veg On,” Times Union, January 21, 2005, retrieved May 17, 2016.</ref>
Here are more sources:
1. Rosenbaum, Ron (May 1984). "The Alternative Big Mac". Esquire. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-08. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  This article provides substantial coverage of the subject.
2. "The truth about the great American veggie burger". Cooking Light. 2009-11-01. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-08. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Sunshine Southwest Organic Burger
  ...
  Verdict: This hefty burger has big flavor courtesy of cumin and jalapeño pepper, but still manages a low sodium count. Plus, it has plenty of healthy fiber. Spread frat-free refried beans on the bun to boost protein. For extra nutrition credit, top with a tablespoon or two of guacamole.
  This provides coverage about one of the company's burgers.
3. "Sunshine Burgers". Exercise for Men Only. 2010-03-01. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-08. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  The article provides substantial coverage about Sunshine Burger and its burgers.
4. Billmaier, Britt (2010-09-12). "Veggie burgers with a pedigree". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-01-08. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  The writer provides a short review of the subject:
  Veggie burgers may not be anything new, but Sunshine Burgers are particularly satisfying.
  They are made from whole grains, organic vegetables and ground raw sunflower seeds - an ingredient not usually found in other brands. The frozen patties are high in protein, fiber and vitamin E, and are free of gluten, soy and wheat.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunshine Burgers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment sooner, and I'll note the sources above are simply clear PR with the worst (yet listed as "the best source of all"): This hefty burger has big flavor courtesy of cumin and jalapeño pepper, but still manages a low sodium count. Plus, it has plenty of healthy fiber. Spread frat-free refried beans on the bun to boost protein. For extra nutrition credit, top with a tablespoon or two of guacamole Hence there's nothing to base a convincing article in our policies (considerably WP:NOT), since there's no actual sourcing about the company, something essential about these subjects hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi @Aircorn: I attempted to find a notable source for Sunshine Burger, but was unsuccessful. The only article I found was a one sentence mention of the black bean burger in the cooking section of The Globe and Mail (I added this citation to the article last week). Daylen (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of administrative subdivisions of Southeast Asia by fertility rate

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

While the information presented in the list is cited to sources, the topic itself is original synthesis and doesn't seem to warrant a stand-alone list, considering that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this is simply Wikipedia article sections put together. Demographics of Laos, Demographics of Myanmar, and so on. No original research was done. — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, SYNTH has not been made in this article. There are absolutely no interpretations at all based on the existing statistics. This is simply a list compiled from existing Wikipedia articles in order to make comparing easier. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. You can't go around comparing fertility rates from different years and different types of administrative subdivisions. That counts as OR. (And what's with the percentage Malay column?) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. I would also like to bring up that List of administrative subdivisions of Africa by fertility rate has similar problems to what List of administrative subdivisions of Southeast Asia by fertility rate has. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note - have nominated List of administrative subdivisions of Africa by fertility rate for deletion and linked it here; so this AfD is now for both articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete both each fails GNG as an article topic. This must have arisen out of some argument in a bar somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK; subject itself fails WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of being able to meet WP:LISTN Spiderone 21:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transmed holding

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Possible WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Adam9007 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly WP:COI and promotional too. Phrases within the article like ...the company has a solid infrastructure over more... are evidence of this. No reliable sources online show this to be credible enough to have a Wikipedia article. Xaxing (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - distribution companies tend to not really make headlines, and when they do it's generally in the vein of "XYZ merged with ABC" or "Acme distributor MoveCorp..." (i.e. not significant coverage). Since notability is not inherited, the ties with P&G and other global companies don't do much for the article itself (though I did find plenty of references to verify the statements on the page). There might be coverage in Lebanese or African press, but I wouldn't know where to start looking (though I'm open to updating my opinions if some turn up).

As a note, ~~PROMO and~~ COI issues are not AFD issues, except in TNT cases of course, and this is not one of those cases. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Note: WP:NOT is very much an AfD issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Comment above amended. Primefac (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Connect (album)

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a compilation album with no strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS -- the only notability claim here is that it charted on a non-IFPI certified chart that fails WP:CHARTS, and thus can't carry a "notability because charting" claim. And with only one capsule blurb of a review, this isn't sourced well enough otherwise to claim notability because WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bush

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

Bush is a local broadcast journalist with only local coverage and little of that, not enough to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than local journalist's resume. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a local newsperson does not make one notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Swat District. Already implemented, so no reason to keep this open. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoha, Swat

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

This would probably be a candidate for CSD if there were a better-fitting template. As far as I can tell, this is a place in Pakistan. There don't appear to be credible references that adequately describe the place (e.g., there's a Facebook page) and there just isn't enough information to provide even basic demographics. The article as it stands is just promotion. Delete per WP:TNT. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Why not redirect to Swat District. It is an actual place, so there is no sense in deleting it completely. United States Man (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It was redirected to Swat already, in fact. Confirm by this AFD that was okay/good to do. --do ncr am 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1966 KHSAA Boy's 4th Region Tournament

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

I don't see any reason why a high school basketball tournament should be notable. Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. Also while most have a single external link, they are entirely unreferenced otherwise. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire group as no notability under WP:SPORTSEVENT or under WP:GNG. Note: I also nominated the navbox template for these atwp:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_8, which will be all redlinks if this multi-AfD is accepted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musecam

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

This article should be deteted because it is a non-notable piece of mobile software. This is because it fails WP:GNG because there are no independent reliable sources for this subject. KAP03 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not notable company. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete qualifies for A7 in my opinion, but we are at the end of the AfD, so no point in !voting speedy delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headsplitting

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is an article about a type of penis modification surgery that I PRODed for lack of coverage in reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG. All the sources I found were either blogs or other non-reliable sources. The book that is claimed as a reliable source is a series of interviews which confirms that the term does exist among those who have penis modifications and is used frequently in that community, but does not establish notability beyond that. There is nothing here that couldn't be covered in the Genital modification and mutilation article if sourced properly. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update nomination The following page is also included in this nomination per Jytdog's comment below. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I looked in pubmed and google books and found no reliable sources for this. Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I am adding Genital bisection to this nomination. Same issues as Headsplitting. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it above using the bundled nomination template. I also agree that it has the same issues and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Manu

