User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:30, 19 September 2016

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
IVONA	7 years ago	1	4170	2	1685.77
Rocco Bellagio	7 years ago	0	1572	0	1399.24
Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	2	5390	0	1024.18
Debasis Panigrahi	7 years ago	2	5564	2	699.5
Arthur Brett and Sons	7 years ago	3	12381	2	630.77
PetalMD	7 years ago	3	12097	1	612.78
Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (3rd nomination)	7 years ago	0	1565	0	564.12
The Fabulous Udin	7 years ago	2	4423	2	498.52
From Eva with Love	7 years ago	2	4394	0	445.81
Kim Se-jeong (singer)	7 years ago	2	4953	1	440.71
JIC Capital Management	7 years ago	0	1994	1	437.18
Deep Stealth Productions (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	0	3692	2	436.3
European Masters (snooker)	7 years ago	4	11396	0	436
The Woodsman (soundtrack)	7 years ago	2	4369	2	434.74
Swan neck duct	7 years ago	3	8889	2	426.71
Libido Blume	7 years ago	0	3182	1	422.28
Panthers–Seahawks rivalry	7 years ago	1	15791	0	417.45
EasyRide application	7 years ago	0	1994	0	412.62
Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)	7 years ago	0	1160	0	403.82
Ibiza Rocks Hotel (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	0	7282	1	402.1
Ayden Keenan Olson	7 years ago	0	1773	0	394.73
Willow Rose	7 years ago	0	2424	0	376.8
Le Volume Était Au Maximum	7 years ago	1	2664	1	372.27
Karim Hype	7 years ago	1	2223	1	372.25
Rodrigo Montt	7 years ago	1	4353	1	371.55

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amazon Echo#Overview of operation. czar 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

IVONA

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

The only reason this company could be considered notable is because it was purchased by Amazon. Other than that, this article either reads like an advertisement or is too technical for the average reader to understand. The technical information come from non-independent sources and does not prove notability. Proud User (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the proposed deletion. Ivona was/is one of the leading text-to-speech products and deserves a place on wikipedia, just like any other of the thousands of software described in other articles. The article could/should be modified so that 'it doesn't read as an advertisement' (NB: AFAIK Ivona stopped selling its products to privates) but the page should definitely stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0rents (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep, this company is successful and known enough that there should be no problem finding reliable third-party information. There's obviously room for improvement, so that the article doesn't read like a press realease. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kpalion, this is AfD so now's the time to show the secondary sources czar 04:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I found no better sources. @L0rents: We don't decide whether a company "deserves" to be here, it's whether article on that company meets the standards agreed upon by the community. @Kpalion: I concur with Czar. While it seems like there should be better sources out there, we shouldn't be deciding on an article based on speculation--this is precisely the time when those sources should be found and added to the article. I tried and failed. Note: @MBisanz's double-relisting (and self-reversion) on 1 September caused this page to be commented out of that day's daily AfD log. I've fixed this--as that was the "third" relisting, there should be no more after this. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation, where the company and TTS are mentioned. Considering this is one of the better TTS systems out there, I was surprised to find little in the way of independent reviews or history. Ivona appears in lists of best TTS systems, such as [1] (looks reliable) and [2] (seems well researched, but it is a blog). There is basic verifiability, but these fall short of WP:GNG notability thresholds. Its biggest claim to fame is as one of the foundation speech technologies in the Amazon Kindle and Echo devices. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, we should preserve verifiable material instead of deleting it. Until more independent sourcing becomes available, a redirect to it most notable use seems the best way to give readers a little information about the TTS without outrunning the sources. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation per the above - Article is clearly promotional and the sources aren't amazing, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation where it is discussed. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation I don't see enough sources to show that it is independently notable. The only sources talk about Amazon acquiring it, so I guess a redirect works fine. I don't think a merge is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocco Bellagio

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

Delete - Rocco Bellagio doesn't need a wiki page he only wrestles for OVW. Browndog91 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that, whether or not it happened, reliable sources cover it, and therefore so should we. Any well-sourced doubts about the event should be discussed as part of the article. Sandstein 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre

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

This page was deleted previously in 2016, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. It was reinstated in June 2018, based on new references and edits of User:A Bicyclette who has since been permanently blocked. I have critiqued those new references here: Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided as I do not believe that they are any more reliable than what was there when the page was first deleted. I don't think there are enough WP:RS to say what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. This page should be deleted as an unconfirmed event as WP:V applies Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep. It is at least verifiable that there are allegations of a massacre and none of the sources are suggesting that it didn't happen, so this does not amount to a hoax. The sources are largely newspapers and press agencies, so the claim of PRIMARY does not really stand up. This AfD sounds to me very much like an attempt to whitewash the ROK army. In their critique of the sources, Mztourist says that they cannot access Clodfelter's book. Well I can, and this unarguably independent, secondary, reliable source has this to say,

The ROK Capital Division hunted Charlie in its AO in Binh dinh Province. Between September 23 and November 9, the Tigers of the South Korean division reported 1,161 enemy deaths in the course of operation Maeng Ho. A good many of the reported enemy KIAs may have been noncombatants, for the ROK had a reputation for brutality against the pro-VC peasantry of the region. On February 2, 1966, for example, 380 civilians were killed by ROKs in the village of Binh An, in Binh Dinh province. As many as 1,600 noncombatants may have been killed in the provinces of Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and Quang Ngai in January and February 1966
— Micheal Clodfelter

SpinningSpark 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The newspaper accounts are interviews with villagers many years after the purported events and so they are PRIMARY. There is no photographic evidence or contemporary reporting of the purported events. The AP story shows proper journalistic investigation and indicates serious doubts as to what, if anything, occurred. In relation to Clodfelter, use of "Charlie", "Tigers" indicates a lack of standards in what you say is an "unarguably independent, secondary, reliable sources". What actual sources does Clodfelter give in relation to a massacre at Binh An? Or is he just repeating the same dubious stories that are included on this page? I am not attempting to whitewash anything, but a massacre is a serious allegation and it shouldn't be included on WP without very solid evidence. This page has been deleted once before for lack of evidence. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The AP source does not express "serious doubts" of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true. It is true that the journalist says "[t]he AP was unable to independently confirm their claims", in part because "[a]s is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the [local] officials' allegations." But that is hardly the same as actually casting doubt.

Clodfelter's book is published by McFarland, a serious, well-eatablished publisher specialising in academic and reference works. On sourcing, Clodfelter says,

Cross-checking and comparison of sources and, most of all, common sense have guided my research and results. i have employed official and supposedly authoritative sources wherever available, have sought statistics from both sides in each war to evaluate the inevitably conflicting claims, and have tried to verify the numbers reported on the battlefield with the records of the various medical corps and military surgeon-general reports.

This does not sound to me like someone with a "lack of standards" or "just repeating the same dubious stories". It is not for Wikipedia to assess the significance of lack of photographic evidence, contemporary reports, or the primary sources used by RS (although Clodfelter has a nine-page bibliography if you really need to know). That kind of assessment is the job of the reliable secondary sources. That's why we use them. SpinningSpark 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned by the low standards being applied here. A massacre is a very controversial accusation, but you seem willing to accept the existence of an event based on minimal details and very dubious sources. The lack of photographic evidence and contemporaneous reporting should be of concern, because that was available for other massacres, such as My Lai Massacre, Đắk Sơn massacre, Hue Massacre, Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre, Son Thang massacre etc. Re the AP, I don't agree that "the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true" what gives you that impression? Once again I am asking you specifically what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre, not general statements as to sourcing, so what are they? If all Clodfelter has done is copy details from WP or those same newspaper reports then it isn't any more reliable than those underlying sources. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If the accusations are dubious, it is down to you to find reliable sources saying that. The article can then be balanced with that material. Until then, your position is entirely WP:OR. SpinningSpark 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a rubbish argument. WP:V and WP:RS are the pillars of Wikipedia. Vietnamese POV pushers have created a number of pages regarding purported massacres based on tenuous sources, I am simply challenging them to ensure that WP:V and WP:RS are met. You haven't answered any of the other issues I raised on the talk page and are refusing to answer the simple question of what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what sources Clodfelter used. Presumably they are in his nine-page bibliography that I already pointed you to. There is no reason why I should be required to name Clodfelter's sources; Clodfelter is the source I am citing. If I were to name his sources, would you then ask what sources they used? Eventually, we would get back to primary sources which you have already made a big case of rejecting. I can only surmise that nothing will ever satisfy you. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Another copout. If Clodfelter refers to WP or those articles then it becomes circular and he is of no value as a ref. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea that he used Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous. SpinningSpark 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep The sources report that something (may have) happened; we report what the sources say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That sets a very low bar for a very controversial accusation. The sources are minimal and IMO not reliable.Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep We need to cover what the sources say, otherwise, if the article is deleted, other mentions may creep in at other articles without a linked place to discuss what the sources say dispassionately. If Mztourist wishes to challenge the veracity of the sources, then there are other avenues for that (eg RS noticeboard, which I have repeatedly directed him to). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

