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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:44, 26 February 2017

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 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Material Sciences Corporation	54 years ago	0	0	0	1239995.96
List of Japan-exclusive video games (2nd nomination)	54 years ago	0	0	0	1239995.91
Gauthier Bouchet	9 years ago	6	7232	0	55089.67
Eurock	7 years ago	1	5189	2	566.62
2001 Merano Cup	7 years ago	1	3672	2	522.93
CricNepal	7 years ago	0	1877	0	515.5
Mark Moore (author)	7 years ago	2	4636	2	508.29
American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse	7 years ago	2	12709	2	507.06
Lugro-Mesh	7 years ago	0	3206	1	504.88
Pillorian	7 years ago	0	1039	0	492.81
Yaesu FT-707 (S)	7 years ago	0	851	0	488.86
Lucatumumab	7 years ago	2	6938	1	482.37
Clash-A-Rama	7 years ago	1	3368	2	478.28
Twana Amin (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	1	2665	1	463.15
Berk Akın	7 years ago	1	2618	1	462.59
Ege Arar	7 years ago	1	2648	1	462.57
Eli et Papillon	7 years ago	1	1780	0	461.58
Anna-Marie Wayne	7 years ago	1	1656	0	461.22
Chidush	7 years ago	3	8002	2	457.77
Hood Famous	7 years ago	1	819	0	456.26
Go Grizzly	7 years ago	1	807	0	455.96
Jon C	7 years ago	1	1086	0	455.86
Winner's Circle Productions	7 years ago	1	1808	0	455.67
Leo Boyle	7 years ago	1	3703	0	455.66
Oliver the 2nd	7 years ago	1	1374	0	451.5

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. slakr^\ talk / 07:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Material Sciences Corporation

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

no evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with both the previous WP:PROD rationales. This is a poorly-sourced article on a company which was previously public but was acquired in early 2014 [1]. There is mention of the name in subsequent ongoing consolidations ([2] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is a former publicly traded company, which gives it permanent notability. Even if it had since gone out of business, it would deserve a page. The article should notice the privatization and consolidations. Those are encyclopedic changes. There is clearly encyclopedic content on this subject with WP:RS to support that fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep [3], [4], [5]. As per these sources, company was listed on NYSE as MSC, now listed on NASDAQ as MASC. As per WP:NOIMPROVEMENT,
"...articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles...See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
(See § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), above, for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.)"
Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete There are simply not enough sources available to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply being listed on a stock exchange does not lead to automatic notability. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources, we should not have an article on it (See WP:WHYN). Also arguments of the type WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are not useful if proof cannot be shown. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two. Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.
WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason. It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article. The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
The burden of proof to show sources lies on the people who are arguing that the article should be kept. So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
"Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.

There aren't enough reliable sources for this article. I stick to my delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research. Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim. Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Delete I can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings. The references provided aren't independent and/or significant discussions.Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Write-up and sources at International Directory of Company Histories convinces me there is notability here.Glendoremus (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep - I normally wouldn't do this and make my own arguments but I couldn't have put it any better than User:Unscintillating - Pmedema (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and AllyD. Sources do not show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and the in-depth coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep There are sufficient sources, passes WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete- The available sources do not demonstrate that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, and I've been unable to find anything better. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation. Keep The sources found by Cunard below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I found below? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cunard: These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), thank you for the kind words and for evaluating the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues.
  ...
  Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals.
  ...
  As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”
2. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest
3. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors.
  Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances.
  In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks.
  ...
  Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford.
  ...
  It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position.
4. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
5. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
6. Hoover's has an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes:
  Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US.
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail.
  Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales, That win helped land a contract for the same part, Material Sciences has spent $1 million, Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces, MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets., . The company's products are used, they most of their sales in US. Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 23 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Japan-exclusive video games

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

First off, the title of this article is misleading, since the list criteria which have been in the article since its creation in January 2006 have little to do with which countries the games have been released in. Per those criteria, the title should be "List of Japanese language video games with at least one version that has no official English language release". In other words:

Games which are Japan-exclusive but are in English (yes, there are a considerable number of such games) do not qualify for this list
Games which have been released in many countries but not in English do qualify for the list
Games which have been released in English but had one version which was not in English (e.g. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Dark Seed II, Grandia) do qualify for the list