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

Non-notable landscaper who got his fifteen minutes of fame. He received a lot of coverage in human interest stories in September, but none after that and if he were a local politician who had been elected mayor of a small town while away in another country, he would not be included. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and the coverage isn't sustained to the point of meeting our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Interesting story but not enough to be notable. MB 05:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's the chief of one specific Akan village, not of the entire Akan ethnic group — so there's no automatic notability just for existing. And for media coverage, all we really have is a brief blip of human interest coverage because he happened to be living in the rural outskirts of Vancouver at the time of his appointment, and thus there was an "interesting thing happens to local guy" angle for Vancouver's local media to play with. That's simply not enough to demonstrate sustained notability for a village chief, if you can't show sustained GNG coverage of his career as chief past the blip. So there's just no genuinely strong basis for an article here — and it's not a bias issue, as even in a first world country the mayor of a town with a population of 6K would not be deemed to automatically pass WP:NPOL just for existing as a mayor, or to satisfy NPOL #3 on the basis of this amount of referencing either. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis at the 2011 Island Games – Mixed Doubles

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

Not a remarkable nor notable tournament and athletes. I support a deletion or a merge. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these following articles for the same reasons:

Delete – My first option would be to delete since all these articles likely don't pass GNG, but a merge may work if anyone wanted to go for that. United States Man (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sports like Windsurfing, Shooting, and Badminton have articles for yearly details on this minor event. But that is it... one article. While we squeak by with a Tennis at the 2013 Island Games we certainly should not have each discipline separated out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beqir Gashi

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

Fails WP:BIO. Premise lies on fact he is a troubadour and soldier. First ref is dead, second points to blog. Can't see any notability. No events, or battles. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not WP:NEWS / WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa

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

No reliable sources found. Only sources are a Wayback link, a 404, and a YouTube link. Special only aired once. No third party reviews found, only 128 unique Google hits and no relevant hits in Books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can fix the 404'd link, but all of these are official sources linked to affilaites or Wolf Tracer themselves. Someone recently found a link to a cached version of Wolf Tracer's site, so if "No reliable sources" is the problem, it can easily be fixed. As for the low Google Hits, it's lost media. Not many people even know that this was a thing. However, many moderately popular YouTubers are giving it attention, so it's possible that it could see spikes in interest over the next few months. NeonToasterWiki (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "[O]fficial sources linked to affilaites [ sic ] or Wolf Tracer themselves" are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, because they are primary sources. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." YouTube videos are not reliable sources either; for more information about sources that are and aren't reliable, please see the previously linked page. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The YouTube video is only linked to show that the special was uploaded to YouTube. Other than the plot summary and credits, I didn't use it for information. I did plan to use IMDb for information, but it did not list any useful information NeonToasterWiki (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Using the YouTube video as proof of the special having been uploaded to YouTube likely constitutes WP:OR. The blog "cited" is also not a WP:RS. The fact that IMDb "did not list any useful information" suggests that the special may not be notable. The plot summary has to have been covered in a WP:RS; watching the video yourself to write it is also WP:OR. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I only cited with reference 1, 2, and 7. Everything else was added by a different user. I'm shying away from the page because it'll most likely be deleted no matter what I do at this point. It's lost media, what could you expect... NeonToasterWiki (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If not for the Wayback link I'd have thought this was a hoax, since there's no coverage of this prior to the last few years. Honestly, part of me is still a little skeptical. Other than that, it looks like this is likely non-notable, given that there doesn't seem to have been any coverage of this anywhere - not even in old newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Carnaille

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

Interesting work, but I don't see how he is yet notable DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is an incomprehensible mess of artspeak and the opinion of the author, not a summary of what reliable sources had to say about the subject. Unlike Apologie Magazine, La Voix du Nord is a RS, but that single source does not suffice to support notability. Mduvekot (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Mduvekot, incomprehensible mess of artspeak is pretty much dead on and I'm not sure what in the article establishes notability. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be honest, it borders on WP:PROMO. Otherwise, it's not that great of an article, full of artspeak and no real evidence of notability. Worst case, this is a WP:TNT candidate, and if someone else can rewrite in a way that shows it should be in an encyclopedia, it can be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social verbs

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

It is an interesting concept, but I cannot find any good references, and as such it seems to fail WP:NOR and WP:N, not to mention WP:V. I've found it vageuly defined only in one book (which I've added), I couldn't find anything more substantial on GBooks or GScholar. Unless someone can find better refs, I am afraid this fails to raise to treshold of being worthy of an encyclopedic article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of a glossary entry than an article, so it fails WP:NOT.--greenrd (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, more like a dictionary/glossary definition than anything else. Delete per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gardiner (actor)

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

Notability. Yes there are many appearances, but some of these actually demonstrate non-notabity. Series such as Z-Cars employ many actors in very short parts; the non-memorability of which is evidenced by the fact that the samer actor can reappear playing a another part in another episode. Their mother may recognize them, but nobody else will. TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A basic search provides no resources that would allude to a person's notability.MonroeHarless (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 02:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article points to several appearances as exemplary. In Love and Kisses, which lasted only 5 episodes, the subject appeared in the secondary role as the main character's son. In Z-Cars, Dr. Finlay's Casebook, Brookside, and Howards' Way, the subject appeared in two episodes. In The Avengers, No Hiding Place, and Compact, the subject appeared in only one episode. Nothing indicates that the subject had "significant roles in multiple notable *** productions. Nothing indicates that the subject has a large fan base or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions. The subject appears to have had a good career as bit actor, but nothing that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems pretty clear that he was not a notable actor, just a prolific bit player. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; the article lists no secondary reliable sources and none have been offered at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet neither WP:BASIC nor WP:NACTOR. — Sam Sailor 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Khan