read the refs, they're rubbish, particularly Tuổi Trẻ which is the official publication of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union... Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I retain *serious* concerns about your complete disregard for anything but official U.S. DOD sources, whether that's the AP or Vietnamese sources (just because it's the other side doesn't *automatically* mean it was falsified). I remain also concerned as to whether this disregard may extend to your not being able to be neutral in these matters. My vote stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

We have history, I don't expect you to be objective wrt anything I write. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUDGEON should probably be mentioned at some point too... ——SerialNumber54129 12:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Whether the event happened or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. A hoax popularized by numerous sources could still be notable. If the information comes from multiple reliable sources (and the Associated Press, Globe and Mail, and Asian Human Rights Commission articles are sufficient, regardless of the others, for which I would need to look closer to make a determination), it meets WP:V. All of this is not to say that I don't believe the event happened--I am simply speaking to the reasons for opposing the article's inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Debasis Panigrahi

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

The sources cited here do not appear to support the notability of the subject (indeed, most do not mention the subject). A Google search reveals a book published by a vanity press, and not much more. It may be worth looking for non-English sources to support notability. agtx 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This source, which is cited in the article, says that the subject has received a Sahitya Akademi Award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment, although this and his website states Panigrahi winning a Odisha(or Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award, i have been unable to confirm this at the award's own website. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That does seem to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Indian Express source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources: Indian Express, The Hindu, [3], [4]. @Coolabahapple: Odisha Sahitya Academy Award is not (Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award. Both are different. You were looking into a wrong website; the correct one is odishasahityaakademi.org. Anup [Talk] 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anup, is this something you (or anyone else reading) would want to work on? I got started cutting out some of the promotional language and unsourced claims, and moving what refs there were to the appropriate claim, but I don't really feel competent to take it any further; I just don't have enough contextual knowledge to feel confident in my interpretation of the sources. But if someone else did want to, userfy seems like it could be a good solution here. (Otherwise I'm still chewing on DGG's delete as promo arg.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. as promotional, and , if actually notable, in need of total rewriting from sources. This is written in exactly the style of many prootional bios of writers where peoplethink that stating superlatives in the article makes for proof of notability If there are sources, someone interested in using them should write the article. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is a poorly referenced promotional essay and is best deleted, without prejudice to recreation with RS and neutral tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 20 September 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 keep. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Brett and Sons

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

Clearly promotional, created by SPA, not encyclopedic, no checkable references, no claim nor evidence of passing WP:CORP, verging on WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. PROD was removed without any fixes to the article. David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources covering the antiques and furniture trade such as Timber Trades Journal; Arts & Decoration; The Connoisseur, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you have access to good paper sources, please do add them to the article :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ -- Pls see below; Original comment: I searched google newspapers and was only seeing trivial mentions in relation to the company producing a replica of Churchill's desk. I could not find anything better. This business did not appear to have made a lasting impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete. All I found was a mention in one Google Book (Business India. A.H. Advani. 1991.), perhaps a repring of some academic articles, that "Part II studied four companies in this regard — large ones like British Airways, IBM and Jaguar and a small furniture company, Arthur Brett and Sons. ". I couldn't access the book to check for references or scope of coverage, and nothing else seems to match. Being a one of four case studies for a single academic work would nonetheless help with notability, if combined with one more or so good source, but well, I cannot even cite this one properly, and since no other sources are present... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep This is a well-known company in Norwich, where I have resided. The entry needs more reference, and could be made a little more factual and less like puffery. I will try to find some more useful quotable sources.

Roaringboy (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It might be notable , but the article is too promotional to stand and would eed to be entirely rewritten. using much better sources than present here. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gorst-Williams, Jessica (1997-09-16). "Family beats economic chill with style - Your Own Business". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  EDWARD BRETT, the 58-year-old head of Arthur Brett, a furniture manufacturer based in Norwich, says that "furniture-making is a bug and once it is in the blood you cannot get it out of the system".
  Mr Brett is the fifth generation of his family involved in making fine traditional English furniture. It all started with John Brett, a chairmaker, who was born in 1815. His son, Jonathan, established the family business that is now world renowned, particularly for pieces in the styles of Sheraton, Chippendale and Hepplewhite. Turnover is around Pounds 3.5 million and the firm employs 85 people.
  The cornerstone of the business remains individual craftsmanship. To ensure that skills are passed down the generations, Arthur Brett has its own unique four-year apprenticeship.
  ...
  Notable commissions include replicas for Christie's of its Chippendale auctioneer's rostrum and conference tables for the Bank of England, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Bahrain.
  ...
  Exports now account for more than 50 per cent of business, and the firm has clients in Japan, Hong Kong, Turkey, Greece, the US, Europe and the Middle East. Two years ago it opened a showroom and office in Pimlico Road, London. "You cannot expect everyone to come down to Norwich," says Mr Brett.
2. van der Post, Lucia (2003-10-11). "The tradition of the exquisitely wrought reproduction piece is long and honourable - Scenes from domestic life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  And up at Nostell Priory in West Yorkshire there's a Chippendale library table which the National Trust asked Arthur Brett, probably this country's leading maker of fine reproductions, to make to special order. It'll cost you Pounds 103,694 (the price is worked out the way Chippendale used to do it: by costing materials and man-hours and adding what Arthur Brett calls "a modest profit"), and in case you're wondering, they've already sold at least three. Arthur Brett is the company to ask if you've been left five Queen Anne dining chairs and the sixth is kaput -they will then make an identical one using traditional cabinet-making skills.
  ....
  Arthur Brett, for instance, tell me that they have recently made a precise copy of a William Vile cabinet originally made for Clarence House -it cost the buyer Pounds 100,000-odd but if you're after an original you'd be looking at something like a million.
3. Watson-Smyth, Kate (2014-08-16). "A Brit of quality". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  At the other end of the spectrum, Arthur Brett, a furniture company founded in 1860, has also found a new market in Asia. David Salmon, creative director of Arthur Brett, says British design is known throughout the world for its high quality. "It's the same reason people buy an Aston Martin or a suit from Savile Row: if you want those qualities, you want a British designer," he says.
  Like many other furniture companies, Arthur Brett went through tough times when Asian manufacturers started undercutting prices. While many UK firms were forced to shut their doors, the company's tactic was to go further upmarket, raising prices and creating more bespoke pieces.
  "We now export 20 per cent of our work to China," says Salmon, who adds that over the past 18 months sales to the US have picked up on a weekly basis. He says that many US customers have grown tired of buying cheap, low-quality furniture and are returning to the notion of well-made, high-end products, which they find among the UK designers.
4. Mallalieu, Huon (2015-02-07). "Second-rank auction houses up their game - Collecting". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  It will be interesting to see how a sale on February 17 at Sworders of Stansted Mountfitchet appeals to collectors, since it challenges recent assumptions about the furniture market. It is made up of items from the stock of Arthur Brett, the fourth-generation Norwich business, together with their furniture reference library. The business manufactured furniture, at one time employing more than 100 men. After 40 years in business, James Brett is selling its contents, many of them his favourites.
5. Burroughs, Katrina (2006-11-17). "Metropolitan metamorphosis". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The majority of the metamorphs are models of grown-up sophistication, however. Arthur Brett makes furniture based on classic English cabinetry that conceals high-tech audiovisual equipment. The push of a button on Brett's Regency rosewood commode, with hand-carved, fluted pillars and parcel gilt decoration, summons up a plasma television screen (GBP18,148).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arthur Brett and Sons to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Keep~~-- sufficient sources have been presented by editor Cunard to justify keeping the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep This seems to be a notable company and there has been sustained coverage. I found 2 more in the Singapore newspaper archives. To be honest the second source is essentially an interview. But overall, I get the feeling that the company is a notable English furniture manufacturer with quite a bit of history.

