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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:08, 29 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 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
False Mirror (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	0	4858	2	979.73
Ultimum	7 years ago	0	2616	2	968.6
Arun Behll	7 years ago	1	3698	1	843.54
Free-fall atomic model	7 years ago	3	25646	2	839.4
GigSalad	7 years ago	2	11385	0	769.33
Yacøpsæ (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	2	3857	1	691.23
What Goes On (TV series) (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	1	6560	2	650.87
Deep Medi Musik	7 years ago	2	13177	2	645.43
Vijay kumar (film maker)	7 years ago	1	2386	1	604.05
Bamyan Media	7 years ago	4	8472	0	599.34
The Secret Team	7 years ago	3	10132	2	589.27
Willow Rose	7 years ago	1	7110	1	583.87
ITDunya.com	7 years ago	2	5696	1	571.28
Hogerzeil destileria (rum)	7 years ago	2	6780	1	565.65
PNT Singing Idol	7 years ago	0	5538	2	517.83
Juicy M	7 years ago	3	8379	2	513.81
Arvind Narayan	7 years ago	4	4471	0	484.93
Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil	7 years ago	2	7307	2	471.92
Chemy Soibelman	7 years ago	0	2707	2	470.7
Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League	7 years ago	2	4461	2	462.52
Carrot Top Records (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	3	3728	0	460.68
Yuri Cataldo (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	0	2183	1	458.79
Panthers–Seahawks rivalry	7 years ago	1	20957	1	457.91
Sausalito News	7 years ago	3	4557	1	454.09
DistrictBuilder	7 years ago	0	5908	2	450.84

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tough call, but with no verification from 3rd party, no one willing or able to view hard copy, no one voting to actually keep, WP:V trumps, and we delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

False Mirror

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

Promotional page for a non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Albums not on important label. Existing refs are False Mirrors own page, a webzine and two about some software he uses that don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

coment I know this area a bit and I'm not even finding much in the way of unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones. But as the previous AFD claims "The artist/band has been featured and reviewed in some major print magazines here in Germany (Orkus, Sonic Seducer, Zillo), which I see as a criterion for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.". However I have problems to refer to these articles - they are not available online (however some of them can be found on the artist's webpage), so I left them out and I therefore only referred to one online review as an example." I don't in general have a problem using the artist's site as evidence of these articles in this sort of case, they're unlikely to have lied about it. It's a big problem sourcing industrial band articles that, apart from all the sources for notability likely being in German (which is fine), they're likely on paper and hard to trace and source. (Also that there's no good online verification for DAC entries, which establish prima facie notability handily, though pretty sure False Mirror's never hit the DAC.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 15 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. The topic has been at AFD for over a month and, even with relistings, has not received much attention. That this short film was part of a longer film Dystopia did not give it sourcable notability and simply being sourcable as screening is not notability. I grant that as a Turkish film, finding sources may be problematical, so ping me if anyone does come up with sources to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultimum

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

Featurette that I can't reference to sources so it meets WP:GNG or any criterion in WP:NFO. — Sam Sailor 16:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 15 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) 05:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete I'm having a tough time locating sources for this. This doesn't seem to be any major movie, otherwise there would have been more coverage. I'm going for a delete per WP:DEL7. I noticed that the article about the director was also recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahadır Karasu. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 8 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arun Behll

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

non-notable actor, largely unsourced, no coverage in reliable sources, autobiography, most of the edits are from a COI editor, basically fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. - Managerarc™^talk 14:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: While we discourage the autobio and coi editing, that should not be a reason to drag articles to afd. There are other platforms to resolve those issues. As far as notability of subject is concerned, he may meet NACTOR#1 criteria for he seems to have had act of mixed length in multiple notable films and tv shows (refs are cited in article. there are not tons of them, may be because he predominately works in regional film and tv shows and sources in regional languages are not fully digitalised yet and whatsoever are, is not very well indexed by Google.). Anup [Talk] 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete He has had minor roles in several films, but none of them are named roles. He does not meet WP:NACTOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment : I want the Article to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.81.114 (talk) 15:41, 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. This is a topic for and by specialists. At first glance no consensus emerges here. But I'm inclined to defer to the unanimous "delete" view of established editors with a track record of constructive contributions in the topic area. And I give less weight to a "keep" side represented entirely by IPs and low-editcount accounts, because with these contributors, canvassing, sockpuppetry or COI is a frequent concern. Sandstein 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Free-fall atomic model

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

This is, I think, a very obscure theory, and as far as I can tell, one that never really made an impact. All citations are from Gryziński, who proposed this, and AFAICT aren't cited by much anyone except Gryziński himself. I'm open to be convinced that the article should be kept, but as of now I just don't see how this meets WP:N. I don't have access to a lot of those articles however, so I don't have access their full citation record. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

These are 20+ papers from the best journals, some have huge amount of citations - according to Google Schoolar: "Classical Theory of Electronic and Ionic Inelastic Collisions" - 446 citations, "Two-particle collisions. I. General relations for collisions in the laboratory system" - 559 citations, "Two-particle collisions. II. Coulomb collisions in the laboratory system of coordinates" - 324 citations, "Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions. I. Theory of Inelastic Collisions" - 1308 citations 91.198.177.113 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but those aren't about the free fall model, just collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

These are respected results from purely classical considerations - including electrons, leading to surprisingly good agreement. And so the author has later also seen atoms in a classical way - with electrons falling to nucleus, then returning to the initial distance, like zero angular momentum degeneration of Bohr-Sommerfeld. This falling and drifting away makes atom effectively a pulsating multipole - such picture was used in his later classical scattering models. Anyway, shouldn't Wikipedia notice that trials of classical treatment of atom has not ended with Bohr-Sommerfeld? Gryzinski is definitely the most notable among such approaches. Classical approximation is useful for semi-classical ones. His main coauthor is professor Joseph Kunc ( https://gapp.usc.edu/about/faculty/joseph-kunc ) 83.12.37.198 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Gryzinski has worked in group of hot plasma for nearly half a century (article in Polish: http://web.archive.org/web/20121031093355/http://www.paa.gov.pl/dokumenty/ptj/sadowski10.pdf ), they have stated approach to fusion which is now called Dense plasma focus, he was the head of this group for 18 years. In this energy region classical approximations were sufficient. Now semi-classical approximations are popular, Rydberg atoms are often seen nearly classical. There should be some article about modern classical approximations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.128.48 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Although I am uncomfortable with all references being a single author who produced a seemingly large body of work on this subject, doesn't' the fact that these are all published in peer reviewed journals carry some weight toward notablity? Also, these are top tier physics journals and the journal Nature. I don't see how anyone can do better than that - other than garner citations from other physicists. Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly, but I am tending toward "Keep". Headbomb, what is your opinion on what I just wrote? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The majority of those citations are not related to the FFAM, but are rather general articles about the physics of particle collisions and the like. Yes they are good articles, but they don't support the material, so my opinion is unchanged because the citation that ARE related to the FFAM are very low impact, and very few people other than Gryziński ever bothered with his model. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

All of these papers are about classical considerations, including treatment of electron, which is usually a part of an atom there. The topics of classical scattering and FFAM are integrally connected/interleaved: 1) scattering was used to infer and experimentally test these models (often personally by the author), 2) electron in FFAM performs successive scatterings from the nucleus, 3) atoms in FFAM picture are effectively pulsating electric multipoles (dipole, quadrupole) what is the base of his later scattering papers (since 1975). These impressive 25+ papers nicely show 43 years of evolution of view of a person who was plasma experimentalist and theoretician: from corrections to scattering models, through including magnetic dipole moment of electron into classical considerations, introducing and testing classical atomic model with better agreement than Bohr's, up to a similar view on multielectron atoms and molecules. Sure these are just approximations, but their surprisingly good agreement with experiments may bring valuable intuitions, helpful e.g. for construction of semi-classical models. 188.146.69.8 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: thanks very much. I see what you are saying. This clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added (a sketch of?) History section (Free-fall_atomic_model#History) to emphasize integrity of this series of papers - if it helps, I could improve it. Otherwise, feel free to remove it. 188.146.69.234 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO, It adds very little because that series of paper is by far an large not about the FFAM, but rather particle collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

These collision/scattering models assume classical electron, and often a classical model of atom - tested by agreement with experimental scattering. For example "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions": assume a classical model of hydrogen (circular or radial), shoot it with a classical electron, and compare predictions of both with experiment. Or "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell" and "Classical theory of atomic collisions. II. Low energy scattering" see atom effectively as a pulsating multipole, as a consequence of assuming radial electron trajectories. Or "Systematics of spectral lines and classical atom": "It is shown that line intensities and main energy level shifts are directly related to the non-spherical and time-dependent electric field of the atomic core.". 188.146.37.99 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

For example alongside the 1965 paper with 1300 citations, he publishes Phys. Rev. Lett. paper.: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” explaining why assumptions made in the classical scattering paper exclude Bohr circular orbits - here are its first three paragraphs:

“In a series of papers on the classical theory of atomic collisions recently published by the author, it has proved necessary, both for the qualitative explanation of a number of experimental phenomena as well as for their appropriate quantitative description, to proceed with certain assumptions which are in contradiction with the prevailing classical notions regarding the structure of atom and, of course, in contradiction with the wave approach to the atom.