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

Declined speedy as makes a claim of notability. Doesn't appear to be enough here for that but let's see what others think. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role doesn't make her notable. WP:TOOSOON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylon B (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-extra role in one of the largest Indian films of all time. South Nashua (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please mention which guideline you might be referring to? Thanks. Lourdes 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because recently she sign 2-3 indian television show and 1 more Indian film. Vakasahmad08 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please provide the reliable sources confirming this? Thanks. Lourdes 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, she already done young character role in two indian televison and work in brand advertisement[40] Thanks Vakasahmad08 (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But where are the reliable sources confirming the same? The YouTube link you've given is not reliable, and anyway does not have any in-depth information on the subject. Would you have any reliable sources? Thanks. Lourdes 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you can search on google just her name 'Suzi Khan' you will get the results with lots of reliable sources including biggest indian website The Times of India Vakasahmad08 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give the link here? There is no such source that I have been able to find. Thanks. Lourdes 04:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The girl did have a main role with one of the biggest actors in India in arguably the biggest grossing film of the year. But the subject does not have reliable sources to support BIO/GNG/BASIC. All sources available on the net or mentioned in the article are trivial, and don't describe her life, background et al. The only source mentioned in the article that covers her beyond triviality is from some website called freemonkey.com. Neither does the subject qualify on NACTOR, which requires either multiple roles or requires a cult following of fans, or a massively innovative contribution. The subject doesn't qualify on any of our guidelines. Moving away from guidelines (and I can understand how India-based editors might find this comment strange) I admit that seeing the trivial news reports and seeing the comments therein, it seems everyone in India knows that a child actor acted in the movie. But it doesn't seem that anyone knows her name or would recognize her face if they were to see the artiste anywhere. I'm just giving this comment because sometimes, there are artists regionally who are absolutely well known (in the sense, everyone knows their name, recalls their face) but don't have English sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. If some editor can get in-depth sources to qualify her on GNG/BIO/BASIC, the story here would change. Lourdes 03:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she got role in one of the biggest indian movie of all time. IVickyChoudhary (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Which guideline does that come under? It would help if you can mention the guideline and provide reliable sources to support that. Thanks. Lourdes 03:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've failed to find reliable sources; all the keep comments above are devoid of any guideline based argument. Not one reliable source has been provided till now. The subject fails GNG/BIO/BASIC/NACTOR. Lourdes 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be WP:TOOSOON based on a small film part when she was 3. Being plucked from an audience to appear in a film because she cried seems a flimsy claim to enduring notability. The news coverage (as opposed to film blogs) contains scant biographical info. Sionk (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – also think this is a case WP:TOOSOON; could be recreated in a few years if she remains active and doesn't drop of the radar. United States Man (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Ford

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

WP:N. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created in the period leading up to the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, regarding which the subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Regarding other career activities, authorship of textbooks and working as a school head teacher are not in themselves grounds for notability. On the other hand, the reference which I added does describe her as "a leading figure in the profession" (teaching); it may be arguable that such a description plus the Union position, appointment as a lay person to a Law Society body, etc. accumulate to some basic level of notability? AllyD (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources covering her status as a prominent educationalist, e.g. president of School Leaders Scotland. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis the article is supported almost entirely by non-independent sources. The news coverage of Ford consists largely of quotes and opinions from her, not substantive coverage about her. As AllyD points out, the article was likely written as a promo piece for her election candidature. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources mentioning her, but no sources covering her in depth. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. As written, this is based far too strongly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and even the reliable ones aren't cutting the mustard all that effectively. For instance, she's the bylined author of every last citation here to The Scotsman, not their subject — but a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of media coverage about other things. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President of a significant trade union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Is there a specific exemption to GNG that you are referring to? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's opinion and common sense. But in any case, there's plenty of coverage of her cited in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to write articles on trade union secretaries and presidents and I find that presidents are much harder to justify, because president is a presiding role (chairing conferences etc.) rather than the public face of the union (which General Secretaries generally are). It's debateable whether School Leaders Scotland is a significant union anyway. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this current state, does not assert notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylon B (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Most of the coverage is either quotes by the subject or a brief mention in the context of an election. There are hardly any articles focusing on the subject themselves. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But she isn't even a secondary topic of the coverage. She has written some stuff for newspapers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the OP said, and what I've quoted is what WP:GNG says. Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" does, however, have to be more than just a single glancing namecheck of her existence as a giver of soundbite in, or the bylined author of, an article about something or somebody else, Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple public roles as well an author, including cites in Google scholar, mean that our readers will want the reliably sourced information that is available on this topic for a long time to come. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's reliably sourced information available on this topic somewhere? Great, then add it to the article, because the article as written is stacked on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in media coverage that isn't about her, not on any sourcing that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Major League Soccer players

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

Consensus has not been established for this sort of article to exist. The article is entirely sourced from [41] and therefore this violates one of Wikipedia's main notability criteria: see WP:NOTMIRROR. There is no prose contained within the article to establish notability for a stand-alone list as per WP:LISTN. Additionally, WP:LISTCRUFT discourages this sort of article; please refer to #3, #4, #6, #8 and #11. Most importantly, when the transfer window opens, this article will require a ridiculous amount of attention to keep it up to date; both in terms of deleting entries and adding new ones. What purpose does this article serve to justify this? Spiderone 10:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:LISTN. If I want to find a list of all players in MLS, I'll go to the MLS website or to Google. This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not actually sourced entirely from one location. The editors who maintain it do so from multiple sources, but they don't add them as they make the edits to the club's rosters with the reference to the change in the summary and then update the lists, and once again, LISTCRUFT is an essay. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, maybe it's not all from one source. Nonetheless, is there any potential for the list to pass the criteria required to be a stand-alone list or WP:GNG? Spiderone 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need a 'current' player list. No evidence of notability and high risk it will go out-of-date/be inaccurate. Giant Snowman 19:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list, as the information exists on the individual team pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no reason for Wikipedia not to host a complete list of players within the division, but perhaps modified to be sortable by name, nation, club, etc. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia policy, or essay even, could be given to support the keeping of this article? Spiderone 18:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful? What's the point in asking or having the debate if it's known already that there isn't a policy that supports it? UncleTupelo1 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're having this discussion because the article does not qualify for WP:CSD, and it is highly likely that a PROD would be disputed. Therefore, we are left with AfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the AfD has no policy or guideline to support it, so it's really questionable taking it to AfD when a discussion on the talk page could have helped apply improvements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary, repeating as it does current squad lists on club pages Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills#Season 5–present. T. Canens (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Edwards