Obviously the discrepancy between the title and the criteria can easily be fixed, either by changing the criteria or moving the article. However, whether you go by the title or the stated criteria, the list is far too broad in scope to ever come close to being comprehensive. This issue was brought up in the original AfD, which was closed as no consensus, and was not addressed by any of those who voted keep. All five of the "keep" votes provided no justification beyond vague assertions that the article can be improved, which just leads to the question: How can it possibly be improved? The inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and ill-defined to have been discussed in notable sources, so there's no reason to think that this article could one day have something more than original research. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - For what its worth, if this happens to be kept again, the article isn't very actively maintained, so you could probably alter the inclusion criteria without much resistance. (And if there was resistance, you could contact the very active WP:VG for assistance on consensus building.) I just thought I'd throw that out there, considering how many of your qualms seem to be focused around the article's current inclusion criteria. The article could possibly be reshaped into something that makes a bit more sense. (Not that I'm defending the article, I'm currently undecided.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me; I was discussing the inclusion criteria solely so that anyone viewing this AfD will understand exactly what the article I'm proposing to delete is, since the article title is misleading on that point. My reasons for wanting it deleted are its overly broad scope and lack of potential for sourced content.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. I agree that the subject of the list is far, far too broad in scope to ever be comprehensive. A quick look at the number of entries in Category:Japan-exclusive video games shows just how many games this list would need to contain to be comprehensive. The existence of this category also makes this list somewhat unnecessary as a navigation tool, as the category can be used for the same purpose. There is also the issue that, as this list contain zero reliable source, the entire lead in and the arbitrary labeling of some of the games on the list as "import classics" is complete OR. While this list could be potentially completely reworked, have some reliable sources brought it to support its information, and have its inclusion criteria redefined into something that makes sense, that would essentially mean rebuilding the entire list from the ground up. And considering what poor shape this list has been in for years, if that was something that was desirable, it would be far easier to delete this one, and create an entirely new article in its place, rather than keep this mess around with the hope that somebody will fix it someday. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. A list like this is incredibly unwieldy and hard to maintain. I think what the title suggests, is that there are some game released just for the Japanese market. I think that borders on WP:EXISTS and/or WP:OR, because we're the ones pointing to the exclusivity in Japan. It would need a parent article, like Japanese exclusive video game before such a list can happen. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete - If this list were ever correctly filled out, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Japanese-only releases are better tracked on a smaller scale, which they already are in a more accurate manner, by platform. (For example, see List of PlayStation Vita games or List of PlayStation 4 games, which have columns that show which games are released in which regions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE if properly maintained with WP:LISTN-compatible criteria. As it is now, it is completely WP:OR with its inclusion criteria as there do not appear to be any reliable sources that group it this way. Redundant to other lists as well, like per-platform ones. No primary topic to warrant a separate list article either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:51, 5 March 2017 (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. czar 06:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Gauthier Bouchet

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

Gauthier Bouchet does not fill criteria of notability

Furthermore, he is a french politician, but this page is only in english (but I don't know if it is a criteria...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Trichet-Allaire (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

Bouchet seems eligible for Wikipedia criterias as he's both an important politician in his region (local leader, elected in an important city) and an historian specialized about 19-20th French political history. He's known as the author of a thesis about the firts years of the Third Republic, different articles (Revue de centre etudes et de recherche sur le bonapartisme, etc.), and currently works about legitimist (ultra conservative monarchism) in Western France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscailuz (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I launch again this procedure, which was at the time irregularly stopped by Biscailuz (talk · contribs). Kumʞum ouatizite ? 16:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Lack of significant coverage. Major press venues (Libération, Le Monde, Le Figaro) doesn't seem to have an article about the article topic. Lack of sources in the article. The currently rather long content seems to be out of scope on Wikipedia, written more for a personal site than a summary of sources available (there aren't any). --Dereckson (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. On top of that:
There is a strong probability that Biscailuz (talk · contribs) is Gauthier Bouchet himself or someone close to him as, from the earliest version of the page, we can found personnal data and information which have no existence on the web (e.g. the complete name : "Gauthier Moïse André Bouchet", nothing on the web);