The labour of Arthur Brett's skilled men The Business Times, 7 March 1981, Page 13
A thorough Brett dyed in the wood The Straits Times, 3 December 1982, Page 4

There are also some trivial mentions which do indicate a credible claim of significance. The article btw is pretty badly written. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If new evidence is or has been provided, please check that it hasbeen added to the article please vote clearly 'keep' or 'delete' based ony our rationale. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure -- no sources have been added to the article and the tone continues to be overly promotional. I'm not confident that using the sources above would not result in the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review, and the article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination, which addressed promotional tone (see its Revision history). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

PetalMD

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

This article was recreated today after being speedy deleted per promo. I re-speedied, and the tag was removed with the edit note that included: "The two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG " and warning the creator to tone down the PROMO in the future. The two acceptable sources are this Le Soleil piece and this Montreal Gazette piece. Yep, we have two independent sources with significant discussion. There are two lightly-dressed press releases also cited now here and here about acquisitions. This company is marginally notable at this time; not at all a slam dunk for meeting GNG. In light of the promotional pressure, delete and also salt. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep Sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the ad-like content has been removed. I left out another reference which dated back to the company's early days and wasn't bringing anything new [5]. I also left out this source because I'm not sure who the author is but it explains how PetalMD has been deployed throughout Montfort Hospital which is not insignificant. "Promotional pressure" (whatever that means) is not a reason for deletion. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are the same four sources that I described above; you have not added anything since the nomination. Correct? For articles that are marginally notable and it could go either way, when there is promotional pressure, there is a growing trend to delete them. It is not worth the community's time to keep marginally notable articles neutral when there are people who keep trying to add promotional content to them. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've given you two more sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the company. Correct? As for the promotional pressure, that's what watchlists are for (mine anyways): I've reduced the article to a neutral stub and I'll be happy to do it again if need be. Pichpich (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For pete's sake would you actually read the nomination? I mention four sources there. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read your nomination. You mention the four sources that are currently form part of the article. In my keep !vote just above, I mention two more sources that are not currently used in the article but are nevertheless indications of notability. Just so we're clear, I'm talking about this one and this other one. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OH so the "two sources" you keep talking about are sources that you yourself decided were worthless or not reliable. OK then. I didn't realize you are actually asking the community to consider sources you already rejected. Very strange. So we still have two good independent sources with significant discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete -- per WP:PROMO and failing to meet CORPDEPTH. The sources being offered above are trivial or PR like. The first one is a blog (non RS), and the second has a promotional tone such as:

The mission of the company is to allow doctors to spend as much time as possible with their patients by supporting them in the administrative aspects of their practice. Obligations that are eating 25% of the time doctors.

Its web platform, called Petal MD, includes support heavy schedules of doctors. It also serves as central library by which doctors can exchange texts and scientific articles on innovative treatments or new treatment protocols.

The current sources provide no claim of notability; thus making it an unnecessary article on a unremarkable company. The only other purpose for the article to exist would be for promotional purposes.

PS -- the creator of this article Special:Contributions/Cbonamy has already been blocked as spam / advertising only account, so this confirms it. Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time dealing with COI editors who are likely to return and trying to maintain neutrality of this article (notwithstanding editor Pichpich's admirable efforts to salvage this article), I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Weak Keep - If I read both reliable sources (Montreal Gazette and Le Soleil) correctly, 25,000 of the country’s 75,000-plus physicians use this platform. At least for me, this is sign of notability. I share concerns about promotional use of this article, if proven right, my vote will be delete in the next AfD (assuming the article survives this one and no other reliable sources appear...). Pavlor (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another source Ici Radio-Canada. Only short news. Pavlor (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete I would not rely on the coverage of any general newspaper for what physicians use or do not use. I would rely only on audited figures which are unambiguous between the possibilities that they a/signed up and perhaps had a trial for but actually purchased /leased it; b/bought/leased it, but have since discontinued it. c/use only one small part of it. Nice round numbers like 75,000 are very unlikely to be correct. Claiming the most inflated of all possible nuumbers is PR-talk, just as when Wikipedia reports the number of "editors" or uses a very low definition of "active editors" DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman wrote "The current sources provide no claim of notability". I pointed to the opposite. The few reliable sources we have base notability of PetalMD on numbers you dispute. Fair enough, I also think these numbers say nothing about actual use. However reliable sources have greater weight than my opinion (even though they are misleading). As I see it, there are only three independent reliable sources: two local newspapers (with several articles about the company in one of them and only single article in the another) and brief news article on the page of public broadcaster. Is this enough to estabilish notability? For me yes, others may have other opinion. Pavlor (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PROMO. All the sources presented are purely promotional. This can be seen because each article is like a closed universe where the only views presented for each article are those connected with the company. For example, the first reference recounts testimonies derived from company promotional videos, and the article even states these are company promotional videos. I am amazed at that one. Given these are company promotional videos invalidates their testimony for purposes of notability. Then the presented view for the rest of the first reference is the company CEO. This is not an independent reliable source.

It is the same with the other articles presented. None of these are reliable sources, per COREDEPTH. All views, other than the promotional testimonials, are derived from company people, as if there were no one else to interview. These are the same as routine announcements. This is not journalism, and this is not what is intended as a measure of WP:N, GNG, and COREDEPTH; hence it fails those. I also echo DGG - an unbiased auditing of numbers and comments obtained from a signifigant sample of subscribers and former subscribers would be much more acceptable. That is more likely to represent journalistic integrity. Simply saying 75,000 current subscribers really tells consumers nothing and is also a nice rounded suspect number. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

75,000 current subscribers? My French may be bad, but this number is estimate of physicians in the entire country (Quebec or Canada?), not number of subscribers (which is mentioned in 20000-30000 range in the sources, 30,347 on the petalmd webpage). I wonder, did you really read these sources? Pavlor (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you read the only English source available (which mentions 10,000 subscribers in August 2014...) and discarded the French ones. These mention 16,000 subscribers in January 2015 and 25,000 in Jaunuary 2016. Pavlor (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NSOFTWARE. This is an emerging software with a limited geographical scope which makes it WP:TOOSOON as well. I'm particularly concerned that the sources seem to be examples of WP:SPIP; redressing press releases and printing them. For example Betakit.com seems to exclusively focus on publishing startup news and seems to publish literally all news related to startups. This makes it useless as a source to measure notability. LaPresse news about acquisition is a routine news. This leaves only 2 sources Montreal Gazette and LaPresse, both of which are unfortunately are more of interviews with the employees of the company rather than an analysis of the company. This makes it borderline primary and of questionable independence. I'm particularly concerned with the lack of independent reviews. With no other coverage, I will go with a delete. Software are some of the easiest things to find sources for and we actually have an over-coverage of software on Wikipedia. This one falls short of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete as I want to note that the author account has now been closed as an advertising account, which is exactly what this article was and still is all along, from this to the current article, none of it came close at all for actual notability, let alone any meaningful improvements; simply tossing some trivial links along with clearly advertising the company, business and services is exactly deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 20 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Canadian_Ethnic_Cleansing_Team

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

Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Clearly a WP:GNG and WP:WEB fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Moving stray vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Delete Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 02:35, 10 September 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 Keep as there's not only a reception section containing sources, but there has also been no other comments suggesting otherwise, thus no comments for deletion at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The Fabulous Udin