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

The article is about a reality television star. Not notable, only known for appearing on one show for one season. The whole page is full of extremely unimportant details about her life, with all the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as I hate reality shows, it seems she had a legit career as a model. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources describing her career as "legit"? Mymis (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand behind the article. She was a model, her career includes a campaign for Nike and photo-shoots. When she modelling, she went by her maiden name. She was on an episode of Married With Children- the ref for that includes footage of the episode. She is also mentioned in a book revolving the O.J Simpson case and was initially asked to testify. Kelege (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the used sources in the article were released when she joined the Housewives. Where are reliable sources about her prior to that, especially that would prove the significance of her modelling career? She appeared on Married with Children more like an extra, and her being in that 1994 book about O.J. is not even worth mentioning because it seemed exaggerated to make a storyline on the show. And being a housewive is also not particularly notable as she was fired after only one season. The article solely relies on many very minor facts that lack significance that were mostly taken from the Bravo website. Mymis (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on one episode of a TV show does not establish notability, and footage of the TV show is a primary source. We need secondary sources to show that people care about the person, not just that they existed. We lack such in the case of this article. Not everyone who has appeared in a TV show is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, being on one episode of a TV show does not establish notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills#Season 5–present. Article is based primarily on her appearance in one season of a reality TV show. Having a successful career as a model isn't a qualifying criteria of WP:GNG. Generally unless someone has had a notable career outside of a single reality TV series, they don't qualify for a Wikipedia write-up. Sionk (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I don't see enough to establish notability per GNG. Since she is mentioned in the article on the show, a redirect would be appropriate. MB 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. At this point the discussion is just going around in circles about whether the coverage and/or the awards are significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Hatsumi