First, in order to explain such phenomena as the asymptotic form of excitation and ionization formulas for high energies of the bombarding particles and the absence of a threshold for processes of inelastic collisions with heavy particles, it was necessary to assume a continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons. Second, in order to account the diffraction pattern associated with the crystalline structures, it was necessary to accept the existence of a strong anisotropy in the velocity distribution of atomic electrons.

Such assumptions are totally unacceptable from the point of view of electrons moving in circular or even elliptic orbits, since the range of variability of electron velocity is too narrow and the anisotropy too low. The assumption concerning the continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons may be accounted for on the basis of classical mechanics only by the fact that the moving electron exists both beyond and in the immediate vicinity of the attracting center represented by the nucleus” 188.146.72.198 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's about the well-known failures of the Bohr model, not about the FFAM. While it certainly may have been a motivation for it, it's still not a paper about the FFAM, and does not succeed in establishing its notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just look at the title of this paper: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom”. Radially means along the radius, what is equivalent with free-fall, the third equivalent description used is zero angular momentum. Other close formulations used are just classical regarding electrons, and from first principles (just Newton+Coulomb+Lorentz, without assuming axioms of QM). Let us look at abstract of some later papers: "Collisional ionisation and the atomic model" 29 citations: "...The theoretical results appear to be sensitive to the atomic model used; in the case of the free-fall atomic model, they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental data. ", "“Free-fall” solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment" 27 citations, it's in title, "A concept of “free-fall” multi-electron atomic model" 24 citations, in title, "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions" (22 citations): "...The basic feature of the model atom employed in the present work is its zero angular momentum due to the assumption of the radial motion of the atomic electron ('free-fall' trajectory)...". Sure, maybe the list of articles is too long - please point the least connected one. 188.146.146.81 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep There is 25+ articles from top journals (Phys. Rev. class) with ~ 3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . The author was physicist (experimentalist and theoretician) working nearly half a century in Polish Academy of Sciences. The articles consistently cover classical treatment of atoms, including electrons, focusing on agreement with experimental data - much more citations have the classical scattering papers (~2500 total), but direct consequence of their assumptions was the FFAM (1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” article), later tested and used for classical scattering considerations (sensitive to assumed electron trajectory) and other phenomena like Ramsauer effect (1970 Phys. Ref. Lett. "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell"), diamagnetism (1987 Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials "Diamagnetism of matter and structure of the atom") or modeling molecular bond (1994 Chemical Physics Letters "Dynamical model of the molecular bond"). The later articles directly applying FFAM also have total of a few hundreds of citations. 188.146.3.91 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of what is written in the above Ivote pertains to off-topic material and also ignores the lack of impact this theory has had in mainstream physics. All of the above, and many article references are meant to artificially puff up the importance of this theory. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories (see Ivote below). Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

These 25+ articles have been accepted in top journals - do you imply that editors and reviewers of these journals accept obscure theories? The article emphasizes "This model has never been part of mainstream physics.", but it has both coverage and was not ignored. I responded with concrete arguments from the materials in discussion, please also give concrete objective arguments, not just your subjective evaluation. If you find something "obscure" in these articles, please point it, explain your evaluation and we can discuss your arguments. 188.146.133.196 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete This theory has never had a significant impact in the mainstream physics field as demonstrated by the lack of citations by other researchers. It seems to have been ignored. As noted above, most of the article references do not pertain to this particular topic. This theory has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG - including the mainstream press. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTFORUM. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not significant coverage? Lack of citations by other researchers? Here you have access to a list of ~3000 citations for 25+ articles from top journals: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . Here you have example of Wikipedia article for 1 paper with 13 citations: Statistical Lempel–Ziv. Where is the boundary? 188.146.64.200 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

How about if you stop with the misleading POV assertions. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Before questioning someones objectivity, please finally start with a single objective argument - based on the given historical material. This deletion nomination and discussion currently looks like a witch hunt, far from being objective. The official reason is lack of notability, but if measured in papers and citations, it easily exceeds tenfold notability of many other Wikipedia articles. The only other given reason is being “a very obscure theory” without providing even a single argument for this very subjective evaluation. I have looked closer at some of these papers (I have PhD in physics) and they contain solid calculations (wouldn’t be accepted in these journals otherwise) using just basic classical physics, like Coulomb and Lorentz force, and compare their theoretical predictions with experimental values, getting surprisingly good agreement – please explain what is controversial or obscure here? If you have found some weaknesses of their analysis, missed by the reviewers, please share it. They obviously lack the perfection of quantum predictions, but it is definitely good to know the limits of classical considerations, especially that the discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics still continues. If your objection is lack of connections between these 25+ papers, there was a specific question above to point the least connected paper - still zero answers. Please respond to the evidence above, which refer to the actual text showing their connection - like the 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper explaining necessity of FFAM electron trajectory for the 1300 citations classical scattering paper. 188.146.144.42 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - this short article might be interesting for the history of physics, but it seems to be relegated, no? Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a nice 2012 Grujic "Classical theory of atomic collisions – The ﬁrst hundred years" review, which discusses two schools: semi-classical "Stirling school" and classical "Warsaw school" (Gryzinski's), with nice comment to his classical atomic models: "(...) may be considered a historiographical alternative, which answers the possible question: what would have happened had the QM not been invented?". The number of citations itself suggests theses papers had a real influence on the history of physics. However, these had finally turned out to be an alternative history - very solid work to understand how far can we go with the classical approximation. Understanding its limitation - what is still missing, is one of a natural way to really deeply understand the quantum mechanics. 188.146.68.213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment The topic in general looks relevant, but I'm not sure if the current article is sufficient to give an overview: what are the applications of the model, what are the limits? Is this purely of historical interest, or still relevant? As an example, if the model is unable to reproduce quantized energy levels, this should be mentioned (because it means the model is not useful for atoms at all). If it is, this is a remarkable achievement for a classical theory and should be mentioned. If the atom has a time-dependent dipole, why doesn't it radiate? --mfb (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Applications started with various scattering scenarios, later he has also used it for different topics like Ramsauer effect (as higher state electrons screening the lower ones), calculating diamagnetic coefficient, Stark effect and a few others. Limits? These are pure classical (e.g. no interference) - Bohr plus magnetic dipole moment of electron, plus precession of this spin (also as gyroscope), he has used this precession to explain Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization (1987 "Spin-dynamical theory of the wave-corpuscular duality"). This quantization basically produces energy levels as Bohr. Regarding lack or bremsstrahlung, I don't know his explanation. Personally, I see it through Couder's quantization for walking droplets ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ): closed trajectories and Bohr-Sommerfeld condition lead to resonance with the surrounding field. 89.70.181.191 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The banner question for content like this is simple: is there independent reliable coverage? That is, did other people directly address them at nontrivial length? The IP editor supporting retention has provided a lot of links to scholarly discussions of particle collision physics in the general case, and a lot of citation counts for Gryziński's works. But neither of those approaches illuminate whether this model is itself notable. For example, a couple of Gryziński's flagship papers that directly address this theory are in Physics Letters A: "A concept of 'free-fall' multi-electron atomic model" and "'Free-fall' solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment", each with a couple dozen citations. However, the bulk of those are self-citations from Gryziński's other papers, and none of the independent citations seem to give significant coverage of the topic. Indeed, papers like this Physics Reports article look promising, but are primarily concerned with his 1959 work, which predates the free-fall model. Honestly, I think the best solution here would be to redirect this article (merging appropriately given due weight) to an article on Gryziński himself; he's done some fairly significant things and, overall, has been pretty well-cited, and I think there's a case that he's notable. But currently, Michał Gryziński redirects to this article. In the absence of a viable redirect target, and given the lack of independent reliable coverage of this model specifically, I can only support deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people have been working on classical considerations in this scale even after QM, and Gryzinski's half century of tremendous work is definitely the most notable among them: based on agreement with many different experiments, published dozens of papers about it in top journals, got thousands of citations. An ultimate argument against Bohr's picture, which is taught in schools, is electron capture - which requires electrons to get to femtometer scale distance so nuclear force can start acting (as in FFAM). The FFAM has been the base of his papers since the PRL in 1965, which introduced it as requirement for his classical scattering papers with 2000+ citations. These later 20+ papers have about 500 total citations - if it is not sufficient for a separate Wikipedia article, change it to Michał Gryziński, modify the order (FFAM after History, I can help), and redirect from FFAM. Also, there should be a section about his classical scattering papers. 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.64.242 (talk)