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

Blatantly promotional - no independent sources, tons of redlinks. There are no independent refs; the article exists simply to promote the movie by showing up in Google reports via Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - Although the film itself may be worth an article (I do see a couple reliable sources, though only a few, and nothing all that in-depth), this is not it. This reaches the WP:TNT point. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Clear keep based on the recent updates by User:MRFazry -- seems like their are plenty of sources, and I am not seeing anything particularly promotional about the current version of the article. Also, redlinks are not a justification for deletion (they are actually really good reasons to include the article). Sadads (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are thinly veiled press releases, two by the same person and are mostly duplicates. One of the links in the refs goes no where already. Fwiw, none are in English. This is 100% promotional. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - The new sources help muchly. Republika is clearly an RS, and as far as Indonesian online news portals go, Liputan6 is one of the better ones. It's not uncommon for the same reporter for the same source to report on the same film at different times; Tiga Dara, a GA, cites two stories from the same reporter for Rolling Stone Indonesia. I'm not particularly familiar with SINDONews, but it is owned by a major media corporation (MNC), so it may very well be reliable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:41, 14 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

From Eva with Love

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Google finding very few sources. noq (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Confirming my PROD, "Fails WP:NFILM and I could not find any reviews in WP:RS". Appears to be being edited by the filmmaker himself. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: I found it difficult to believe that film (even a short film) receiving multiple awards (even if not seen as "major" as an Oscar) had received absolutely no coverage. In a quick look, I easily found an in-depth independent review by James McDonald at Irish Film Critic. I have convinced myself it is worth looking further before declaring them non-existent. At the very least, the author should be sent to WP:NAU to better understand the difficulties of WP:COI when editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment that link is a dup of [6] that is already on the article. noq (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it is the original review of which the article ref was itself a dup. I still support a deeper search. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFILM specifies a "major award". Any organization can make trophies and give them out. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's an "attribute to consider" which suggests that "sources may exist" and is not itself a mandate when it clarifies "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well"... essentially telling us that awards (even non-major) hint that coverage may exist. This is why I suggested Looking deeper. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete as even the comment above stating the links are still quite thin and are not coming close to the actual needed substance, let alone information, because all what's the listed here are some film show appearances. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable short film. The sources are weak, to say the least. Other than showing at mid-level film festivals, I don't see any evidence this has ever been shown in a regular movie theater, much less an "indie house". Unless a short film is shown at the Cannes Court Métrage or some similar high-profile shorts-fest or a World SF Con, it's unlikely to get much media attention. Furthermore, none of the actors are notable yet. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 19 September 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kim Se-jeong (singer)

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

no notable work yet, she have not any notable solo work to need separate page in wikipedia such cast member in tv ,actng drama,album etc,delete and redirect to her bands.(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - She is presenter of TV show Talents for Sale and also winner of reality program. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Delte non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A TV presenter that by sources verified presents notable shows are not non-notable. IDONTLIKEIT does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you show us the notability guideline that says that TV presenters that present notable shows are notable, BabbaQ? As a general rule, notability is not inherited by affiliation with other notable subjects. This is also fundamentally against WP:GNG. In order to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the subject, not significant coverage of related topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - Article is about a TV presenter, per sources that verifies she is presenting notable shows. per WP:GNG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete she is not notable at all, actually i do not know anything about her but this wikipedia article is not standard page for living people also i can not find any notable work in her career "Filmography" its cameo and too short (no notable at all) even she is notable, this article can not show this to us, delete and redirect to Gugudan. TULIm (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.4.46 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete: fails WP:GNG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently an editor thinks "redirect" is not a correct closure SST flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. She's done a lot more than just present for a television show, and meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 by being a part of two notable groups. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep I'm finding some sources that suggests the subject passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

JIC Capital Management

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

NN company. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete Concur with nom. No notability. The one reference in the article includes only a passing reference to the subject. Did not find other in-depth coverage. Also note that the editor that created this article only edited on that one day and the other edits were mostly categorization to other finance articles. Seems like unusual behavior for a new editor. MB 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete There is no claim of significance here and the coverage falls far short of what is required for WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- an unremarkable private equity firm going about its business; no indications of notability or significance. The article exists to promote the business, so WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 23 September 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Deep Stealth Productions

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

Promotional page, likely created by that website's commercial owner. No 3rd party cites. Only sources are from by website's owner. Iclaude73 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

comment there's a bit of GNews coverage. Obviously the company doing a promotional outreach, but a lot of media took them up on it. Article would need a pretty thorough rewrite though. Mostly the problem is that nobody ever got around to fixing the article with the sources from the first AFD - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 12 September 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 no consensus. Although there is possibly a very week 'keep' based on strength of arguments, I'm closing this as 'no consensus' (which defaults to 'keep') because the nominator clearly proposed 'merging'. Hence this is the wrong venue for a discussion on this issue. I recommend starting a merge discussion per: WP:MERGE. (see also Template:Merge Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

European Masters (snooker)

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

I propose merging this content to European Open (snooker) and redirecting this page to that article, since evidence points to the fact that the "European Masters" is simply a rebranded entry in the European open series.

World Snooker has a history of rebranding tournaments as can be seen at List of snooker tournaments. For example, the European Open itself was branded as the "Malta Cup" while hosted in Malta. In this particular case there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the European Masters is just a revised instance of the European Open.

The article detailing the "European Masters" can be found at http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/ (note it is catalogued under the European Championship name)
As can be seen on the calendar, World Snooker use "European Championship" and "European Open" interchangeably (see the October entry and the heading for that section)
The url http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ (note the open) directs to the article detailing the European Masters.