A strong probability of self-promotion: after been quick deleted 3 times on fr.wp, he tried there;

Some lies about the notability: the Major press articles section contain... a very, very local media which never could be used, even as a source in fr.wp and a Youtube video which is basically a primary and promotional source. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete., for same reason than precedent comment. I am myself elected in this city, and he is not a particularly known politician, just one of the 50 member of the city council of Saint-Nazaire (70 000 hab) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Trichet-Allaire (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Despite his political activities seem quite local, G. Boucher is a local historian that mainly works on history of conservatisms (monarchism and gaullism) and history of French republicanism since its beginning. His thesis is a regional study of legitimist monarchism, a continuation of previous works on local elections in Loire-Inférieure department during the Third Republic. A part of his articles can be consulted on the website that he dedicated to his historical works, the Société d'histoire politique de l'Ouest. However, it's strange to notice that this site was currently unreferenced within the sources of its Wikipedia article. --Daunou (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- — Daunou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Draftify. There's clearly quite a bit that can be said about him, enough that he'd qualify for an article if he could actually be shown to clear WP:GNG — but what this article is lacking is adequate reliable source referencing to show that he clears GNG. This article, in fact, has one of the biggest gaps I've ever seen on Wikipedia between its significant length and depth, and the negligible amount of referencing that was actually present to actually support the content. A gap like that inevitably means one of three things, however: either (a) the subject is more referenceable, and clears GNG more easily, than the article actually shows, or (b) he wrote it largely or entirely himself in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO, or (c) somebody directly contacted him to collect otherwise unsourceable personal details from a private interview (which we're also not allowed to do, because our sources have to be verifiable in published content.) Nothing here, however, is so inherently notable as to exempt him from having to be sourceable over GNG, because without adequate referencing we can't properly sort out what's verifiable as true and what's unsourceable insider information or conflict of interest puffery. So move it to draftspace, so that people have a chance to get the referencing up to snuff — if in three to six months that still hasn't happened, then it can be MFDed accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, self-promoting entry by single-purpose account. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete: criterias aren't reached. NAH 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
Delete his political position at present is not high enough to show notability. His work as a historian is also not yet on a notable level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete Minor political position of only local importance. Party position in minor party. No evidence of broad academic notice. Only evidence for WP:GNG is in WP:ROUTINE local organs or in media connected to subject or subject's party and hence not independent. This all adds up to not passing WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep Seems to gain both political position due to the French presidential campaign and an interesting audience as local historian about electoral studies. Anyway this page needs an importance clearance of his sources. They exist on the Internet when we type 'Gautier Bouchet' on Google but apparently many serious sources weren't referenced on this Wikipedia notice at this time (as his historical articles, participations on major medias as Sputnik etc.) Planetesimal (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Planetesimal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Eurock

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In the eight years since this article was created, many new links have become available. I have added several of them. Many more could be added, but the interested reader can quite easily discover them on his own. I fully understand how the availability of outside links can appear to equate to "notability" to a reader unfamiliar with the material, so I hope these additions satisfy the notability requirements.Rcarlberg (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I couldn't verify the assertions of the nomination. Since notability is defined outside Wikipedia, and notability is not a content guideline, there is not specifically a notability requirement that articles have sources. WP:Verifiability is a core content policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Unscintillating, I'm struggling to understand your comment. Did you think I was saying it had to have sources to be notable? Certainly not, although as you say, verifiability is important. From the information in the article plus my own searches on the topic, I concluded that it didn't meet the notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete WP:BEFORE complicated by usage of the same name by a geological association using it for conferences in Europe, but there is a dearth of verifiable sources for this subject. No indication meets any notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (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 redirect to Merano Cup. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

2001 Merano Cup

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Also nominating he following for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Merano Cup. The individual tournaments are not notable, but if we're going to have the parent article Merano Cup, these should be redirect there as a plausible search term and per WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 17 February 2017 (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. czar 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

CricNepal

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

Doesn't appear to meet web notability criteria. Article lacks reliable sources, almost all citations are self published from the website itself. Can't find any sources online from non-trivial published works that demonstrate notability. Article also seems to have been created by the website's founder and has been deleted multiple times previously. Jevansen (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with the nominator, can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2017 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Moore (author)