Keep: This is an alternative theoretical formulation which is tested experimentally in scattering experiments. It is not the only alternative theoretical formulation present on Wikipedia, there are many others like , for instance, non-standard cosmology, so the argument re mainstream belonging does not really hold.--213.233.84.3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep as work in progress towards a more comprehensive article on Gryziński's work or himself. Or possibly move to Draft space if that is ever done.-- pretty IittIe Iiar 04:30, 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 no consensus. Having read through the article, source material, and the analysis of these sources in this discussion, I see that the "delete" side has presented a strong case. The coverage consists mainly of passing mentions and items such as being ranked #682 on a list of "fastest growing companies" appears insignificant. With that said, the validity of the Music Connection source combined with a spattering of mentions in other sources is an argument with merit, and one that has attracted support. The article remains thin, but I cannot see a consensus for deletion based on this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

GigSalad

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

promotional article on non notable firm. The references are primarily press releases, some from extremely unreliable sources like local business journals. Rankings in "rapidly growing" lists are essentially indications of "not yet notable" -- this is especially true for a rank of 682nd. The actual awards are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I agree that "Fast Growing" lists, and not even appearing high on those lists, is usually a pretty good indicator of non-notability. That said, let's do a source review:
- Music Connection - This is a good notability establishing article. It's a publication with an editorial staff, it's bylined, it's an entire article dedicated to the subject, and it claims that the subject is "the largest" of its kind, which is a claim to notability.
- Inc.com - As mentioned, being low on a "Fastest Growing" list is a black mark against.
- Springfield Business Journal - Likewise.
- Wilmington Business Journal - Local coverage, minor award that ma even be an indicator of non-notability.
- TechCruch - Reliable source... but barely the scantest of passing mentions.
- LifeHacker - Blog, with an editorial staff. It's a very well known, large blog. I'm... not sure if this passes our reliability threshold. If it does, this would be a second notability establisher... but I'm just not sure about this one.
- San Jose Mercury News - Has a brief interview with the subject, but not ABOUT the subject... this article is about Uber, and GigSalad is the business equivalent of "little man on the street" in this article. Does not contribute to notability establishment.
- Encore Magazine - Good article about the subject, not invalid for adding facts to the article... but this is an expressly local magazine, which does not provide notability establishment.
- diymusician - A blog. Apparently a blog run by the editor of another publication? But still a blog, apparently without outside editorial review, which alas, means that this cannot be used to establish notability.
My threshold is two sources establishing notability. We have here one good strong one, and one that I'm not sure counts. Let's see if WP:NEXIST applies... are there any OTHER sources that offer notability? Checking google news...
- Digital Music News - Good notability establishing article. Is the source reliable? I honestly don't know, and can't tell.
- MarketingProfs - Paywalled article. I believe this is may be a reliable source, but I can't see the content. That said, the google preview of the content suggests that this MIGHT establish notability? "Much as Uber helps people to find a ride and Airbnb enables travelers to find homes to rent, GigSalad helps people planning events to connect ..."
- Miami New Times - Reliable source. It's debatable whether this is a passing mention or not. No, the article isn't about gigsalad, but it does express that the writer used gigsalad to make a key point of the article, which implies that the writer finds gigsalad to be notable.
- The Globe and Mail - Another reliable source, with a similar type of mention. The article isn't about gigsalad, but the author references gigsalad in a way implying notability.
I'm stopping here. Google news goes on quite a while with many, many such references to gigsalad. I believe that this establishes notability, per WP:NEXIST. Basically, many reliable sources are referencing gigsalad, and we have one reliable source which goes in depth about the subject. I'm going to have to go with a !vote for keep. Enough minor references just add up, in my opinion. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete as the nominator here is convincing at suggesting the exact concerns here and is emphasizing them better than what the Keep votes is suggesting; this is because it's all essentially PR, something I noticed was unbelievably accepted as there's no actual substance and the "news" is only PR or PR-like (like with other AfDs, this is all expected coverage). What the Keep vote is not mentioning is that there has in fact been consensus repeatedly here at AfD that such coverage is not convincing or substantial, especially not for guaranteeing this is an improvable article. I know I certainly would not have accepted, and I hope the fact it was accepted is not a defense for other articles. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ST, the large sea of minor mentions by reliable sources are not mentioning it as a promotional thing, but as a useful tool that they used as part of their article, or as a mention that "this is the {implied notable} method that {person} did {thing}." And if it were just one or two such mentions, I'd agree that it wouldn't be enough, but the sheer volume of such mentions lends weight. Cumulatively, hundreds of minor mentions, in a non-promotional useful context, add up to smaller number of more substantial mentions. Fieari (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - My understanding of notability prior to writing the article is that it can be achieved by a high-profile piece of media (e.g. a profile the New York Times) or many smaller, less prestigious mentions. This is in line with what Fieari suggested in this discussion. For that reason I vote to keep. (Please let me know if, as the submitter, I shouldn't be involving myself here. I wasn't able to find documentation to that effect.)
If it's a matter of the article needing improvement (removing references to Inc. 5000 and the Springfield Business Journal, incorporating additional sources of notability Fieari discovered), I could do that quite easily. However, in line with WP:NEXIST, I don't believe that's necessary. Mischivin (talk)

First: Simply having one or a few convincing sources or that they are substantial, come from a major news source is not actually always an automatic confirmation of his own article, because then there are the concerns and thoughts of PR, something that is notoriously common with these subjects. Second, actually making claims of "having several trivial or "prestigious" minor mentions combined" is not a confirmation either, everything I have noted here has become a fact as shown by other AfDs closed as Delete. Sinply stating NEXIST defends not considering other sources especially when this would be essential and otherwise needed to not only improve this, but to make it convincingly keepable; saying "that's not necessary" essentially suggests an attempt to not consider the concerns. I specifically listed my concerns here as has the nominator. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. The fact that press releases are currently used as references doesn't mean appropriate references don't exist. I think the combination of coverage listed above, and specifically Digital Music News, makes this company meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- un unremarkable small company going about its business. The article is advertorial in tone, so WP:PROMO applies. The coverage listed above is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, the article from Digital Music News includes this language:

"GigSalad invested their time in researching payment methods until they found the ideal service. They also altered their banking process to find the best integration for their members. The new service is called Bold Financial Technologies, the same service used by Airbnb, Saucey, and Zirx."

This is clearly very fluffy coverage, and possibly based on a press release y the company. Requirements are more stringent when looking for RS to substantiate notability of the subject, and this clearly misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 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. I'll restore and move to the draft space on request if someone can demonstrate there are paper magazine sources for this band that weren't online, and they can commit to incorporating those into the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yacøpsæ

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Nice layout but fails WP:MUSIC. --RexPatricius (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete barring reasonable evidence of sources. Paper magazines are still significant coverage in Germany, so I'd accept those. Did they get in the DAC at all? - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Aren't two albums on Slap-a-Ham Records and Power It Up Records and two shows on the Maryland Deathfest and several reviews in Germany's 27-year-old indie mag "Ox" enough? Well, you will know. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The guideline is WP:NMUSIC. If they have lots of reviews in lots of papers that might count, and particularly if they toured internationally and there's proper third-party review coverage at the WP:RS (so, not blog) level. A band of this history surely left a paper trail behind them ... but it needs to be detailed in the article, not just be possible - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to criteria #1 and #5. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 08:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 1 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. Vanamonde (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What Goes On (TV series)