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Claimed award is given by a broadcaster to performers in its own programming, and is an employee-of-the-month type award which does nothing to establish notability. No independent reliable sourcing or coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No independent reliable sources? Tokyo Sports is a national newspaper with a circulation of over 2 million; Zakzak is the web edition of Nikkan Fuji, an evening paper which has a circulation of 1.5 million[42]. Both are sources used for Japanese entertainment-related articles all over Wikipedia. And those are just the ones already cited in the article. Here are some more: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], etc. Note again that these include major media sources: Sankei Sports is a national newspaper with a circulation of 1.3 million; Weekly Playboy is a magazine with a circulation of 230,000[52]. The nominator is wrong about the award: this is SkyPerfecTV, the main satellite broadcaster in Japan (kind of like Dish TV in the USA), and the award covers not what it itself produces, but what is shown on satellite television. The award is an annual award that is well-reported in the major media: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], etc. The award is notable and the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro and also to comment that in determining how well known or significant an award is, the proper evaluation is reviewing the coverage of the award by independent reliable sources and their respective circulation, not whether there are conflicts of interests or biases in the selection of the award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The circulation of the source may be enough to establish whether an award is "well-known", but not significant. Rhodes Scholarships are reported in The New York Times; various British crown honors are reported in national UK newspapers; but neither is considered sufficiently significant to establish individual notability for their receipients. And I'm not aware of any other case where such employee of the week/month/year type awards are considered to meet the well-known/significant test. And the recent deletion discussions and deletions related to beauty pageant winners underscore the point that "well-known" alone does not establish "well-known and significant". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must reiterate that you are wrong about the award. It is not a employee of the month or year award. See here [58]. Provide evidence to the contrary if you think this source is incorrect. As for significant, please carefully read WP:GNG. Since "significant" is often a subjective matter, GNG nowhere gives a measure for determining significance other than whether the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we are judging on that, she passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO point 1 requires that the subject have won a "well-known and significant industry award," which entails more than the award merely being notable under GNG (and is unrelated to the recipient's notability under GNG). It appears you are confusing "significant" in "a significant award" (an award that is significant) with "significant" in the term "significant coverage"; these are not the same thing. Rebb ing 06:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said already, I don't know PORNBIO well and thus am not referring to it. I am solely arguing on the basis of WP:GNG, which is what is sufficient here. I have not confused the term "significant." I have only reminded people that WP:GNG takes care not to wade into subjective standards of what is important or not. We can't waste our time here arguing over our own individual standards of what is significant. I've seen far too many AfDs on, for instance, idol singers, where participants offered no objective evidence but just said that idol singers are vapid or of little importance. We have to move away from such bias (which I fear is evident in this AfD) and use the objective standards found in WP:GNG. I have provided plenty of independent RS which are sufficient to create an article. I have yet to see a fact-based argument that these are not RS. Michitaro (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not aware of any other case where such employee of the week/month/year type awards are considered to meet the well-known/significant test." Not only is this a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, you must not watch sports with its various league/broadcaster sponsored awards, most blatantly the ESPYs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of those are reliable sources an most are passing mentions, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your reasons for asserting that they are not reliable sources. Michitaro (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michitaro. The award is legit and fulfills notability req. Holanthony (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability (DEL8). The subject fails GNG as the available coverage, including that presented here, is more trivial than significant. This point is illustrated (but obviously not proved, cf. NEXIST) by the fact that, despite apparent editor interest, the article gives absolutely nothing of substance about the subject.
Neither of the Adult Broadcasting Awards, despite receiving regular and routine coverage, is a "well known and significant industry award" as contemplated by PORNBIO point 1. Even if the subject met PORNBIO, which she doesn't, she so clearly fails BASIC that PORNBIO doesn't apply: PORNBIO, like BIO's other additional criteria, is to be used in mine run debates, where notability is plausible, not to find notability where it is plainly lacking. Cf. BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); WP:Notability § Why we have these requirements. Rebb ing 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A curious set of arguments. First, the initial argument is completely undermined by WP:NEXIST, which you seem to admit. We cannot in any way judge this based on the current state of the article or supposed degree of interest. The article is less than a month old and created by a newbie. I myself just hang around AfD (and I have participated in hundreds of AfDs), so this is not the sort of article I would regularly encounter. Since the first argument fails, I then just have to reiterate that she passes WP:GNG. I have never been involved with WikiProject Pornography, so I cannot judge the standards of WP:PORNBIO (though it seems to me she passes criteria 1 and 3). I thus have only concentrated on the standards of WP:GNG, which take priority anyway. By WP:GNG, the award is notable, and by WP:GNG she is notable. I should note that given the unfounded assertions of the nominator that there were no reliable sources, I initially just concentrated on finding sources that anyone familiar with the Japanese media would immediately recognize as reliable sources from mainstream major media. That list should have been sufficient. But even if someone thinks it isn't, the list I gave is, again due to WP:NEXIST, not grounds to argue that no RS exist. There are a lot more sources in the adult press I did not touch. Since no one has offered any argument that the sources are not reliable, I think the main issue is whether the coverage is significant. Of the ones I already gave, most give information that can be used in an article (especially about awards, career, current status, etc.), but [59] or [60] are substantial. To add a few, again from major media sources, there is [61], [62], or [63]. I am not that familiar with the AV press, but there are also these: [64], [65], [66], etc. It should finally be reiterated, per WP:WHYN, that we "require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There is certainly enough for that. Michitaro (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My assertion that the subject fails GNG isn't undermined by NEXIST: my argument is predicated purely on the available coverage; the state of the article is merely a convenient illustration, and I said the same in my vote.
    You identify these two sources as substantial (my apologies for the butchered translations)—
    - "『スカパー！アダルト放送大賞2017』PR大使の初美沙希ちゃん＆成宮いろはちゃんがセクシー水着でサイゾー編集部を襲撃！" [SKY PerfecT! Adult Broadcast Grand Prize 2017—PR Ambassador Saki Hatsumi and Iroha Narimiy Attacked the Saizo Editorial Department with Sexy Swimsuits!]. Cyzo (in Japanese). 1 December 2016. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
    - "２０１６年のアダルト人気Ｎｏ．１女王は？前回受賞の初美沙希＆成宮いろはが体を張ってアピール！" [Popular No. 2016 1 Pornographic Queen Is Your Company? First Misaki Yuu & Narimiya Iroha of the Previous Awards Stretched Out and Appealed!]. Shueisha News (in Japanese). Shueisha. 1 December 2016. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