It appears obvious to me that the European Masters is just a branding for the European Open and I don't think it is necessary to have a completely separate article for it. In fact, I think it is counter-productive because it splits the lineage over more than one article which is at odds with how the snooker tournament articles document rebranded versions of the same event. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Against the deletion Why... It's only a supposition that it's the former European Open! Your supposition. Previously it had this URL http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ but since then it has this URL http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/. It was called European Championship first, then European Masters. European Masters is the official name now and until they don't say it is the former European Open which died 8 years ago under rebranding (Malta Cup), we should have a separated article. NOWHERE, BUT NOWHERE on the internet it's written that European Masters is the former European Open. Just a URL we have, and this URL is now European Championship. Why wouldn't have they use the European Open if you think you are right? Why European Masters instead of European Open? Because it was subsequently rebranded into Malta Cup. Romania/Bucharest doesn't want to use this name, therefore it would have been used that European Open title. I don't think it's the old European Open since there is no declaration about this. I suggest to leave this way, separated page, and if we have a clear source about this to redirect it. Wikipedia is not about suppositions. MOREOVER, according to http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/, this event didn't have before a champion. Current champions: NONE. Shaun Murphy was the last winner of the European Open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Open_(snooker). So clearly, the European Masters isn't the former European Open. Leave it this way until we get an official statement. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am worried about your real intentions since that calendar is old. The tournament is not anymore hosted by Cluj-Napoca, but by Bucharest. http://www.worldsnooker.com/full-calendar/ It says EUROPEAN MASTERS. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously not a supposition when World Snooker use the terms "European Championship" and "European Open" on their own calendar (published at the start of the current season incidentally) to describe the event which is now called the European Masters (currently hosted at a url which references it as the European Championship). All you've actually established is that the name has changed, not that it's an entirely different event, and it still has the same promoters and is in the same country. Furthermore, it is World Snooker and not me who uses the url http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ to link to the article about the event. It is clear that World Snooker use the names as synonyms for the event, without any supposition on my part. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Imo how can you link to the European Open without any declaration? Without anything written on the site? It's your supposition. Wikipedia shouldn't offer false info. Practically you are giving false info, the people will believe it, and after then if you find out it isn't the European Open you accept the mistake by correct it. You should leave this way, do not link it to the European Open. There is no source on the internet USING THE WORD REBRANDED EUROPEAN OPEN. You simply invented it. FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT HAS EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP TO DO WITH EUROPEAN OPEN? You said it! We have World Snooker Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Snooker_Championship and World Open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_World_Open_(snooker). Two different competitions, but we also have Masters: Shanghai Masters, Riga Masters. It's only your supposition. That European Open URL was used, now it's European Championship. It seems they didn't agree with the name. In the end, it was European Masters, not even European Championship. That URL is also wrong. There is nothing written that this is part of the European Open lineage. Nothing. Just old URL and old calendar with mistakes. Nothing really official doesn't say that. Only European Championship URL and European Masters written on the calendar. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The difference is is that World Snooker don't use the World Championship and the World Open as synonyms on their calendar. Neither does the link for the World Open take you to the page about the world championship. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is complete crap. Can you guarantee this is the European Open? Are you 100% sure? Please be fair. Show us a source where they say Malta Cup (ex-known as the European Open) is called now the European Masters. We should have different pages, and please leave it "defunct" the European Open. Until it's proved. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL! We shouldn't speculate. Leave my article alone. Do no say Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years when we have no announcement. I don't agree to link it, because you could offer false info to the visitors of Wikipedia. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But there was an announcement. All the early press referred to the event as the "European Open". Even Mark Selby (the world number 1) has it listed as the European Open on his own personal calendar: http://www.mark-selby.cz/index.php?nid=4549&lid=cs&oid=4928547. It is only recently the name has changed to the "European Masters", but it still occupies the same slot, is still being held in the same country and is still being promoted by the same people. Since I am not affiliated to World Snooker I cannot guarantee it is a rebranding of the event any more than you can guarantee it is not. But World Snooker's own calendar and web page titling indicate that this is a rebranding (most likely precipiated by sponsorship) rather than a completely new event. But as it stands I believe the evidence favors my position; if it turns out to be an incorrect poistion then it is easy enough to split the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep. There is no proposal to delete anything here, but a suggestion of how our content should be organised. That needs to be thrashed out on article talk pages or at the snooker wikiproject, not discussed here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The article will cease to exist as an article. This isn't just a case of moving a bit of content across a couple of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You proposed merging this article with another one and redirecting. That doesn't need an admin to press the "delete" button, so no AfD discussion is needed. I'm not commenting here on the rights or wrongs of your position, but simply pointing out that this is an issue that should be decided elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Even assuming this tournament is not a straight rebranding of the European Open, there is still absolutely no point in having a separate article, since they are the only ranking tournaments so far containing the word "European" in their names, and are very similar overall. Vinitsky14 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. The contract signed for three years. [7] The event will be promoted by McCann/Thiess for the next three years. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This argument is not relevant to the point of the discussion. The sponsorship of the tournament does not necesserily determine whether it is the continuation/rebranding of the previous ones. Vinitsky14 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete as there's still not enough substantial information, let alone coverage, to suggest we can currently accept this as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 18 September 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 keep. I leave it to Axiloxos do to the necessary renaming DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Woodsman (soundtrack)

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

Non-notable soundtrack. The 2 sources added while this article was deprodded do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep, rename, refocus. The play itself has received considerable acclaim and an Obie Award and is surely notable. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. This Wikipedia article started on the wrong foot, both in its focus and wording, but a substantial portion of the information now contained in the article (including the track listing) could be readily repurposed for an article about the play. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment. An album consisting of the music from a stage play should be described as a "cast recording", not a "soundtrack". See Cast recording#Terms. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep given the reviews which at least establish substance, but this will seriously need to be refocused as the play's own article, not the soundtrack. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 September 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 keep and split into two separate articles (or two articles and disambiguation page). Deryck C. 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Swan neck duct

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

Unsourced despite corresponding tag since 2009 (WP:V). Also, a collection of topics that have nothing in common but their name (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDICT). If sourced, some content could be merged to related articles, but as it isn't sourced... Sandstein 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Split; keep here just jet-engine meaning. Multiple meanings should be disambiguated each to their own page (or redirect to parent articles, etc.). The jet-engine meaning was the only topic of the article when it was created, up until User:81.111.216.41 added Pasteur's flask on 12 October 2009‎, and this meaning is now cited (thanks User:Mark viking!). The other meaning belongs somewhere else, probably Swan neck flask. That term is widely used for this experiment--I rewrote the content and added a ref. It could instead redirect to Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation, or else some content from there could be transferred to that new article on the apparatus. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. On that note, Mark Viking's cite was to "Swan-neck flask" not "Swan neck duct" as you suggest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mark Viking's edit? DMacks (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Presumably not the edit you mentioned above which was said to have endorsed Pasteur's "duct". To be honest, I'm not sure who added that false citation, maybe Mark deserves more credit than that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In this article, I have added two references for the jet engine/gas turbine usage and have not touched the Pasteur section. --Mark viking (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Split per DMacks. While parts of the article are independently verifiable, the main sin here is synthesis per WP:SYNTH of two different subjects that are not discussed together in the literature. I was able to easily find a couple of reliable sources for the turbine interface and a GScholar search for "swan neck" turbine shows more RS to be had. This is a necessary component of jet engines and other high performance gas turbines and looks notable per WP:GNG. I agree with DMacks that the swan neck duct in chemistry or biology is most closely associated with the famous Pasteur experiment and is best merged and redirected into the Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation section. With those actions the article can become a well-formed stub that has WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. This article is presumably a reaction to the hijacking of the main swan neck by beer drinkers. From the aeronautical perspective, the term is a trivial description of any suitably-shaped duct and has no special relevance to turbines. Try the equivalent search for example on "swan neck" plumbing or "swan neck" coolant. In science, the swan neck is more normally met in the swan neck flask or a tube than a "duct". No, this article is not the way. Better to tackle the beer drinkers over the applicability of the "swan neck" as an ordinary phrase much used in the wider world. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @LoopZilla and SilkTork:, who created Swan neck as an article and made it a redirect to Beer engine, respectively. Should "swan neck" become a disambiguation page since we have at least two (and maybe three) kinds of "swan neck..." things and one (and maybe more) are redirects (means it's hard to hatnote disambig/cross-link them). DMacks (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We have Swan neck deformity (which looks like it could be considered for merging with Boutonniere deformity), Edith the Fair, Swan-neck bottle, Mega Trailer, Pediment, Spur, and other articles which are about topics which are often described with the term "swan neck" (swan neck spur, swan neck pediment, etc), so it would be appropriate to turn Swan neck into a disamb page, and I will do that shortly. I have no opinion on Swan neck duct, it is not a topic I am familiar with, but the current article is written as a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, so it is worth discussing to see if that is appropriate, or if it should be turned into a regular disamb page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Split/Disambiguate -- I feel like consensus has already been reached on this point, and I agree with it. See above for specific arguments. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep and Split - Keep this article as the jet-engine duct. Split out the info on the flask into Swan neck flask. I think that is better than redirecting to Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation as there is also Spontaneous generation and both of these article could link to Swan neck flask. It seems that "swan neck duct" has been used prior to jet engines (here is a source from 1868 [[17]] but I think any usage related to air ducts (jet engine or otherwise) belongs here. MB 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Split - agreed - split into swan neck flask and swan neck duct. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I ask to delete the present content of "See also" from either. The explanation of eponymous resemblance to a swan's neck should be worked into the text of both articles, including the link to Swan. The "Hydro massage" link has nothing to do with either subject, and no reference to "swan" is found in the hydro massage article; if there really is a notable "swan-neck" type of water jet, then it should be stated in that article and listed instead on Swan neck (disambiguation). IveGoneAway (talk) 20:52, 22 September 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Libido Blume

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

Band without any indication of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are sources, but they don't show how the band clearly meets any of the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred:

Please check links and references in order to assess notability

CocoMusic (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)CocoMusic

Okay. Reviewing what's there at the time I nominated:

Dimatitis: Unable to assess, will assume there's at least a page on the band (and see #7).
Blogspot: Not reliable.
BJCEM: Does not give any in-depth coverage.
Mic: Album review.
Avopolis: Article is on Sigmatropic, not Libido Blume.
Postwave: Again, article is on Sigmatropic.
Rocking: Quotes wholesale from Dimatitis.
Second Avopolis cite: duplicate of Rocking.