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

I have not been able to establish that this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The best I could find were this and this. Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I've removed a lot of copyvio from the article, which is much slimmer as a result. I don't think much is lost, there was a mass of unreferenced stuff there. I found one more source, this, which seems to be typical "local boy makes good" coverage by a very local paper. In general, the chances of a writer meeting WP:AUTHOR before the publication of his first book are pretty slim. I don't think this one does. It's perhaps questionable whether he's actually an author at all: his name is on the book, but so is that of Andy Butcher, in the sort of small type that's often used to credit a ghost-writer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Userfy The book will be published in April by Hachette. If page creator @MarkMoore325: is willing, we could move it to userspace. It could be moved back to mainspace if the book gets reviews and/or in-depth feature article or author profile coverage in multiple major media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

At this time, however, page is mere pre-publication book PROMO. In-depth coverage of Moore's career in major media would make him notable, but Moore is a hard name to google. Still, if there are articles about him in WP:RS publications (places like, I urge User:MarkMoore325 to add them to the page. Businessmen and philanthropists can be notable, of course, but their activities have to be covered in places like daily newspapers, or magazines. Does nayone know the name of the IT company he is said to have co-founded?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete At best WP:TOOSOON but more likely WP:COI self-promotion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete Only one reference is remotely notable, and that's not close to dedicated. Search tools produce nothing, even with 'author' removed. Not notable. Delete. Tapered (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete - there is so little (either text or sources) in this stub, and the odds of a bestseller are so difficult to state, that I'd urge deletion for now. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse

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

I am having a hard time finding in depth discussion of this program or organization from reliable secondary sources. I declined a speedy delete A7 request, but notability seems doubtful right now. Thoughts...? Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Why should an article which originated April 2015, nearly 2 years ago, be on a speedy delete list. If it lasted this long, IMHO it should be given 30 days of being open to serious comment, unless a senior editor thinks it slipped "under the radar" for VERY serious problems, e.g. copyright. The second time I faced a standard-speed 7-day delete I asked that someone please "shape it, don't drape it" (meaning don't bury it).

The topic is serious material, even if the article itself is below Wiki standards. Intentionally not having an entry for this organization, which originated over 4 decades ago and was listed on something published 3 years ago seems below why so many people turn to Wiki - not just correctness, but a sense of wide-ranging coverage of topics.

There obviously is a bug in the Wiki software that even allows something that lasted this long to be eligible for a publicly visible speedy delete, without an administrator getting involved. Pi314m (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This organization, under its former name American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, is listed in the 2-volume

Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today.^[1] and is listed among other American Indian organizations in 1971^[2]

Comment The article is not on a speedy delete list. It is at Articles for Deletion a venue for the community to discuss articles where there is doubt about whether or not they meet our standards for inclusion. We don't give special privileges to articles because they have been around for a certain period of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"

It would seem that a better name for the article is "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" since the only text in the article from before I saw it was copied from the https://www.samhsa.gov/tloa government web site describing them.

As for the names "American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse" (and its successor "...Alcohol and Substance Abuse" they could be listed as an example of one of the government agency's "federal partners" as per

The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA) and its federal partners provide tribes with technical assistance and resources that help communities achieve their awareness, prevention, and treatment goals. The OIASA is required under the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) to coordinate those resources. The office supports a holistic framework reinforcing the belief that the mind, body, and spirit are all connected to health and that tribes know best how to solve their own problems through prevention activities and community partnerships. Pi314m (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion with regards the name of the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Lawson, Russel M. (2013). Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. ABC-CLIO. p. 551. ISBN 0313381453.
^ mentioned in a 2015 eulogy: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/native-news/warriors-of-our-time-remembering-john-trudell

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

RENAME recommendation for the following reasons:

There is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA.gov)
SAMHSA has an Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
It operates with partners (quote from SMSHSA: "...and its federal partners")
The present article's name appears twice in lists of ... (but with no details)
The present article names another partner (with substantiating details & reference citations)

Suggested name: "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" Pi314m (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

re the comment "We generally(emphasis added) do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion" - I am not the author of the original article. Just to recap:

21Apr2015 - article created by an ID that became RedMarked (no longer a Wiki ID)

2 edits days later - tagged as Uncategorized

next day - renamed from ...Drug Abuse to Substance Abuse (per Fed Govt rename)

30Jan2017 - with no subsequent edits nominated for S-P-E-E-D-Y delete!