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

An unremarkable, never-aired TV series; no significant RS coverage can be found. Most of the content is based on a press release: The N begins production. FoutonCritic quotation comes from the same press release. So this is a dated WP:PROMO. The AfD in 2009 closed as a speedy keep due to a mistaken nomination, but I'm not convinced that the subject was notable at that time either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - If we're counting Hollywood Reporter as reputable (I'm not familiar enough with it to say what the consensus on that is), then this might I imagine be worth merging to the writer, Sri Rao, as I found this very nice feature article on him. However, I still have to through the rest of the google hits - he shares a name with a spiritual leader, which confuses things. Yvarta (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably enough to make a biography stick, actually: [1], and shorter mentions: [2],[3], [4]. He wrote Baar Baar Dekho, which came out two days ago and seems to be getting reviews. Yvarta (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm not sure what would be worthwhile to merge as the article under discussion is based entirely on a press release (i.e. not an independent secondary source). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to say "merge" instead of "redirect" so I don't accidentally insult the page creator by insinuating all their work was worthless - and press releases can be useful for dates, etc. But either way, a redirect might still be useful, and WP:Redirects are cheap. Yvarta (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What would be the suggested target? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sri Rao. With the new press, I suspect a few minutes of stub-building could have a page with a solid claim for notability up. Maybe someone will be inspired. Yvarta (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom, if anyone gets around to writing an article on the author it can be redirected there but there's nothing here to save - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see any compelling reason for keeping this. The series was never even aired. It never picked up substantial coverage. That it exists in some form attracts mentions here and there, but that's not the sort of thing that we can build a good article on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:55, 1 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. In spite of some well meaning efforts to improve the article, the consensus is clearly to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Deep Medi Musik

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Banner, can you please tell me how it is advertising I have changed the text a lot now. I don't have any COI so I am not trying to advertise

Jalexlb (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it simply states the facts. There might be room for improvement but it certainly doesn't have to be deleted. The Banner what exactly is your problem here? --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I am confused because this page now after the edits merely lists what its style is and the notable artists it has released that contribute to its notability as a label. Jalexlb (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It makes me sad that you are unable to recognize an unsourced complete record catalogue. The Banner talk 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hiya, it is sourced now. Jalexlb (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC

Great, so it is a copyrights violation... The Banner talk 23:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @The Banner: This is exactly the behaviour that drives away newcomers to Wikipedia. That guy put work into creating a new Wikipedia article so be thankful! I'm always confounded of the unfriendliness of editors here. Don't you notice this yourself? For the alleged "copyrights violation" - where exactly does it say that record catalogs are copyrighted? It makes no sense as these are just factual lists. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here ^[1] and here ^[2] and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. However if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just copying to reignite the discussion but:

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here ^[3] and here ^[4] and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. HOWEVER if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists. Would that be a better solution

Jalexlb (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Delete per WP:PROMO. The article largely consists of a list of recording that the label issued, making it a WP:DIRECTORY, which is an additional rationale for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @K.e.coffman: If there's truly a problem with that just remove that recording list instead of having the whole article deleted. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed that and some other things, so now there is no longer a list of recordings. It is a notable label as shown in the sources

Jalexlb (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I found are some trivial mentions on some newsblogs. I don't see any indication that this is a significance record label. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

- Comment @Lemongirl942: It is one of the most influential labels in the UK dubstep scene. Music labels typically aren't the center of medial attention but there#s enough coverage anyway (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). Another showcase of this label's notability are the 43k likes of its facebook page. It would be more than biased to delete it. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But there are reviews, some of which are full length on big music sites, it is definitely significant to dubstep's history. If it wasn't significant, these big music sites and magazines such as NME and Pitchfork would not be covering it. ^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Also special note that they describe the label in Mixmag as 'treasured' ^[7]

Jalexlb (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Comment: Fixuture, Jalexlb, a couple of points – firstly, Wikipedia doesn't recognise blogs as reliable independent sources. Secondly, while there are certainly some big names like Skream and James Blake with connections to the label, that and the interviews with artists on the label doesn't necessarily make the label itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:INHERITORG which states that notability of a company isn't conferred by association with notable people. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NME and Mixmag aren't 'blogs' they are massive magazines, as is shown by the fact they have their own wikipedia pages. Jalexlb (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but you haven't referenced NME or Mixmag anywhere in the article, and have instead used blogs such as drumsofthesouth.com. I was talking about the article as it stands. And they are not articles about the label, they are articles about albums – again, please read WP:INHERITORG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The article also uses a scientific journal in which deep medi is mentioned, also the documentary bassweight which was on the bbc, and many other notable sources. Also those albums were notable BECAUSE they were on Deep Medi, not the other way round. Also there is the vice feature on the history of dubstep which talks about deep medi. There are many sources I have shown on the talk page and the article which show its notability.

Also what about mixmag calling it treasured, it is from a reliable source and it talks about the label? Also labels are literally only about who they sign because music is how labels get well known, You could say therefore that Mala, a notable musician running it may not be enough on its own through that rule but the music is the very fabric of every label and with that, no labels would be notable because they would only be inhereting notability through releases.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My point is that if you actually added them to the article rather than just listing them here or on the talk page, you would have a better chance of seeing the article kept – as it stands it has almost no reliable sources. You talk about a "scientific journal" and BBC documentary, and yet you haven't added any of them as references, so we have absolutely no proof of verifiability so far. I know the Guardian blog *talks* about the documentary, but there's no proof in the article that Deep Medi are mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I added it, so now the journal is there in the references and I think that helps the cause. Jalexlb (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So now we have quite a view verifiable sources actually Jalexlb (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, would you mind pointing out which one is the scientific journal, please? Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

^[1] This one, its in the journal of electronic dance music Jalexlb (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, although it's really just a review by some teacher of the same BBC documentary that mentions Deep Medi in passing in the wider context of the dubstep scene. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you think they chose Deep Medi out of any dubstep record label, because it is literally the most significant in the scene, they wouldn't have chosen it otherwise as one of the ones to talk about. Mixmag wouldn't have called it treasured, and its most recent release topper top by Sir Spyro wouldn't be currently at around 100 in the itunes chart despite dubstep supposedly having already had its best days behind it. Also it wasn't an in passing mention. A large part of the documentary is filmed about/ around a Deep Medi night

Jalexlb (talk) 18:46, 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 and redirect to Uriyadi. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Vijay kumar (film maker)

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

Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Person not notable and sources are not reliable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Uriyadi, only film that he directed and is known for. Anup [Talk] 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. Film producers are far too common to be considered notable by themselves, absent widespread media attention. There is no evidence that the subject has gained notability as an actor or director. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. FalconK (talk) 06:46, 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 delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bamyan Media

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

not yet notable. As the article itself says, "early-stage social entrepreneur" DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Article basically self claims non-notability, per nom. All references are either blogs, routine, or trivial. NN. Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete and I wish the PROD had been kept because I believe it was kept as a safety measure in case it was removed, then the AfD was still open. All in all, the nomination here is exact in that none of this is both establishing a convincing substantial and then a non-PR article. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Once an article goes to AfD, the Proposed Deletion process becomes invalid and the PROD template must be removed. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete Per the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page only with no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment The contributor of the article asked me to reconsider, reminding me that there are sources. I consider the NYT source perhaps sufficient to contribute to the notability of the promoter, but not of this project. I consider overall the inclusion of details about the individual projects so inappropriate to an encyclopedia as to constitute promotionalism" both promotional intent and promotional writing. (in fact, I consider their inclusion in the NYT story also as promotionalism--there is no source whatsoever, even the most eminent newspapers, that is free from the temptation to write promotional material or advertorials. We have to judge the reliability of a source in context by actually considering what it says and how it is written.). Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

CommentThank you for your close reading of this article. We have deleted some of the details about some of the individual projects mentioned above as "promotional" and removed several adjectives (such as "notable") to change the tone of the writing. However, since I'm new to Wikipedia I would appreciate some further guidance on specifically what points or what sentences are viewed as promotional. For example, should we not mention audience numbers, the amount of cash in prizes? Should we not mention who won these competitions and what they won for? These are facts that might interest someone curious about the mechanism of this development strategy, but maybe they make the article too promotional. Is the article too long on the whole? If we simply shortened it, would it be viewed as less promotional? I added the section on the White House conference on Global Development, which occurred after the original article was written. I though this might bolster the "notability" of Bamyan Media, but it seems to me that demonstrating "notability" does risk appearing overly promotional. Is this a contradiction in Wikipedia editorial policies that most current organizations face? You will also see that I've added an academic research reference pertaining to this project. I believe one of the reviewers mentioned academic research as a far more qualified "source" than the media. In short, we have done our best to make this article an objective description of the work that Bamyan Media does. It does seem logical that an organization that is receiving significant financial support from the US State Department in the interest of promoting its “soft diplomacy” objectives, is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. That way taxpayers can see how their money is being spent, potential collaborators and government employees can read about an organization they may be working with. The fact that Bamyan Media is trying to solve a real world problem, is not and should not be viewed as “promotional” of and in itself. That is simply a fact of the organization's mission. One last point: I see that there is no category page in Wikipedia for "international development" which seems a bit odd. This whole area of activity is somewhat underdeveloped in Wikipedia, which may partially explain reviewers' lack of familiarity with these types of organizations. In fact there are hundreds of them, they perform an important role in US diplomacy, and their descriptions do by definition invoke a type of do gooder language. Lilifrancklyn (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilifrancklyn (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia , not a guide to charities. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants individual stories about individual recipients, it will find them in the web pages and booklets meant to actuate prospective donors. That's what the organization;s web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of thumb is if tit reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia takes a neutral point of view. We provide objective information. We don't advocate in the encyclopedia for causes, however worthy.