So, I think we have exactly one source, and it's not clear from the article or from the soures that the band meets WP:MUSIC. I guess WP:GNG can be looked at as a reason for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:42, 26 September 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 keep. Although this article may be another one that is built only on the propensity for the press to overuse the word "rivalry", there is clearly consensus to Keep it at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry

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

Non-notable and nondivisional NFL "rivalry" ONR (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I believe enough sources have cited this as a notable rivalry, and there's enough evidence in the article, along with sources, to prove it. -(user talk:newyorksports38)
Comment I don't think the fact that it is non-divisional really makes a huge difference. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete. First I've heard of this "rivalry", and I'm a big Seahawks fan from way back. USA Today has described it as "becoming a 'must-see TV' rivalry", Rolling Stone (?) said it's the "NFL's Next Great Rivalry", and ESPN asked "Could Russell vs. Cam be the new Brady vs. Manning?", but it's not quite there yet. A memorable clash in this year's regular season (and maybe the playoffs) might seal the deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Needs much better sourcing about being a rivalry. I count 3 sentences within all of the citations which are weakly on point. 1) "The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have such familiarity with each other that Panthers coach Ron Rivera says it’s almost as if they're division rivals." 2) "The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" and 3) "Carolina and Seattle (11-6) have struck up quite a rivalry in recent years, with the Seahawks knocking the Panthers out of the playoffs last season." WP:NRIVALRY ("Sports rivalries are not inherently notable") refers us to WP:GNG and a requirement of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Strong keep - The article is not good, but there is a good amount of coverage about this as a rivalry:

The Charlotte Observer

KGW.com (again)

The Sports Daily (again)

Fox Sports

Charlotte Observer

That's a ton of sources, and most of them actually relate to the rivalry itself - not just individual games. It's not one-sided coverage, either - local, state, and national media seem to agree there is either a rivalry or budding rivalry. Is it enough for a page? I think so. I may actually start work on it to improve it, because the current article just is not very good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

These are riddled with WP:RS, WP:NOTRELIABLE ("lack meaningful editorial oversight"), WP:TOOSOON, and WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article") issues.

"The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" The Charlotte Observer

"the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years" only use of term in article Seattle Times

"it’s almost as if they're division rivals." USA Today

"the next generation of the NFL's best rivalry is just getting started. It's Cam vs. Russ." Rolling Stone

focus is QB rivalry "we may already be watching the NFL's next great quarterback rivalry." ESPN

"are developing one of the NFL’s budding rivalries." The Sports Daily

"The “Panthers is the Seahawks new rival” theory" KGW.com

Headline: "Seahawks-Panthers renew growing rivalry" rivalry term isn't used within the article KGW.com (again)

Opinion piece contrasting author's feelings; rivalry doesn't appear in Carolina section Field Gulls

" and the budding rivalry will add another entry in to an already exciting catalog." WCCB Charlotte

"the burgeoning Seattle Seahawks-Carolina Panthers rivalry may be in its infancy."The Score

Term not used in article body Associated Press

Points 11 and 9 of 12 re Sea rooting for Car in Super Bowl "You have a rivalry within conferences, but there's a undeniable pride in your side of the league besting the other." and "The rivalry will have much more juice if it's two of the last three Super Bowl winners" 24/7 Sports

"The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have a budding rivalry"Rant Sports

"Carolina vs Seattle is the biggest out of division rivalry in the NFC. Maybe even the NFL" Cat Scratch Reader

"Week 13: Panthers@Seahawks In what has quietly become one of the best rivalries in the NFL this game deserve the prime time billing it has received." The Sports Daily (again)

"One thing that could derail the budding Russell Wilson-Cam Newton rivalry" Fox Sports

Term not used Charlotte Observer

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and even taking an exceedingly generous view of those listed above, we are still failing a plain reading of the WP:GNG requirements ("Significant coverage," "sources need editorial integrity," etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Ones regularly mentioned in media are, and this one has been, many times by reliable sources. I'd also like specifics on which ones you feel "aren't reliable". Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The WP:GNG standard is not "mentioned," it's significant coverage. You're welcome to pull quotes from your citations to establish this as a current (not future) rivalry between the teams (not QBs). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:GNG. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." It is trivial to perform a Google search and pull a single sentence from a newspaper, blog network, local TV station, or broadcast network and claim the results are sufficient for a "rivalry" article while completely ignoring GNG. That's why we don't have "rivalry" stand-alone articles every time teams have simply played each other and generated routine media coverage, ala:

"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"Broncos-Seahawks rivalry recalled in hard-hitting AFC West days" CBS Sports
"The Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos had a pretty heated rivalry during the 1980s and 1990s." NFL.com
"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry goes back to old AFC West days" Seattle Times
"Some critics of bandwagon fans will assume that only Seahawks fans who joined the club in 2012 don’t know about the old Seahawks-Broncos rivalry." King5

"Seahawks-Raiders rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"Raiders, Seahawks Renew Rivalry" AP
"Seahawks, Raiders reveling in rivalry" Seattle Times
"One of the fiercest rivalries grew from those times in the 1980s when the Raiders and Seahawks crossed swords" Tacoma News Tribune
"Take a look back at the Raiders history with the Seattle Seahawks as the two former AFC West rivals get ready to renew their rivalry." Raiders.com
"As the Raiders and the Seahawks prepare to renew their old rivalry this weekend in Seattle" SF CBS

"Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"The Seattle Seahawk's rivalry with the Kansas City Chiefs is as classic a head-to-head matchup as you could hope for." Spokesman Review
"Maybe the Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry isn't as ugly as some of the other NFL feuds" Kitsap Sun
"The Chiefs have nearly doubled the 'Hawks in the win column (27-14) and have really dominated this rivalry as of late, prevailing in 14 of the last 16 meetings between the clubs dating back to 1991, this after Seattle swept this series in '90." ESPN
"The Seahawks qualify for the first part of the rival definition when it comes to playing the Kansas City Chiefs." Seahawks.com

This article remains weakly sourced on-point and the coverage being offered is clearly routine. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk)

Again, I can say these sources are fairly in-depth. I might go ahead and sandbox and see what I can do. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That the other rivalries don't have articles means either they are not notable or they are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet. Based on the summary of the sources provided here, I'm inclined to believe "the other rivalries are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet".

Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft instead in this case, because there's honestly still not a lot of confirmed substance; there is information, but as an article itself, there's simply not a lot of convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article to inform, not to try and persuade you of something? People would be going to the article for an overview of the rivalry, not to be persuaded into believing it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorksports38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Person, Joseph (2016-01-12). "A look back at past 5 games in Panthers-Seahawks rivalry". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  The Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have met so often the past four seasons, it’s almost like they’re division rivals – if not for the 2,500 miles that separate them.
  Sunday’s divisional-round game at Bank of America Stadium will be the sixth time Carolina (15-1) and Seattle (11-6) have played since 2012, including the Panthers’ playoff loss at Seattle last January.
  The teams will meet again next season in Seattle for a seventh time in five seasons.
  The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:
2. Condotta, Bob (2016-01-14). "The top 5 games in Seahawks-Panthers history". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  Carolina might not always be in the Seahawks’ minds, as James Taylor sang in the 1970s, but it does seem to often be in their way.
  For two franchises on opposite coasts and in separate divisions, the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle.
  They will do so again Sunday when the Seahawks play at Carolina in a divisional playoff game, the Panthers once again standing between Seattle and the Super Bowl.
  In all, the teams have met eight times in the regular season and twice in the postseason — both of those in years in which the Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl.
  Six of those meetings have come since Pete Carroll took over as the Seahawks’ coach in 2010, meaning they have faced Carolina more than any other non-NFC West team in that time.
  We could just list the games the Seahawks have played against Carolina. Instead, we thought we’d rate them in order of importance.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Panthers–Seahawks rivalry to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - Most series between teams in major leagues have narratives that stretch beyond a single season, and once they pass gng (and thus satisfy nrivalry), I think an article is fine. I think this passes gng, both as a series and as a "rivalry". Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - I was sceptical but I think Toa Nidhiki05's sources are adequate to pass GNG. I am not convinced by some of the counterarguments to his sources - if the headline states that the article is about a rivalry and the article describes the rivalry, it is not relevant how often the term "rivalry" is used in the article. The source is providing siginficant coverage about a rivalry, regardless of the terminology used. Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to strike an unsigned "keep" comment Rlendog (talk · contribs) made here until it is signed. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rlendog: would you mind signing your post? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know my signature was omitted. 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Userfy per WP:NRIVALRY which says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." The sources offered above are mostly local to the two teams' cities, so I would consider this to be routine, "hey local team news!" type of coverage. Either WP:TOOSOON or WP:FANCRUFT or both. In either case, not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