At this point (actually the next day) I spotted it and became a good citizen.

Someone goofed. As I've noted above, there MUST be someone who can code enough to verify that an article has been around for two years, and immediately alert a real live admin that... SPEEDY makes no sense; either just delete, after calling in the lawyers, because it's really that bad, or... just block the nomination.

Then look into the question of what needs to be fixed: merge, pad it out with tons of Public Domain text so it looks impressive (I'm joking, I think), or find a way to make it last a bit longer.

Question: can there be concensus to rename the article, to the name of a real live (probably multi-million) DOLLAR-funded government agency/office/department? I proposed one above
at Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"
If a rename is approved, then perhaps more edits, regarding the federal agency, rather than the "federal partner" (the present name of the article) would make sense and help bring this discussion to its next/followup step. Pi314m (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I am still not seeing the in depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. The issue is not the name, it's the lack of coverage. Absent sufficient coverage this does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Also this article is not nominated for Speedy Deletion. It is at WP:AFD. There is no special treatment for articles that don't meet our guidelines because they have avoided detection for a long period of time. If you disagree with our policies and guidelines for deletion this is not the place for that discussion. You are free to raise the issue at WT:DEL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Before listing my recommendation, I want to chime in with some reflections of the discussion so far, on the off chance that especially {ping|Pi314m}} might take input from a previously-uninvolved editor. The first thing to make clear is perhaps what should be most obvious: arguments for deleting an article are not articles against the article subject. The vast majority of AfD voters don't know about the article subject and don't actually care one way or another about the subject. They care about the article itself. It's a pretty simple consideration for most: If the article passes the guidelines a procedures, then it stays. Secondly, as has been previously explained and despite repeated assertions to the contrary, there is no current attempt to speedy delete the article. The speedy delete was declined within a day almost a month ago. To be going on about it suggests either a level of having taken offense that drowns out what others are saying or a lack of reading comprehension. In either event, the comments above imply not respecting policies on "ownership" of articles or a conflict of interest. I get wanting to defend the truth, but Wikipedia shows little concern for grand "truths". We do not "make something notable"; we reflect notability that already exists. If there are multiple, significant, independent sources that cover an article subject, the article stays. Of the sources presented, only two even mention this organization. One is a passing mention in an obituary a one of a number of organizations the decedent had been involved in, the other is a short entry in an >800pp encyclopedia. Neither is actually a significant amount of coverage. They verify mere existence, but existence is not a guarantee of notability.

Delete For all these reasons, I must conclude the article should be deleted unless evidence can be produced that it passes the notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect - to the "Tribal Action Plan" section of Alcohol and Native Americans. Not anywhere near enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. I live in Arizona, where alcoholism among Indians is a huge issue, so I was pretty shocked at the dearth of information on this government agency. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete or alternatively Redirect or Rename: However, I am not seeing enough information to keep, so rename is not a good option without more information. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lugro-Mesh

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

Lugro-Mesh should be deleted because its original page (ours is a translation from Argentina) is deleted. None of its external links are working, (or in English), and some are unsafe.

Note that the info is not lost, since B.A.T.M.A.N. external links cover this topic via the Wayback Machine. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion opener did not properly substitute the AFD template, so this did not appear correctly in the log. Therefore, this does not count as an official relist. This discussion may be relisted without comment up to two times after this correction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete It's difficult to find out if this project ever made it into reality - everything I've found suggests that it's a project that is intended to be created but nothing I've seen states that this project actually came into fruition. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Pillorian

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

Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. No broad and consistent coverage in RS discovered after a search. May be a case of TOOSOON. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I"m inclined to agree with the OP. Delete. — Richard BB 14:32, 10 March 2017 (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. Sandstein 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yaesu FT-707 (S)