As for what you should do, there's a simple answer: you should not write the article about your own organization. If you are doing important work, someone with no connection with the organization will do it. Experience has shown that connected editors are almost always unable to write objective nonpromotional articles about their own organizations. If you want to write about yourself, do it elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 25 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. My decision is mainly based on the sources and their descriptions provided by Cunard which have not been questioned. This decision does not mean that a merge/redirect discussion cannot continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Team

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

This is an article on a book promoted of conspiracists, the only source is a conspiracist website.The article includes no independent commentary to establish the factual accuracy of any of the claims made, as would be required per WP:NPOV/WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The book has some academic references - Google Scholar seems to be unable to keep different editions apart, but there seem to be about 80-100 references here. Following those references, the book is (somewhat) discussed in this article by Chip Berlet. I suspect there are more sources to be found. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

delete. ludicrous overcoverage, amounting to strong promotionalism--almost a G11; if notable, it should be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this works, but adding a comment: this book is notable and very deserving of an entry, but the current article is not good at all. I'd suggest getting a good entry, not just deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment: Delete per WP:PROMO; not adding value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep, according to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread, the aforementioned conspiracy website http://www.globalresearch.ca could be reliable for establishing notability. There are also the sources mentioned by Stephan Schulz.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have serious problems understanding your claim about the WP:RS/N discussion. I read exactly the the opposite from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: multiple editors on the aforementioned thread had stated that the web site is not reliable. Delete this article and be done with it :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Anderson, Jack (1973-03-06). "'Secret Team' Hits CIA 'Dirty Tricks Department'". Garden City Telegram. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  This is a 1973 book review.
2. Pinkerman, John (1973-07-23). "CIA operations criticized. The Secret Team; by L. Fletcher Prouty; Prentice Hall; 496 pages; $8.95. Reviewed By John Pinkerman". New Castle News. Copley News Service. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  This is a 1973 book review.
Here are less substantial sources about the subject:
1. Ventura, Jesse (2011-04-15). "Jesse Ventura's 6 favorite books about conspiracies". The Week. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty (Skyhorse, $17). This book is tremendous because Col. Prouty, who worked for special operations forces under JFK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, reveals who really runs our government. These are the high-level bureaucrats who remain while administrations come and go, and run amok without our elected officials knowing what’s happening.
2. Steinberg, Jeffrey (1992-11-13). "Unique view of JFK assassination". Executive Intelligence Review. 19 (45). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Fletcher Prouty is known to many people as the author of The Secret Team, the mid-1970s epic history of the founding and corrupting of the post-World War II American intelligence establishment, and scores of articles on international finance and national security affairs. For a handful of cognoscenti, he is also known as an expert on railroads and the author of annual encyclopedia entries on the subject. But for millions more people around the world, Colonel Prouty is better known as "Mr. X"-the enigmatic Washington national security insider played by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's recent nationally acclaimed motion picture about the John Kennedy assassination, "JFK."
  This is a passing mention but can be used as a source in the article.
3. Carlson, Michael (2001-06-21). "Obituary: L Fletcher Prouty: US officer obsessed by the conspiracy theory of President Kennedy's assassination". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously. In it, Prouty called the CIA, and the cold war, a cover story, which had allowed elements of the military and intelligence community to work on behalf of the interests of a "high cabal" of industrialists and bankers. It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.
  A mass-market paperback was published by Ballantine in 1974, but the book immediately became hard to find. Prouty believed it was "disappeared"; at any rate, copies remain collectors' items.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Team to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have provided two such sources.
Regarding the promotional concerns: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak Keep, a lot of the mentions in reliable press are just brief ones, but there's probably just enough there to poke it past the notability bar; and there are probably more print sources that are not online. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
Delete for now at best as, although the listed sources above are suggestive of improvements, there are still concerns and I share thrm as they have been listed above. This would need need better evaluation to see if there is in fact enough, and to ensure there's not trivial and fluff coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect over to the author's related page, prehaps specifically L._Fletcher_Prouty#Controversial_claims or else delete this. I'm unpersuaded that short snippet references to this work count as sufficient reliable source coverage. As well, the likes of Executive Intelligence Review are in no way valid to use as references. Prouty as a human being is notable, yes, but not everything that he's written and/or said is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete & redirect -- the sources offered above are passing mentions and the book is discussed only in context of the author. I don't see independent notability here; i.e. no stand-alone reviews. Perhaps redirect (name only) to author's article, but that's about it. The content of the article is still WP:PROMO garbage; there's nothing there that's worth merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that most of the sources presented here are not substantial coverage. However, the 1973 articles from the Garden City Telegram and the New Castle News (Copley News Service) are substantial coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says significant coverage in two reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability.
Lankiveil's comment that "there are probably more print sources that are not online" is supported by this quote from The Guardian obituary I linked above: "His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously."
Cunard (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- I believe that the statement ("His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously") invalidates these 1970s sources as dated and not reliable. A case could be made that these sources are uncritical, and could not be used for the purpose of establishing notability at this time. Contemporary sources would make a stronger case for keeping this page as a stand-alone article, but it appears that they've not reviewed the book "seriously". In fact, they appear to dismiss the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That statement does not invalidate the two 1973 sources I've provided. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Contemporary sources are not required.
The Guardian article noted (my bolding):
It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.
That the book was reviewed seriously because it contained credible claims and "many of its revelations have been confirmed" does not render the 1970s sources unusable in establishing notability.
Cunard (talk) 02:27, 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. 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. MER-C 08:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

ITDunya.com

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

Web forum with very little coverage in WP:reliable sources. Not WP:notable. noq (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

only official ios and android app added,. why someone is editing without checking..— Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs)

Delete. No indication of notability; article seems designed to promote the website, being edited by someone with its name as their username. Would possibly qualify for speedy deletion as promotional(if not A7 notability). 331dot (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear i don't understand what u want,. only official app link added.. its not for promotional,. its only for information, if not allowed,. no issue,. remove it,.. and remove the deletion notice also.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What we want are independent reliable sources indicating how this website is notable. Merely providing information is a form of promotion; Wikipedia articles must do more. If you are associated with this website, you should not be directly editing about it per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

ok no issue,.. now it 'll be fixed,. i am the owner of the forum,. check it clearly now,.if anything required to edit ,.. edit that,..or remove that,.. so i can update accordingly please remove the deletion warning message — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The deletion notice cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. As I indicated, since you are associated with this website, you should not be 'updating' the article. Please review this page on conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok no issue,. i 'll not even open the page again,. nor edit thanks for the information, by happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not 'happy'; I only want you to learn and understand how things operate here, if you wish to be a valid contributor. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

ok i understand each and everything now,.. thx for your cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete as nothing here states any form of actual independent notability or substance at all; there's no automatic inheritance from having whatever number of visits or members. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete for Speedy deletion process. Complete waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 20:27, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hogerzeil destileria (rum)