EasyRide application

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

per WP:CORPDEPTH Rahul^{Text me} 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It does not have a single source; compliance with WP:N is nonexistent. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Concur with nom. Not-notable. Also note that article created by SPA probably with COI. MB 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete There's hardly anything I could find about it. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly promotional page with no independent RS, and none to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete by all means, and I meant to comment sooner, none of this is anything else but PR, in that goes to specifics from interviewed information, company and financing activities, and to finish it: no actual sources. This is PR and that alone, not at all close to encyclopedia materials. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 26 September 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)

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

Bare tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 26 September 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 move. Consensus is that Ibiza Rocks would be notable. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ibiza Rocks Hotel

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one proper source - BBC - which on the face of it appears to partially convey notability, however it doesn't really. It's an archive of a radio show from 5 years ago and just mentions the venue name and nothing else. Other results on a search are run of the mill mentions of a hotel on the party isle. If anything, I would've thought Ibiza Rocks itself (the entire brand, not the hotel) would have its own article and this would've been a subsection on there. I'm surprised it didn't have its own article, but at the same time, I can't see anything that helps the hotel pass GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't realise this article already had been nominated and had passed 4K/4D. The most obvious advocate was Dr Blofeld who posted 15 sources, which at first view would unequivocally support passing GNG. However I looked into this. The sum of all to me lends itself to incidental mentions rather than significant coverage. Here's my detailed findings

Source 1 Perhaps considered strong coverage. Cannot locate original but seems bordering on an advertorial?
Source 2 Seems to be about the festival rather than the hotel - although the hotel is mentioned in the headline
Source 3 Again mainly about the event rather than the hotel, but does mention the hotel as the venue. Editorial content by a non-notable travel company
Source 4 A competition giving away tickets to a gig at Ibiza Rocks. No mention of the hotel.
Source 5 False positive? Has words 'Ibiza' and 'Rocks' but separately, no mention of anything Ibiza Rocks related (within the free preview)
Source 6 Decent coverage of the project prior to its opening
Source 7 Industry publication. About the concept of Ibiza Rocks which I must again stress is a separate but linked entity to the hotel from a wiki perspective
Source 8 A rape took place at the hotel. It was mentioned as the location of the crime. Absolutely an incidental mention and not significant coverage
Source 9 Another false positive. Has Ibiza and Rocking in headline but no mention of Ibiza Rocks Hotel. Does mention another hotel, Pikes Hotel, part of the Ibiza Rocks brand but again separate. Has its own article.
Source 10 Mentioned as part of a journo's summary of their trip to Ibiza
Source 11 = not found
Source 12 False positive, again about the other venue.
Source 13 Mentioned in Billboard in small article about launch of Mallorca Rocks
Source 14 The event more than the venue is mentioned in the listing in this 677 page book of European party destinations. The book is not notable. If we said books like this convey notability, just about every licensed premises in the world will be fighting to put their own article on here.
Source 15 a repeat of 13

Whilst anecdotally I always expected the entire brand to be notable enough to warrant an article, I don't believe what I see for the hotel is sufficient having looked into it. I think coverage warrants an Ibiza Rocks umbrella article encompassing the event and venue, info on offshoots like Mallorca Rocks and info on Pikes Hotel. I just don't think there's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, especially in the absence of one for the brand and feel it would probably be better presented in the manner just described. (If I had the foresight and knowledge, I would've created the article, populated it, moved some info over and redirected.)Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Move to the brand and allow revision there. Both nominator and Rayman60 comment that in their opinion a page on the brand is warranted, and the hotel could be covered there. This is silly. Just move the stupid page and allow refocusing there. --do ncr am 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 19 September 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ayden Keenan Olson

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

While there are plenty of reliable news sources reporting his death and the results of the inquest, there doesn't appear to be any lasting coverage or evidence of a wider impact as required by WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENT. I wouldn't object to some of the information being merged into Philip Morant School and College. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 September 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Willow Rose

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

A baby girl named "Willow Rose" is in the news.

This author fails WP:BASIC Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

the baby has a last name. It is "Willow Rose Forrest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therese Boeje (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: 44 books is nothing to sneeze at, but are they published by any mainstream publisher? Looks like mostly vanity presses. Willing to wait a bit to see what people find. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete My sweeps of Danish news (for "Therese Philipsen") as well as a general sweep for "Willow Rose" (using Google's 'news' filter) didn't come up with much. A cursory check of Amazon found that she has indeed published many books; my sense is she has a following of thriller readers, and has tapped into a successful formula for hooking readers on a series. Looking through the Amazon reviews, especially on a highly-read book, there are quite a few reviewers who say the quality of the writing is mediocre and predictable; still, 173 reviews is not too shabby, and there is a likelihood that many of the so-called 'verified purchase' books were giveaways or free copies via a promotion. Here's a blog review which says a Willow Rose book was slow to start but picked up after chapter 9, then became a page-turner, and the reviewer was sent a copy by the author; but that's not an established book critic as far as I can tell. I've been hunting for a serious review from a known critic of one of her books, but what I am finding is Wordpress writeups and such. In Goodreads, she has many reviews, usually hovering around 3.8 out of 5 stars -- suggesting she's a competent but not exceptional writer. She seems to be skilled at promoting her writing through interviews. I know, I know, pageview tallies are not an official way to evaluate a bio article but in my experience it is correlated with notability (like, I'm hesitant to delete somebody with 200+ pageviews a day); and Willow Rose weighs in with 8 pageviews a day (30-day average) as of Sept 21 2016, which is rather mediocre. So, overall, competent and prolific writer, great self-promoter, lack of critical reviews by real critics (what we really need here at Wikipedia) => weak delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Well, a formulaic hack writer could still be notable, are her books independently published? Does she show any reviews in the legitimate genre press? I'm leaning delete, but I know that even major genre writers don't always get much coverage in the mainstream press unless they achieve celebrity status, which is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete as WorldCat shows a mere an therefore unconvincing 24 holdings, not at all convincing, the article then contains nothing else convincing for establishing her own article with substance. Noticeably, the sources themselves consist of trivial and unconvincing sources which is not surprising because that's what could also be said of this article's information. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 30 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Le Volume Était Au Maximum

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. (NOTE: Strange - this isn't linked from Johnny Love (producer) so the disambiguation of that link is probably wrong, but article difficult as fails WP:V - update did he really create this band when 12? - I will unlink it) Widefox; talk 21:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 24 September 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Karim Hype

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

Musician with no reliable sources found indicating notability. Google hits are largely self-generated, databases, and simple event listings. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UNOPPOSED -- AFDs with no one taking the keep side are really just a PROD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above and also as a WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The article topic does not appear to meet WP:NPOL Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Montt