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

Non-notable product. This article is completely unreferenced, and largely opinion and original research; statements like "Even nowadays nice looking" and "It drifts sometimes" mean that there's nothing salvageable here. Mikeblas (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete non-notable ham radio fancruft with no sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2017 (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 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lucatumumab

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

This drug candidate was found not to be efficacious and never made it past Phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep ~~Keep~~ – Regardless of the efficacy or usefulness of the drug, this topic nevertheless meets WP:GNG, albeit on a possibly weaker level, because it has received enough independent coverage to qualify for an article. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

~~British Journal of Haematology (may be a primary source, unsure after researching)~~
Cardiovascular Week
Side Effects of Drugs Annual
Blood Journal
Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice
Cancer Immunology: Bench to Bedside Immunotherapy of Cancers
Targeted Therapy in Translational Cancer Research (subscription required) (cannot access entire work to see depth of coverage)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless evidence of actually significant secondary coverage emerges. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

of the refs brought above:

- British Journal of Haematology not "maybe" primary. Absolutely primary.
- Cardiovascular Week - this is an example of incompetent churnalism churning some low quality hyping of a primary source. oy.
- Side Effects of Drugs Annual
- Blood Journal - this is an abstract from the primary source mentioned above, essentially a directory listing in a book summarizing all clinical research done in 2012. not useful for N.
- Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice. Bit better. A four sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
- Cancer Immunology: Bench to Bedside Immunotherapy of Cancers - As above, now a five sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
- Targeted Therapy in Translational Cancer Research (subscription required) - as with the 3rd ref above, just summarizes the Phase I trial.

A search on pubmed for reviews finds 4 refs in English. PMID 25249370 is like the OKish refs above, and just summarizes the Phase I paper. PMID 24555495 however has extensive discussion of the published science around this mAb as of its date (it was received in Sept 2013). PMID 19362983 is from 2009 and is very brief. It discusses 2 small Phase I trials under the old development name HCD-122. PMID 18336199 is too old to be relevant.

I did what I could to complete the story with the best refs I could find (which were not great) in these diffs.

I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted. I won't moan either way, but this is not a slam-dunk "keep" by any means. It is borderline at best. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The original bjh article has been cited over 74 times in Google Scholar.Another paper on the subject in Blood [6] has been cited 140 times. A third in Leukemia & [7], 84 times. That's several hundred citations to the substances. We normally keep substances with even a few. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 7 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Clash-A-Rama

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

Every "source" is just the Clash of Clans website itself or a YouTube video. Which makes everything a primary/self source or synthesis in relating the happenings in a video with no third-party mentions at all. Seems to not be notable in the least except for the popularity of the game on which it is based, but that doesn't confer notability to this. If not outright deleted should be a one or two paragraph section on the Clash of Clans article. JesseRafe (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete Sourced almost entirely internally to this Youtube channel. No sign of wider notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep Since Clash of Clans has a large audience its having a web series is mentioned on some gaming websites; I added one to the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment, then isn't that an endorsement for this content being a section on the game's article? Notability is not inherited and this as a series has not demonstrated much notability. JesseRafe (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Twana Amin

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

subject fails WP:AUTHOR and basically the community's notability guideline. The article creator should also note that Wikipedia is not for advertising. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Berk Akın

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

The league he plays in is not on the list of those granting default notability, and the sources are not substantial enough to pass the General Notability Guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete: NN amateur hockey player with ephemeral career in the Turkish minor leagues. No evidence he meets the GNG, no prospect of getting notable, and no iteration of WP:NHOCKEY under which the subject doesn't fail miserably. Ravenswing 07:46, 22 February 2017 (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ege Arar

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

Arar plays in the Turkish league, which is not one that grants default notability for playing. The sources otherwise are extremely weak. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep Galatasaray is a fairly prominent team, which has signed many ex-NBA players over the years, so I think there's something worthwhile here. I don't really know where to begin with Turkish sources, but maybe something like this could be helpful? Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep actually does meet WP:NBASKETBALL as he played in Euroleague games during his time with Galatasaray. See stats here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep per Rikster above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Rikster2. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
'Speedy keep per Rikster and WP:NBASKETBALL. These nominations should be wholesale closed. Jacona (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Eli et Papillon