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

No indication of notability. Page created by user with probable WP:COI who has been warned previously about spam (User talk:Timmhogerzeil) Derek Andrews (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete The article seems to have been written by the founder of the company. I made a good faith search for coverage in reliable, independent sources. All I found was an article in a Paraguayan newspaper, where the company is based, reporting that they had exported 3,200 bottles of rum (a tiny amount) to the United States. That local small business press coverage was almost certainly the product of promotional efforts by the company, and is insufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

do not delete: yes I am the owner of the company and yes I tried to list different topics before without luck. This is not because the listing is not legit, but looks like because I am not doing it correctly. to me as a person … just google my name: Timm Hogerzeil. I have written a couple of published books, directed and published over 40 DVDs and Blu-Rays, a documentary was shot on my life that is considered cultural heritage by the German culture ministry etc etc This new listing of Jules Verne is legit as we are the first Rum of Paraguay that exports to global markets. What is your background that you know how big or small 3200 bottles are? Do you read spanish? This export is the initial of monthly 5000 bottles. Not sure how many micro distilleries globally sell as many. Next month we have our first export to Europe. Further Jules Verne Rum is the first global SteamPunk spirit brand next to Kraken Rum. Probably you do not know what SteamPunk is. Some of the biggest computer games recently released, movies, bars, hotels etc … This trend is not in the media or public eye, but huge around the geek world (you are probably no Geek - otherwise you would know) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk It does not make any differences commercially to be in Wikipedia or not. Still my life and all products I have done so far are of public interest. I designed many opening titles of big Hollywood movies, a commercial I designed became the most ever broadcasted ad in US TV history. (nothing I want to list here) Family background: my grandfather was a famous actor, director of the Nazi area. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Wemper Me and my brother (Caspar Hogerzeil) are now 3rd generation directors of relevance. Many awards in Cannes, Art Directors Club etc … many important productions. Instead of deleting … maybe help me to put it in a way it works with your requirements as I seem to be not doing it well. Hope you can help and make this work as I truly believe this is of public interest and should be in Wikipedia. I should put me in as well again … just do not want to try again without knowing how or if I do it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.52.178.24 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

- Response to Timm The problem with your article is not so much the content but the subject. For an article to be acceptable to the English Wikipedia it must be about a subject that is sufficiently notable. In general, this requires that independent sources have published content about it. In this case we have more specific notability guidelines for businesses and their products which details such things as the depth of coverage required and the independence of the sources. The size and niche of your market are irrelevant unless these independent sources have made note of them, as too are the background of the author of the article. I hope this helps to clarify what wikipedia is about and how it works. If you can find suitable references that demonstrate the notability of your distillery you are welcome to add them. Maybe it is just too soon? There are of course other opportunities online for you to write about your company and products such as steampunk wikia. Best wishes. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:57, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

PNT Singing Idol

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I received a message that an article is being considered for deletion, but didn't see any rationale given for deletion. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

You can find the rationale a few lines up, but it is advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Would respectfully disagree, it is not advertising, but rather the beginning words are a statement of fact - in a culture that prizes musicality and singing, this was the largest western Canadian singing contest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources that discuss PNT Idol or persons associated with PNT Idol: http://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/05/26/10/singing-contests-showcase-pinoy-talents-canada http://www.gmanetwork.com/international/articles/2011-10-20/5/PNT-Singing-Idol-2011-Season-IV-Unveils-Grand-Winners http://www.mrtimes.com/news/317840311.html?mobile=true https://alexpvidal.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/pnt-singing-idol-season-5-blasts-off-in-march/ http://www.mapleridgenews.com/entertainment/128704568.html?mobile=true http://www.pep.ph/celeb/media/3729/iza-calzado-to-make-an-appearance-at-the-pnt-singing-idol-2011-in-vancouver-canada http://www.insidevancouver.ca/2011/09/14/prizes-discounts-more-at-summer-night-markets-finale-weekend/ http://pinoynewsonline.info/gma-pinoy-tv-pnt-singing-idol-concert-at-richmond-night-market-august-13-2011/

As far as I can determine, all are independent of the Philippine Asian News Today, or Reyfort Media, the sponsors at different times of this singing contest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 21 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. J04n(talk page) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Juicy M

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

No indication of importance, no indication of meeting notability guidelines, orphan article, sources may be paid and it has been like this for several months with no improvement. Rizhopper (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

comment FHM is an article, Billboard chart is very minor but exists - this leads me to consider her likely marginally notable per NMUSIC, and that other sources are likely to exist (but that's hypothetical, so this isn't a "keep" yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think the FHM source in this article is legitimate because the actual FHM goes by FHM dot com but this one goes by FHM dot ph. Also there is nothing on Billboard that mentioned her name. When I look up Juicy M, I only see Juicy J (rapper). - Rizhopper (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Still appears to be a minor RS (but not one that would swing it for me). The Billboard ref was [11] which may or may not be any sort of actual chart, though it's listed in the charts section. Electronica Life also looks like a minor RS. The sources don't look sponsored (I could be wrong). Looking through Google News, this is IMO not bad: [12] These are fluffy fact-of-touring coverage, but suggest she's actually somewhat noteworthy in her field (not quite NMUSIC #4 because they're not serious critical reviews, but they are international touring getting coverage): [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] There's a lot of "World's Sexiest DJ" fluff, but I'm leaning marginal keep for actually being noteworthy in her field, and I think we could have an article on the sources there are - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion though, it doesn't qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. - Rizhopper (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking the lower reaches of GNG. Bit of a stretch admittedly and may well be a WP:TOOSOON. But I think that's sufficient sourcing for a quite okay BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I have a link here that shows that she works under Armada Music label [21]. I don't know if its of any importance or if it complies with the guidelines but, Armada Music is notable record label. Other than that I couldn't find more references than the ones already here. If the article still doesn't fulfill the criteria then I think it should be deleted as per norms. (Nipun Nayar 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunnayar (talk • contribs)

Comment: WP:MUSICBIO number 5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" and she has not released even one album yet. Being signed to a notable label does not make an artist notable. - Rizhopper (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Not notable enough per WP:MUSICBIO - Rizhopper (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete as the bottom line here in the nomination and article itself is that none of the sources listed are actual convincing substance, in fact they simply consist of her own album listings or otherwise discography websites; that's nearly always a guaranteed factor of what an article only uses if there's no actual in-depth sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete This person is not notable as a musician. However, she might be notable as a model but still the references doesn't prove it. JohnBangBang (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Media coverage in numerous countries, over 3.75 million followers on FB, similar counts on Youtube channel, and the first female signed by Armada Music. Notable. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Having many fans on social media is not a criteria for notability. Being "the first female signed by Armada Music" in some way is sexist to be considered good enough for notability and I have been trying to expand this article for more than 6 months but I could not find much relevant sources. Just because you personally not want it to be deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't. There is not much media coverage. This article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NRV - TheMagnificentist (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a new one in so many ways! LOL. Hmlarson (talk) 05:52, 2 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. MER-C 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Arvind Narayan

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The article's notability seems to be based on Libero Sports which, in itself, might not meet our notability criteria. Spiderone 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note - this AfD was created on behalf of Indianfootball4eva Spiderone 14:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:28, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete - No indication the subject played in a fully-professional league or in a Tier-1 match to meet WP:NFOOTY. Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: appears to be failing both, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 18:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C 679 13:08, 1 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 no consensus. While if you do a pure headcount there's a clear majority in favour of deleting, none of those "Delete" opinions even tried to address the reliability of the sources found by User:Cyphoidbomb. Odd changes from IP editors are not grounds for deletion. I suggest we come back in a few months and see if anything more has materialised, a second discussion might give a clearer picture. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil

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

Recently created, unreferenced article consisting only of a cast list and an infobox that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Comment Since opening this nomination a very brief lead has been added. However, neither it nor any of the other changes in the 46 subsequent edits have included any sources, whatsoever. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep or Redirect until ____ happens - Hi Aussie, using the Indian news search tool, I find some detailed mentions like this and this. This source is generally considered reliable, although they seem to be reporting rumors about the series being based on a film, and that the series will be shot in Austria. Not a great choice for content, but in terms of multiple reliable sources presenting significant coverage, I'd say that the GNG threshold is probably met. As far as I know, the TV WikiProject doesn't have specific notability criteria akin to WP:NFF, which requires that some aspect of production (ex: principal photography) commence before an article can be created, so I don't know how this series would be any different than, say, any upcoming Nickelodeon TV series article for which there were few reliably published details. So I lean toward keep, but also think a redirect might be an alternative until ____ criterion is satisfied, whatever that would be. (Seems like something the WikiProject TV community would have to discuss.) For instance, if we said that an article should not be created until a reliable published source releases a proposed launch date, then this article might be a candidate for redirect until a reliable source announced a premiere date. This source indicates a speculated October 2016 premiere, but BollywoodLife fails WP:UGC in my experienced opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that you've added some sources, which started to sway me but now we have anonymous editors removing the sourced content and adding unsourced claims in its place, so I'm not sure where to go. Maybe redirection with the redirect being indef semi-protected? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what's up with that? Redirect could be an option. The claim that it has been moved to 2017 makes me a little more wary about maintaining the article, but homeboy didn't source that, so I dunno either. I'm starting to feel like erring on the side of "too soon" might be the way to go. It's hard to justify an article when there's very little being said about it. The series is supposed to air next month but nobody's written anything about it? Seems weak. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 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 18:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I am aware of what this is. The channel unofficially declared that the show might not be broadcasted at all. So it can be just a hoax. It can be created later when things are more perfect. Varun FEB2003 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I see speculation, gossip and trivial coverage of this thing, nothing substantial. Anup [Talk] 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Anup on this one. FalconK (talk) 05:19, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Chemy Soibelman