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

Not notable. This article is a collection of minor achievements, includingh being candidate to deputy two times and being councillor of a commune. It is also promotional. War ko ^talk 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a place the size of Lo Barnechea is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and neither is being a non-winning candidate for higher office — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability: 1. It is councilor of a municipality, 2. He has been director of a major Chilean public institution as is General Directorate of Credit Pledgee (DICREP).Andya Andya ^Andya 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) "Councillor of a municipality" does not pass WP:NPOL; municipal councillors qualify for Wikipedia articles because municipal councillor only in major internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, London, Tokyo or Berlin. Lo Barnechea is not in that class of cities, so it's not a place where the municipal councillors get articles. (2) Being a director of a public institution is also not an automatic inclusion freebie — it can get a person into Wikipedia if there's enough reliable sourcing about them in that role to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be much better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete failed candidates for national legislatures are not notable for such, only successful ones. In general local municipal councilors are not notable for their position and nothing suggests that Monttt would be otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 September 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 23:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#IVONA|IVONA]]||{{Time ago|20160901010900}}||1||4170||2||'''1670.94'''
+|[[#IVONA|IVONA]]||{{Time ago|20160901010900}}||1||4170||2||'''1685.77'''
 |-
-|[[#Rocco Bellagio|Rocco Bellagio]]||{{Time ago|20160905122320}}||0||1572||0||'''1384.42'''
+|[[#Rocco Bellagio|Rocco Bellagio]]||{{Time ago|20160905122320}}||0||1572||0||'''1399.24'''
 |-
-|[[#Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre |Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160908033724}}||2||5390||0||'''1009.33'''
+|[[#Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre |Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160908033724}}||2||5390||0||'''1024.18'''
 |-
-|[[#Debasis Panigrahi|Debasis Panigrahi]]||{{Time ago|20160913015200}}||2||5564||2||'''684.65'''
+|[[#Debasis Panigrahi|Debasis Panigrahi]]||{{Time ago|20160913015200}}||2||5564||2||'''699.5'''
 |-
-|[[#Arthur Brett and Sons|Arthur Brett and Sons]]||{{Time ago|20160913030500}}||3||5536||2||'''630.92'''
+|[[#Arthur Brett and Sons|Arthur Brett and Sons]]||{{Time ago|20160913030500}}||3||12381||2||'''630.77'''
 |-
-|[[#PetalMD|PetalMD]]||{{Time ago|20160913041200}}||3||12097||1||'''597.97'''
+|[[#PetalMD|PetalMD]]||{{Time ago|20160913041200}}||3||12097||1||'''612.78'''
 |-
-|[[#Wafa Cdhir|Wafa Cdhir]]||{{Time ago|20160916034000}}||1||3485||2||'''583.7'''
+|[[#Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team |Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (3rd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160917023858}}||0||1565||0||'''564.12'''
 |-
-|[[#Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team |Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (3rd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160917023858}}||0||1565||0||'''549.26'''
+|[[#The Fabulous Udin|The Fabulous Udin]]||{{Time ago|20160916033900}}||2||4423||2||'''498.52'''
 |-
-|[[#Matthieu Tondeur|Matthieu Tondeur]]||{{Time ago|20160918003900}}||0||4148||2||'''498.56'''
+|[[#From Eva with Love|From Eva with Love]]||{{Time ago|20160916110649}}||2||4394||0||'''445.81'''
 |-
-|[[#Ghazala Salam|Ghazala Salam]]||{{Time ago|20160918003800}}||0||2871||2||'''498.42'''
+|[[#Kim Se-jeong (singer)|Kim Se-jeong (singer)]]||{{Time ago|20160916175100}}||2||4953||1||'''440.71'''
 |-
-|[[#The Fabulous Udin|The Fabulous Udin]]||{{Time ago|20160916033900}}||2||4423||2||'''483.71'''
+|[[#JIC Capital Management|JIC Capital Management]]||{{Time ago|20160919020100}}||0||1994||1||'''437.18'''
 |-
-|[[#I'm Not Your Girl|I'm Not Your Girl]]||{{Time ago|20160917071220}}||1||2751||0||'''470.75'''
+|[[#Deep Stealth Productions |Deep Stealth Productions (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160919021600}}||0||3692||2||'''436.3'''
 |-
-|[[#Willan Rivera|Willan Rivera]]||{{Time ago|20160918003800}}||1||3082||2||'''448.81'''
+|[[#European Masters (snooker)|European Masters (snooker)]]||{{Time ago|20160914172238}}||4||11396||0||'''436'''
 |-
-|[[#Stefan Solea|Stefan Solea]]||{{Time ago|20160918003900}}||1||3926||2||'''448.69'''
+|[[#The Woodsman (soundtrack)|The Woodsman (soundtrack)]]||{{Time ago|20160917005500}}||2||4369||2||'''434.74'''
 |-
-|[[#Law Asia|Law Asia]]||{{Time ago|20160918003800}}||1||4895||2||'''448.55'''
+|[[#Swan neck duct|Swan neck duct]]||{{Time ago|20160916041500}}||3||8889||2||'''426.71'''
 |-
-|[[#Avinash-class submarine|Avinash-class submarine]]||{{Time ago|20160918003300}}||1||3985||2||'''448.53'''
+|[[#Libido Blume|Libido Blume]]||{{Time ago|20160919020000}}||0||3182||1||'''422.28'''
 |-
-|[[#Joshua Alba|Joshua Alba]]||{{Time ago|20160918044800}}||1||3177||2||'''436.02'''
+|[[#Panthers–Seahawks rivalry|Panthers–Seahawks rivalry]]||{{Time ago|20160917181827}}||1||15791||0||'''417.45'''
 |-
-|[[#From Eva with Love|From Eva with Love]]||{{Time ago|20160916110649}}||2||4394||0||'''430.97'''
+|[[#EasyRide application|EasyRide application]]||{{Time ago|20160919051003}}||0||1994||0||'''412.62'''
 |-
-|[[#Kim Se-jeong (singer)|Kim Se-jeong (singer)]]||{{Time ago|20160916175100}}||2||4953||1||'''425.89'''
+|[[#Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)|Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)]]||{{Time ago|20160919081108}}||0||1160||0||'''403.82'''
 |-
-|[[#JIC Capital Management|JIC Capital Management]]||{{Time ago|20160919020100}}||0||1994||1||'''422.36'''
+|[[#Ibiza Rocks Hotel |Ibiza Rocks Hotel (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160919020200}}||0||7282||1||'''402.1'''
 |-
-|[[#Deep Stealth Productions |Deep Stealth Productions (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160919021600}}||0||3692||2||'''421.45'''
+|[[#Ayden Keenan Olson|Ayden Keenan Olson]]||{{Time ago|20160919110603}}||0||1773||0||'''394.73'''
 |-
-|[[#European Masters (snooker)|European Masters (snooker)]]||{{Time ago|20160914172238}}||4||11396||0||'''421.16'''
+|[[#Willow Rose|Willow Rose]]||{{Time ago|20160919121427}}||0||2424||0||'''376.8'''
 |-
-|[[#The Woodsman (soundtrack)|The Woodsman (soundtrack)]]||{{Time ago|20160917005500}}||2||4369||2||'''419.92'''
+|[[#Le Volume Était Au Maximum|Le Volume Était Au Maximum]]||{{Time ago|20160919020000}}||1||2664||1||'''372.27'''
 |-
-|[[#Polska Tales |Polska Tales (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160916051300}}||3||3192||1||'''413.92'''
+|[[#Karim Hype|Karim Hype]]||{{Time ago|20160919020000}}||1||2223||1||'''372.25'''
 |-
-|[[#Swan neck duct|Swan neck duct]]||{{Time ago|20160916041500}}||3||8889||2||'''411.9'''
+|[[#Rodrigo Montt|Rodrigo Montt]]||{{Time ago|20160919021700}}||1||4353||1||'''371.55'''
 |}
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Brett and Sons}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetalMD}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wafa Cdhir}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (3rd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthieu Tondeur}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazala Salam}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fabulous Udin}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Not Your Girl}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willan Rivera}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Solea}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Asia}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avinash-class submarine}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Alba}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Eva with Love}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Se-jeong (singer)}}
@@ Line 84: / Line 75: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woodsman (soundtrack)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polska Tales (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan neck duct}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libido Blume}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks rivalry}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyRide application}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibiza Rocks Hotel (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayden Keenan Olson}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Rose}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Volume Était Au Maximum}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karim Hype}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Montt}}