    —yet both are mere staff-written Web interviews. The Dansen-web and Menscyzo pieces appear similarly weak; also, I struggle to accept that reputable Japanese news sites include previews of hardcore pornography at the bottom of articles. In sum, the coverage you are advancing as significant looks to me like the sort of coverage that is routinely found to be insufficient (and unreliable) when it appears as English-language sources covering American performers. Rebb ing 03:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "I struggle to accept that reputable Japanese news sites include previews of hardcore pornography" unfortunately just shows your unfamiliarity with Japanese media and also possible bias towards the subject. Let me explain. The majority of Japanese media are concentrated in several conglomerates centered on the main national newspapers and television networks. Yomiuri, Mainichi, Asahi, and Sankei are the main papers. Most of them, in addition to some other major publishers, also put out sports papers that are divisions within the company and often share stories and personnel (Sankei Sports is thus a division of the Sankei newspaper that is part of the Fuji-Sankei conglomerate). The sports papers have huge national readership (they are sold at every newsstand in the nation) and are of course major sources of sports news. But they also devote considerable space and energy into reporting on the entertainment industry, and are thus a major daily source of entertainment news. (I could add that since the sports paper articles usually do not disappear behind a pay wall, they are cited more than the major papers on Wikipedia.) Since many have a majority male readership, several also have adult-oriented pages and thus regularly report on the adult entertainment industry. (This produces odd moments such as when Japanese businessmen riding on the subway are reading these pages while standing next to high school girls, but that's another story.) That explains why major media companies are reporting on hardcore pornography. If you cannot accept that, then you are simply biased. What strikes me as significant about Hatsumi is that I was able to find a lot on her that was not on the adult pages, but in the regular entertainment sections. From my experience, that is not too common, and makes her stand out. Many of the articles above called her one of the most popular porn actresses in Japan; the SkyPerfect award was for best actress among the 10,000 porn films shown on their system[67]. I agree that so far I have not found deep indepth articles, but I also don't have access to much of the entertainment reporting in Japan, which is in the weekly magazines (few of them are online). We working on Japan pages constantly suffer from the inability to access sources (see WP:BIAS). But I do believe I have found enough articles to write a substantial article, which is all this is required by WP:WHYN. From my considerable experience working with Japan-related articles on AfD, this easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, you misunderstand: I'm not insisting that reporting on hardcore pornography is inconsistent with reliability; I'm saying that a media outlet that litters its articles with porn thumbnails, as is the case at the the Dansen-web piece you cited, is indicative of something less than serious journalism.
        Contrary to your assertion, WHYN and the policies on which it rests speak to more than merely having enough material to write a useful article: it's at least as important that our articles be based on reliable, independent sources that can be presented in a neutral way. WHYN is not a free pass. (I'm honestly not sure how you misunderstood this. Did you even look at WHYN before citing it‽)
        Your arguments about circulation and reliability are also unavailing. By your logic, the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail ought to be considered reliable. (They aren't.) The greater concern is editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking; certain things, like website context and article by-lines, may give hints about journalistic integrity.
        As for your accusations of bias: I am applying the same standards I use when judging English-language news sources. Japan is not a Third World country, and I see no reason to treat unsigned, tabloid-quality articles as reliable merely because they're in Japanese. (Relatedly, the community has recently rejected the idea of lowering the bar for subjects affected by systemic bias. See Discussion: Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability; Discussion: Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N.) You're entitled to your vote, but bludgeoning those who vote otherwise to insist that your sources are reliable because you say so and that anyone who disagrees is "simply biased" does not make it so. Rebb ing 05:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        User:Rebbing, it's not about User:Michitaro calling you "biased", it's about you yourself displaying proof of the very same when you say things like "I am applying the same standards I use when judging English-language news sources" after the fact that User:Michitaro already gave you a very lengthy and detailed explanation of the Japanese situation. To disregard this and still apply one's own culturally biased standards is generally considered to be very definition of "bias". You need to present a better argument if you want to pursue your argument as User:Michitaro has already invalidated your point. Holanthony (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Rejecting an ad hoc, lower standard of reliability applied to Japanese sources is "the very definition of 'bias.'" Got it. No wonder the community overwhelmingly disapproved of adjusting notability for "bias." Rebb ing 00:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        User:Rebbing: You don't appear to be listening to what I am explaining to you. You citation of ads on a page as proof of unreliability is not only weak, but can seem to based on bias towards certain kinds of content. Dansen is the adult page of Tokyo Sports, again one of if not the largest circulating sports papers in Japan, one sold at every newsstand in Japan. It is a reliable source used all over Wikipedia. It is not a blog or some shady adult website, but a long-standing professional media organization with editorial control. You have not offered evidence proving that Tokyo Sports or any of the other major media sources that I provided are unreliable. I cannot help but see your main argument as being, "Since they deal with adult material, they must be unreliable." That is bias, plain and simple. I cited WP:WHYN because I have used it many times in AfD discussions and know it well. I use it because I know my sources are RS and thus can use it. Belittling me is not going to help your argument. The main reason I cite WP:BIAS is out of an effort to educate you, given your unfamiliarity with Japan. Yes, Japan is not a Third World country, but it is a country that has not adopted the internet the way America has, and thus most major publications are still offline and inaccessible. There are few Wiki editors who can manage Japanese and we do our best to live up to Wikipedia standards with the limited access we have. This situation doesn't excuse everything. I have nominated dozens and dozens of Japan related articles for AfD because they don't pass WP:GNG. In my experience, from my long familiarity with the sources, this article passes, plain and simple. Michitaro (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say that Dansen is unreliable merely because it distributes pornography. Instead, I'm saying it's unreliable because it appears to be a tabloid, a Japanese-language equivalent of the Enquirer; the thumbnail links to related "articles" that are hardcore porn (not articles about porn) reinforces that perception. I have read your repeated replies to my vote, and not one of them attempts to explain why this or any of the other citations you have provided are any more reliable than an English-language tabloid like the National Enquirer, which, despite having a wide circulation and being sold at every newsstand in America, is not considered reliable.
        Your claim that you've used WHYN "many times" and "know it well" is flatly contradicted by your earlier argument that "having enough articles to write a substantial article" is "all t[hat] is required by []WHYN." A cursory reading of WHYN reveals that WHYN: (1) doesn't require anything itself but merely explains notability in terms of other policies and guidelines and (2) covers much more than "having enough articles." Despite your eminent expertise on the subject, I suggest you read it all the way through before citing it again.
        BIAS is an essay, not a guideline or policy; and the community has repeatedly rejected the notion of taking bias into consideration at AfD. As for your conclusion that the subject meets GNG "plain and simple," I am content to agree to disagree—you will note I have not repeatedly bludgeoned your vote. Rebb ing 00:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let me be clear about my logic in this one case: 1) Tokyo Sports is one of the major newspapers in Japan, 2) It is a reliable source for sports and entertainment news that is used throughout Wikipedia, 3) Tokyo Sports, like several other major papers in Japan, has an adult section that is part of the newspaper, 4) Dansen is the web version of that adult section, 5) Dansen is thus the product of a reliable news organization. Your impression about what it "appears" to be or that it "looks" like the National Enquirer is simply a subjective impression that holds little objective weight in this AfD. I am still waiting for you to provide objective evidence that disputes my logic or my evidence. Why you keep on saying the same thing about WP:WHYN mystifies me. You say I am misapplying WHYN because that only applies to articles that pass notability requirements. I have said from the start that this article does pass notability requirements, which is why WHYN can be cited. Sure we disagree, but it is a disagreement not about WHYN, but about this article. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now added more content to the article and cited some RS.Holanthony (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro and Holanthony who added reliable sources. I also agree that she passes WP:GNG. --Gstree (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Darthbunk Pakt Dunft (message) 01:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the inclusion standards that apply to this article here states: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." The 2016 "Best Actress" award would almost certainly be a "significant" award category, but my limited knowledge of the Japanese adult film industry doesn't allow me to determine if the Adult Broadcasting Awards are a "well-known" adult film award ceremony. Since I also personally don't understand Japanese well-enough, I'm also unable to determine if the subject of this article has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" (which is very similar to a GNG-pass) or not, but, FWIW, the arguments made here by "Michitaro" seem to be persuasive on that point. Guy1890 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps in order to help this along, I have followed Holanthony's lead and tried to start expanding the article. This may take a few days since I am very busy right now (and editing AV-related articles is not exactly my cup of tea), but hopefully this can give an indication of where the article can go. Michitaro (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the subject of the article exists, and appears to have some notoriety in the home market, but that's about it. The section "Activism" is symptomatic of such puff-ed up articles, as the actress simply expresses her opinion in an interview:

In March 2016, a Human Rights Now! report highlighted the negative aspects of Japan's pornographic industry. This caused a backlash among several Japanese pornographic performers, among them Hatsumi, who said: "At least in my own eyes, the current industry is very clean. I do it on my own will and so do many of my comrades".^[1]

References

^ Nagata, Kazuaki (8 March 2016). "Japanese porn actresses defend industry from NGO's accusations of abuse". The Japan Times. Tokyo. Retrieved 29 December 2016.

This is hardly "activism". The article overall falls short of encyclopedia notability, so WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically stating that something is unencyclopedic is really not a valid reason for deletion at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...falls short of encyclopedic notability means that the subject is non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only trivial awards and nothing of actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be rude, but I notice that you cast this vote a mere two minutes after a series of edits elsewhere. Even if you speak Japanese fluently, I have grave doubts that you or anyone would be able to review the sources cited in the article, outlined above by Michitaro, and uncovered during a proper BEFORE part D in such a short time frame. Rebb ing 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources are not sufficient to meet GNG. Many of the "keep" !voters cite a non-existent two-artist rule for albums. The actual rule deals with an ensemble of two or more notable artists or an artist in two or more notable ensembles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted for lacking sources. Sources have been added (which is why I withdrew a G4), but they are a book that trivially mentions the album, a Discogs placeholder, a reprint of the previous draft of the Wikipedia article, and a press release. None of these meet WP:RS, and there is no assertation of notability. The album didn't chart, and sales are unknown, so "other albums in this era went platinum" is meaningless. I could find no reviews or other significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFS. Delete this crap. It's a Hallmark album of absolutely no significance. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gold album, keep @JzG: it's an original album which sold half a million to a million copies, that's more than most charting albums, so on what basis is an album commissioned by Hallmark crap? These are major artists commissioned to do new albums which go Gold and Platinum, what makes them crap? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's assumed this was a gold recording. No indication this one did as no sales numbers are available. It simply fails WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Like the TC stated, the references provided just don't cut it as reliable sources. Likewise, until there are actual sources showing the sales numbers, the claims that it went Gold are mere assumptions that can not be used to establish notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Very poor sourcing. Karst (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However much it did or didn't sell, it's a collaborative album of new recordings by two very significant artists. I could find hundreds of articles on Wikipedia about less notable albums. If it needs better sources, find better sources. Personally, just being able to access the track listings of albums like this is a very useful aspect of Wikipedia. Please keep. Brettalan (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are arguments for deletion - see WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BURDEN, WP:USEFUL respectively. Widefox; talk 09:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this sentence alone: "Exact sales for this album were not made available by Hallmark but other albums in the series in the early 2000s typically went Platinum"--Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge we require WP:V, just fails NALBUM. Widefox; talk 09:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the argument? It's an album by two significant and popular artists of their time. All it should need to have is the title, artists, and the list to songs to be relevant and useful enough to be listed in Wikipedia, everything is just frosting. To me, it's a keeper. Southcoaster (talk) 13:04 23 December 2016 (UTC)
— Southcoaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. If this were an album by a single artist, we'd just redirect to the artist's article. The complicating factor is that it's a collaboration between two artists, so there's no obvious place to redirect this. I don't think that's reason alone to keep an article that doesn't meet our notability guidelines, though. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest - I sense the revulsion for albums selling a million outside the Billboard system, if those involved here promise to go through all 2015 albums and weed out the 50% of them which haven't even charted then, rather than delete the sensible thing to do would be merge this with The Christmas Collection (Olivia Newton-John album) which has an article, and was compiled partly from this original album. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be preferable to delete. (OTHERSTUFF aside...) If there's any RS saying how many sales/significance (or other per WP:NALBUM) then I would change to keep. Widefox; talk 12:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: @Widefox: I nominated the Christmas Collection for AFD too, because I couldn't find RSes on it either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target of Olivia Newton-John. Widefox; talk 17:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: can I suggest starting from A, or rather from numerals, and working through the entire album article corpus. Seriously. Merry Christmas In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

61,165 readers must be wrong?. In previous discussion the stats were noted "Deck the Halls has been viewed 67,876 times, 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) has been viewed 61,165 times, Tis the Season (Wendy Moten album) has been viewed 5843 times."

No one can arrived at this album by accident. Can someone in favour of deleting this because an original album by Olivia Newton John and Vince Gill isn't notable explain why 61,165 readers read this album article and not the Wendy Moten album article? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ("can someone...")...The assumption that all clicks on this from mass traffic from a Google Doodle -> dab -> dab entries know what topic they are looking for is, well just an assumption. Also, I've never seen pageviews as an argument for notability before. At the same time, I note this assumption is used against the primary topic, which is inverted logic - these clicks are more likely caused by us driving millions of readers to a dab when there's an arguably a clear primary topic but failing to provide that to them with the effect of error or uncertain navigation from readers. Commonsense is that they're using it to remember where it's from. We know, but we still force them an extra click that they may get wrong (or out of curiosity they click other entries). Repeating that failure every year is just not learning. (note that in raw numbers 61,165 is an order of magnitude less than the daily traffic ~800,000 for the dab 'Tis the Season Widefox; talk 13:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and Yes ("61,165 readers") have been badly navigated by us - readers clicked on the first link on the left of the dab! That was the Olivia Newton John album, the second the Wendy Moten one. (The link to the primary topic article was on the right, now put back to having a link at the start of the entry). Widefox; talk 13:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: firstly those figures are from before the Google Doodle, as @Dicklyon: already explained, the magnitude is "Deck the Halls = 67,876 times, 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) = 61,165 times, Tis the Season (Wendy Moten album) = 5843 times." secondly how does someone arrive at an article labelled 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) without wanting that article? There's no redirect involved, no one is forcing them. Please explain how a single reader gets to that article except by wanting it? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my assumption was we're talking about now, not years ago. Outside the Doodle traffic, the navigation is the same Tis the season -> dab -> links. The motivation of readers may be different, or may be similar....what's that song with the lyrics "Tis the season"? The point being, we don't just use article stats for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPICS or WP:N. This is all offtopic, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. As you're the creator, and not new around here I'm not certain where you're going with any of this. Widefox; talk 14:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: I don't know whether you're new around here or not, but your comment: "Yes ("61,165 readers") have been badly navigated by us" makes me think we have different understandings of how redirects and dab pages work. As I understand it no one can be forced to look at a disambiguated page by a navigation aid that simply lists it, so those 61,165 readers can only have done so because they wanted to. No one badly navigated them. Unless you know of a technical feature that forces the page to open? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If by that you're asserting users click with 100% success then I'd disagree with you, yes. You're asserting 61,185 "people" wanted this article but have no proof of that theory (not that it's a strong argument at AfD anyhow, as well as being based on the assumption of 1 pageview = 1 reader). It's a flawed argument at AfD. Is our understanding of AfDs the same? Mine is that this is about notability not pageviews. It's all offtopic at AfD, may be worth taking up elsewhere. My preference is RS are found and this closes Keep. (my comments about navigation are pertinent to the dab, so also offtopic here, but I'm talking about the dab and the well known UI phenomenon where users/UI/default clicking e.g. click on the first of a listing/default despite the meaning) / always clicking "OK" (as for how new around here I am, I added Deck the Halls to the dab [68] which is the root of the phrase [69].) Widefox; talk 16:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now what you're saying - and yes that article is true generally that given a list of non clearly labelled options the first ones on the list are more likely to get clicked, however, that reduces with clear labelling so in a situation where list items are labelled 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album), that is less relevant in this clearly labelled scenario. In any case one would expect most of the hits are coming from Google or off the templates in other Olivia Newton John and Vince Gill articles as readers navigate between articles. As for sources, well we have Billboard confirming this was an original album by two major artists which sold exceptionally well - as well as Hallmarks other 500,000 plus albums, so hopefully a closer will recognize that as factual. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may convince ourselves that UIs are easy enough, but users have habits and high standards nowadays. We're both speculating their usage, but ultimately we can't make any claim about "61,165 readers are right (or wrong)". The simplest explanation is they clicked the first link on the left . The carol entry has often had no link on the left. If I understand usage stats, mobile is larger nowadays so with small screens a link on the right may be less visible, I don't know. People click defaults. Widefox; talk 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:In ictu oculi I wouldn't put too much hope in clear labelling. That research, and the well known default effect of users clicking "OK" without reading the message (however clear the labelling) results in error navigation at dabs. 61K clicks out of ~1M a day (at peak, if that's the period you're referring to) is less than 10%, so not significant, and may (I don't know user's intentions) just be default effect/error navigation (as someone else noted about view stats falling off with this dab). Widefox; talk 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax, sources can be found if sought. This is a notable collaboration between highly notable artists. bd2412 T 14:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Added to article "their cd together did very well for us so we knew we'd had success with her in the past" that is direct confirmation from Hallmark in Billboard that the original album sold as well as the other albums which went Gold and Platinum. And confirmation that it was the reason Hallmark commissioned Olivia Newton-John to do the Breast Cancer album Stronger than Before. @Jennica: @Walter Görlitz: @C.Fred: does "very" in that sentence address your concern? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The phrase "did very well for us" may mean something different for Hallmark than it does for Billboard or a record company. It doesn't address my concerns, no, but it is some positive press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've rewritten what you've added. The cited source is a passing mention in a Billboard magazine piece about a different topic. The phrase "their CD did very well for us" is vague.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Olivia Newton-John discography. The "keep" !votes are missing the issue: without real coverage in reliable sources we can cite, there can be no article as the content is not WP:VERIFIABLE or WP:NOTABLE. I can't find any either - no reviews, no real information besides minor mentions. Olivia Newton-John is the more high profile of the two artists, so it makes sense to redirect to her discography article where the collaboration with Gill and London Symphony Orchestra can be noted, along with anything else that can actually be cited.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't verifiable? This is mentioned in Billboard, ONJ biography, sales are confirmed. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information wasn't verifiable, and I've removed everything that wasn't attributed to a reliable source. Large parts of the text were attributed to unusable sources like a mirror of the deleted version of this Wikipedia article and a bare Discogs link that didn't actually verify the material. Other parts were not supported at all. In my own search, I couldn't find sources to back it up; there's a biography of Olivia Newton-John, but I couldn't find mention of this album in it. Everything else is minor mentions in articles (or press releases) about other topics, nothing that covers this topic substantively.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per collaboration of notable artists. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:NOTINHERITED apply? Widefox; talk 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Olivia Newton-John discography. Fails WP:GNG and sources should pass WP:RS which most do not. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a significant enough studio album by two notable artists. It's never likely to reach GA status, but it has enough real world significance and satisfies WP:V, so I don't see a benefit from deleting it. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I too don't see any benefit from deleting it. not the most significant album, not also not completely pointless to have an article. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that covered by WP:NOHARM ? Widefox; talk 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PERMASTUB . Widefox; talk 13:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except for maybe Billboard, none of the sources listed have enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Only Hollywood Songsters: Garland to O'Connor even mentions the album by name, and only briefly lists the title without going into any further detail. Promotional press releases from affiliated companies aren't third-party sources. The fame of the artists involved is irrelevant. Since this was a collaborative album instead of one by a singular artist or group, I can't think of a good place to merge or redirect. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with the previous users who mentioned the page views and certification. Carbrera (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Carbrera someone else has analysed the page views - as they are easily explained at an error from the main navigation (~1M readers per day) so not a solid argument, so in reality, a pageview argument has no weight from a WP:N, and may be based on false cause/effect. Widefox; talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the risk of repeating myself, still neither generally notable nor notable as an album. Performers still don't grant notability and page views are not a criteria of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army Hotel Management Institute