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

Notable? I think not. TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Has been a member of The Groggers, G-Nome Project, and briefly Hamakor, which satisfies criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Stub is not the same as non-notable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League

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

Fails GNG, does not meet relevant sports guidelines. This is a short-season summer baseball league whose players are limited to NCAA-eligible college players only. It is not a professional league, and does not have professional players. It is also very local; it only has teams in New York State. There appears to be no coverage outside of the league and team websites. Unlike the Cape Cod League, it seems to have no MLB backing or affiliation that would make it noteworthy as a feeder league. MSJapan (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I believe this league has enough notability to continue to have a page here. The summer collegiate baseball leagues are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep As Spanneraol mentioned, collegiate summer leagues are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 23:16, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrot Top Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are mainly primary ones off the label's website or store site, and the secondaries are namedrops in larger articles with no WP:SIGCOV involved. Original AfD probably should have closed no consensus NPASR due to lack of participation if nothing else. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete as I also concur the 1st AfD was another case of a too quick close; examining this is actually not finding what could make it both independently notable and convincing, since the largest information there is here is a clients list. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. No indications of notability or significance; notability is not inherited from notable performers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - 20 year history of signing notable artists. Listed in Billboard as a significant Chicago indie label. Notable per NMUSIC#5. Notability not inherited from artists, but notable by the criteria by which record labels gain notability, which is by influencing culture by releasing, over a period of time, culturally significant releases by culturally significant artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top Records commenters: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), Michig (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), and Everymorning (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Contra to 78.26, we are not talking about the definition of notability one might find on Wiktionary, but the specific Wikipedia definition of notability. Nothing the subject is or does confers notability in that regard. One thing, and one thing only, confers it—the availability of substantial amounts of reference material written about the subject (directly about the subject, not about something affiliated with the subject) by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. No number of name drops or blurbs in such sources confers notability in that regard, nor does "influence" or anything else. I couldn't find that type of reference material before (hence the previous nomination), and I still see no reason to believe it exists now. As to "NMUSIC #5", firstly, this is notability criteria for a band (per the guideline: "musicians or ensembles"), not a label, so that doesn't apply here as the article is not about a band. NMUSIC #5 also specifically references major record labels with a specific pointer to the article about major labels. This label is not listed there, nor can I find any reference indicating that it is considered a major label and should be on that list. All that aside, even if it did meet that SNG, meeting an SNG confers a presumption of notability, but that is a rebuttable presumption if the references can be shown to in fact not be out there (the guideline even says "may be notable" if they meet such a criterion). In this case, they are, to the best of my ability to find, not in existence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You ceased reading NMUSIC#5 too soon. I never claimed that Carrot Top was one of the major record labels. These are very, very few. Instead, the salient point is what follows: "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." According to this, Carrot Top Records easily fits the definition of "one of the more important indie labels." It comes down to what makes a record label notable, and I already presented my case on that point. As a discographer, I would be sorry to see this article go, even though I have no particular interest in the genres generally recorded by this label. The article presents disparate, useful, and verifiable information from a variety of reliable sources, regarding a topic which will be of interest to musicologists, disographers, and music historians when researching certain areas of Chicago (and much broader because of its distributions) music. As such, I can see no benefit to the encyclopedia should this article be deleted, and in fact some harm. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The article as it stands is unconvincing; it's largely a list of the acts that published with the label (cited to the latter's web site) and does not really provide any content of value to the readers. I honestly don't see anything worth salvaging. I looked for sources but could find only passing one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the article is of little interest to the general reader, but Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia as well as a general encyclopedia. To someone who performs the type of research I do (although my research is towards much older record label entities), the article contains information about the when and why of its founding, how it played a role in a distribution debate between independent labels and major retailers, that that label also had direct retail interests, and that it additionally acted as a distributor. Yes, the article is a stub, but the information contained is WP:V. Because of the length of history and the large number of notable artists, the topic is highly likely to draw interest from discographers/musicologists. Specialized, sure, but I respectfully disagree that it provides no value to any reader, and therefore the encyclopedia is not improved by its deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 6 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) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yuri Cataldo

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP;PROF. The references are either from his own college or the local newspapers that will publish anything at all about local people--and none of them are substantial. He operates a bottled water company, & has taken care that it gets some publicity, but those are just PR. He created costume designs for a few important films, but none of his designs have won any prizes of their own. He has no significant academic works, and according to WP:PROF, the notability of faculty in the creative arts are judged by the criteria for those arts--and he does not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete largely per nom. What coverage I have been able to find seems to come from sources that while not necessarily doubtful in their veracity, are compromised either by some tangible connection to the subject, or by being purely local. We need more than this to meet GNG. I would also note that there is more than slight whiff of promotionalism here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete the argument for keeping would seem to rely on the "award winning" discussed. However, seeing the press release from the award organization, Cataldo is not mentioned; this is an award that goes to the product, and doesn't automatically tie to an individual (unlike, say, how a producer gets a Best Picture Oscar or an author gets a major book award. (The article curiously both overstates how it was described and understates it simultaneously; when it says it was the third best water in the world in 2015, it's using a 2013 source, the year it took the bronze. In 2015, it took the gold, so it was the best... but only the best purified water, and only among those entered.) The TV source reeks of churnalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) And just to back up what I say about the award not necessarily representing the world's best: "What is surprising however is how few bottlers are actually involved in the competition." --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 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 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sausalito News

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a community newspaper in a small suburb of a larger city. WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all newspapers that exist -- a newspaper still has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because its own self-published website or an online archive of its issues nominally verifies that it existed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find some reliable sourcing about it, but nothing in the article right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Small suburb of a larger city? I don't think so. And the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't built until 1937. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete concur with nom. No independent coverage cited nor found. MB 04:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
~~Delete and redirect~~ to California Digital Newspaper Collection A Wikipedia search for "Sausalito News" shows that this reference is cited often. The article is unsourced, citations don't appear by themselves, and WP:V is a core content policy. WP:IAR, since WP:DEL7 cannot be used as stated to protect the encyclopedia from unsourced articles. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep -- I added citations and content to the article, and I believe it's an acceptable stub on a historic paper at this point. Also ping Unscintillating and Bearcat to see what they think. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Also MB. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep : Sufficiently sourced. pretty IittIe Iiar 05:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The sources show that it exists, but little more. FalconK (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Newspapers.com does seem to have coverage. Let me see if I can clip some. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep While this article is starved for better detail, it is verifiable that the paper existed in 1887, and an unknown part of it has been archived at the [[California Digital Newspaper Collection. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 6 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DistrictBuilder

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

Blatant promotion bombarded with passing mentions, non mentions and faked verification. Random refs thrown in to verify related aspects that are not specifically about this software. Deceptive article from paid promoters. This software lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the awards are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Provisional Keep - The Washington Post article mentioned in the lead gives a good mention of DistrictBuilder in the context of it being a notable method for citizen groups to try redistricting. It's only a single mention, but the context provides weight, IMO. That's one RS... I usually require two. The reference "Mason Political Scientist McDonald Wins Award for Redistricting Software" would be my second, except the link is dead and the wayback machine doesn't have it. If the content of that reference is what our article claims it to be, then that is plenty sufficient to merit keeping. I do note that a large number of other references are tagged that they don't actually back up the claims made in our article... so, I'll grant that this is not a necessary given.

IFF someone can find this dead link, and it checks out, or if another source for the award can be found, this is a Keep vote. Otherwise, mark me down as ambivalent. All the "statement not supported by reference" tags is certainly troubling, after all. But AfD is not cleanup, so... Fieari (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mason ref is primary, comes from one of the developers employer. Article itself is available here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the article is primary... but is the award self given (a vanity award)? More importantly, is the award NOTABLE? If the award is notable, then that in addition to the Washington Post reference would be sufficient for me to make this a firm keep. I'm not certain it is notable, and my google news searches on the award are giving me results that I'm not 100% certain are actually related. Do you know anything about the award? Fieari (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Best I can see, it's an award from an individual convention. Register and pay, you are in line for an award. Small pool, small audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete Softwares tend to have some of the best coverage available and here it clearly doesn't satisfy. This Washington Post coverage is very brief, like 2 -3 sentences and I don't see enough depth over here. Neither do I see any other reliable third party sources covering it. Wikipedia is a not a directory of all software and this is pretty much a non-notable one. This doesn't pass GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 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.