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

Non-notable hospitality training organization. Tagged for notability for a year. Several newspapers briefly covered its launch in June 2009 (when the article was created).[70][71][72] Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, and ProQuest, for any further coverage of সেনা হোটেল ম্যানেজমেন্ট ইন্সটিটিউটের / Sena Hotel Management Institute / Army Hotel Management Institute, found only a single passing mention.[73]. WP:ORGSIG asks us to consider whether an organization has had any significant or demonstrable effects on anything. The lack of persistence and depth in coverage indicates no. Fails WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP & GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Lack of coverage in outside sources and doesn't meet GNG. United States Man (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and as stated fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is more than that to cover such articles. Light2021 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fasti Ostienses. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marble slab of Pharasmanes

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

Fails notability As far as I've been able to determine, this piece of the Fasti Ostienses has never been referred to by this name. And small wonder: there is no reason for a lengthy inscription comprised of lists of consuls, local duoviri, & the occasional public event. In other words, the Fasti is a public journal covering parts of 3 centuries, & the visit of Pharasmanes was simply one event recorded in the inscription; the Fasti Ostienses was not created to record the event itself. Moreover, this fragment of the inscription (Og) has not attracted a notable body of commentary that I have been able to find. Seeing how this article was created by a now-absent editor with a tendentious interest in Georgian topics -- but without any citation of Georgian sources, not even an equivalent article on xmf.wikipedia (the Georgian Wikipedia) -- I can't defend its notability. While there is some important information in the article, it should be added to the appropriate articles (e.g., Pharasmanes II of Iberia) & this one deleted. llywrch (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fasti Ostienses. Even if it were independently notable, there's no reason to have an article on a fragment of a text that's longer than our article on the text as a whole. – Joe (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, much of the content better belongs at Pharasmanes II of Iberia, although a sentence or two might be added to Fasti Ostienses. (And as soon as I work thru the Latin of Vidman's Fasti Ostienses: edendos, illustrandos, restituendos, curavit (2nd ed. 1982), I'll be improving the latter article -- llywrch (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposed deletion, and merges of content; the title doesn't reflect standard terminology, and the scholarly commentary on this particular fragment seems too slender to justify separate treatment. Haploidavey (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fasti Ostienses this seems the right place to put the content to me. It is about the marble slab rather than the person. Content can also be merged with Pharasmanes II of Iberia as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://twitter.com/ThePeoplesCube/status/815990773661528064

[2] Nagata, Kazuaki (8 March 2016). "Japanese porn actresses defend industry from NGO's accusations of abuse". The Japan Times. Tokyo. Retrieved 29 December 2016.

[1]

[1]