^ https://dj.dancecult.net/index.php/dancecult/article/viewArticle/339

[1] ttp://www.rolldabeats.com/label/deep_medi_musik

[2] ttps://bleep.com/music/label/758-deep-medi-musik

[3] ttp://www.rolldabeats.com/label/deep_medi_musik

[4] ttps://bleep.com/music/label/758-deep-medi-musik

[5] ttp://www.nme.com/reviews/various-artists/14525

[6] ttp://www.factmag.com/2016/05/23/james-blake-best-rarities-b-sides/

[7] ttp://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13378-city-limits-volume-1/

[8] ttp://crackmagazine.net/article/music/kahn-commodo-gantz-volume-1/

[9] ttp://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15547-city-limits-volume-2/

[10] ttp://www.factmag.com/2012/03/18/goth-trad-new-epoch/

[11] ttp://mixmag.net/read/kaiju-x-gantz-premieres

[12] ttps://dj.dancecult.net/index.php/dancecult/article/viewArticle/339

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

@@ 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 11:59, 29 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 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#False Mirror |False Mirror (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160922014400}}||0||4858||2||'''964.26'''
+|[[#False Mirror |False Mirror (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160922014400}}||0||4858||2||'''979.73'''
 |-
-|[[#Ultimum|Ultimum]]||{{Time ago|20160922053600}}||0||2616||2||'''953.11'''
+|[[#Ultimum|Ultimum]]||{{Time ago|20160922053600}}||0||2616||2||'''968.6'''
 |-
-|[[#Arun Behll|Arun Behll]]||{{Time ago|20160923012500}}||1||3698||1||'''828.07'''
+|[[#Arun Behll|Arun Behll]]||{{Time ago|20160923012500}}||1||3698||1||'''843.54'''
 |-
-|[[#Free-fall atomic model|Free-fall atomic model]]||{{Time ago|20160920181100}}||3||25646||2||'''823.93'''
+|[[#Free-fall atomic model|Free-fall atomic model]]||{{Time ago|20160920181100}}||3||25646||2||'''839.4'''
 |-
-|[[#Donnabella Mortel|Donnabella Mortel]]||{{Time ago|20160922015900}}||3||3569||2||'''763.48'''
+|[[#GigSalad|GigSalad]]||{{Time ago|20160922001251}}||2||11385||0||'''769.33'''
 |-
-|[[#GigSalad|GigSalad]]||{{Time ago|20160922001251}}||2||11385||0||'''753.85'''
+|[[#Yacøpsæ |Yacøpsæ (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160923190400}}||2||3857||1||'''691.23'''
 |-
-|[[#Maria Dorai-Raj|Maria Dorai-Raj]]||{{Time ago|20160922050300}}||4||6077||2||'''684.51'''
+|[[#What Goes On (TV series) |What Goes On (TV series) (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160925161100}}||1||6560||2||'''650.87'''
 |-
-|[[#Yacøpsæ |Yacøpsæ (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160923190400}}||2||3857||1||'''675.74'''
+|[[#Deep Medi Musik|Deep Medi Musik]]||{{Time ago|20160924032900}}||2||13177||2||'''645.43'''
 |-
-|[[#Sonika Kaliraman|Sonika Kaliraman]]||{{Time ago|20160922194500}}||3||10122||2||'''675.59'''
+|[[#Vijay kumar (film maker)|Vijay kumar (film maker)]]||{{Time ago|20160926092700}}||1||2386||1||'''604.05'''
 |-
-|[[#What Goes On (TV series) |What Goes On (TV series) (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160925161100}}||1||6560||2||'''635.38'''
+|[[#Bamyan Media|Bamyan Media]]||{{Time ago|20160923042916}}||4||8472||0||'''599.34'''
 |-
-|[[#Deep Medi Musik|Deep Medi Musik]]||{{Time ago|20160924032900}}||2||13177||2||'''629.96'''
+|[[#The Secret Team|The Secret Team]]||{{Time ago|20160924054200}}||3||10132||2||'''589.27'''
 |-
-|[[#Evandro Rachoni De Lima|Evandro Rachoni De Lima]]||{{Time ago|20160922185230}}||4||8080||0||'''612.83'''
+|[[#Willow Rose|Willow Rose]]||{{Time ago|20160926093100}}||1||7110||1||'''583.87'''
 |-
-|[[#Vijay kumar (film maker)|Vijay kumar (film maker)]]||{{Time ago|20160926092700}}||1||2386||1||'''588.57'''
+|[[#ITDunya.com|ITDunya.com]]||{{Time ago|20160925041500}}||2||5696||1||'''571.28'''
 |-
-|[[#Bamyan Media|Bamyan Media]]||{{Time ago|20160923042916}}||4||8472||0||'''583.87'''
+|[[#Hogerzeil destileria (rum)|Hogerzeil destileria (rum)]]||{{Time ago|20160925060700}}||2||6780||1||'''565.65'''
 |-
-|[[#The Secret Team|The Secret Team]]||{{Time ago|20160924054200}}||3||10132||2||'''573.78'''
+|[[#PNT Singing Idol|PNT Singing Idol]]||{{Time ago|20160928050800}}||0||5538||2||'''517.83'''
 |-
-|[[#Willow Rose|Willow Rose]]||{{Time ago|20160926093100}}||1||7110||1||'''568.39'''
+|[[#Juicy M|Juicy M]]||{{Time ago|20160925114500}}||3||8379||2||'''513.81'''
 |-
-|[[#ITDunya.com|ITDunya.com]]||{{Time ago|20160925041500}}||2||5696||1||'''555.81'''
+|[[#Arvind Narayan|Arvind Narayan]]||{{Time ago|20160925011711}}||4||4471||0||'''484.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Hogerzeil destileria (rum)|Hogerzeil destileria (rum)]]||{{Time ago|20160925060700}}||2||6780||1||'''550.18'''
+|[[#Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil|Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil]]||{{Time ago|20160926182600}}||2||7307||2||'''471.92'''
 |-
-|[[#PNT Singing Idol|PNT Singing Idol]]||{{Time ago|20160928050800}}||0||5538||2||'''502.35'''
+|[[#Chemy Soibelman|Chemy Soibelman]]||{{Time ago|20160929032300}}||0||2707||2||'''470.7'''
 |-
-|[[#Juicy M|Juicy M]]||{{Time ago|20160925114500}}||3||8379||2||'''498.33'''
+|[[#Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League|Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League]]||{{Time ago|20160927041400}}||2||4461||2||'''462.52'''
 |-
-|[[#Arvind Narayan|Arvind Narayan]]||{{Time ago|20160925011711}}||4||4471||0||'''469.46'''
+|[[#Carrot Top Records |Carrot Top Records (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160926020309}}||3||3728||0||'''460.68'''
 |-
-|[[#Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil|Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil]]||{{Time ago|20160926182600}}||2||7307||2||'''456.44'''
+|[[#Yuri Cataldo |Yuri Cataldo (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20160929023300}}||0||2183||1||'''458.79'''
 |-
-|[[#Chemy Soibelman|Chemy Soibelman]]||{{Time ago|20160929032300}}||0||2707||2||'''455.23'''
+|[[#Panthers–Seahawks rivalry|Panthers–Seahawks rivalry]]||{{Time ago|20160927222600}}||1||20957||1||'''457.91'''
 |-
-|[[#MetrixLab|MetrixLab]]||{{Time ago|20160928055400}}||1||7310||2||'''449.98'''
+|[[#Sausalito News|Sausalito News]]||{{Time ago|20160926092400}}||3||4557||1||'''454.09'''
 |-
-|[[#Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League|Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League]]||{{Time ago|20160927041400}}||2||4461||2||'''447.04'''
+|[[#DistrictBuilder|DistrictBuilder]]||{{Time ago|20160929032100}}||0||5908||2||'''450.84'''
 |}
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Behll}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free-fall atomic model}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnabella Mortel}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GigSalad}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Dorai-Raj}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacøpsæ (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonika Kaliraman}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Goes On (TV series) (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Medi Musik}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evandro Rachoni De Lima}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay kumar (film maker)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamyan Media}}
@@ Line 84: / Line 80: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemy Soibelman}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetrixLab}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top Records (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Cataldo (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks rivalry}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sausalito News}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DistrictBuilder}}