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

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This basically just asserts that they exist, the end, and sources it to one piece of reliable source coverage and one interview on a blog -- but the interview doesn't assist notability, because it represents the band talking about themselves, and the one piece of real reliable source coverage isn't enough by itself to give them "notability because media coverage exists" in the absence of actually having accomplished any specific thing that would pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Anna-Marie Wayne

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significant roles in notable films or productions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete no significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

She has been touring the world with a major Arena show for many years: http://www.thewaroftheworlds.com/live-events/2010-11-uk-eu/castlist.aspx amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.14.60 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chidush

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

This is perhaps more suited for Wiktionary, and indeed novella is in the dictionary. As it stands now, this article is unsourced, non-notable and not even written correctly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Agree with nominator that this belongs in Wiktionary. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NAD and it definitely does not even meet WP:GNG, as its just a definition of a word. - Galatz ^Talk 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
~~Delete ONLY when Wiktionary has the entry~~. Keep per below L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is an encyclopedic concept covered widely in talmudic and other halachic literature in Hebrew, that suffers from a rather clear systemic bias. Book length coverage in English includes Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues, which includes a chapter on the topic that is chock full of sources. There are ample sources available as seen from searches on the word in Google Scholar and Google Books, which barely touch the surface of material available in Hebrew on the topic. This is a crappy article for an encyclopedic topic that needs expansion, improvement and better sourcing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: So you don't think it belongs merely in the Wiktionary? Just wondering L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Author's note:

I do not feel entitled to a vote. (but)...

Would prefer to bring it up to standards

This article has been nominated for a quick demise. Meanwhile it is being discussed.

Although it's discussion may or may not be considered a conversation, my OR (Original Research) on this is:
see Conversation,

which says "if permanency or the ability to review such information is important, written communication may be ideal." This seems to be in :contradiction to the "topnote" that says "written exchanges are usually not referred to as conversations."

My marketing clause? "Shape it, don't drape it" (i.e. don't bury it). Pi314m (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

author at bat: Per (above) "Keep" comment, seeking "expansion, improvement" I've added a new section: Why is Chidush important Pi314m (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pi314m your addition, like most of the article, appears to be an argument to convince the reader why chidush is important. ::This does not read like any other Wikipedia article, as it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, describing the topic rather than propounding some kind of argument or trying to persuade the reader about something. There is also a lack of understanding of English grammar in the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Judaica (Keter Publishing House Ltd, Jerusalem, Israel, 1972) has coverage from page 464 to 468, and Wiki is even contemplating deletion? What are all the Wiki policies about if not to describe "how to"

First this was supposed to go in Wiktionary. Then it was deemed non-notable (as if all the book titles with the word Chidush, Chidushei, Chidushim didn't make it notable). It was described as "just a definition." The same could be said about words like Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, which in some places today they don't even rate being called a word - think STEM. Nuff said? Just a few more (words).

Wiki articles wearing hats, hatnotes, etc. are applenty. Some are tagged as stubs, others go on and on and on... Eef me Anglish iz innerproperiately adikwit, than bye know someone wood hav simply rewrotten itt an brung it up too standerd, no? Pi314m (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

author at second base: Now that the article has 26 references, including two encyclopedias
- one of them in the public domain (used 3 times) -and-
- another (cited twice)

would this article be "more encylopedic" if it were quadrupled in size by just dumping in everything from the Public Domain source (except for the already noted above 3 citations) as ==SOME MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT==. There are numerous Wiki articles, albeit topped with HatNotes of less than glory, that are minor rewrites of Public Domain texts, and they're not facing discuss-to-delete. Is my comment unfair? To whom? Pi314m (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pi314m: it's very important for you to read the Wikipedia pages mentioned in the welcome on your talk page so you will start writing articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia. In particular, the lack of sentence case and all-lowercase subheads is rather amateurish. Regarding developing an article about a Hebrew term, please look up other Wikipedia articles; I could offer my own example, Chavrusa. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep plenty of WP:RS on this subject [8]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Draftify If there are indeed "plenty of WP:RS on this subject" they haven't been added to the article. As it stands now, after efforts from the original author, the quality of the article has actually gone down by being loaded with WP:OR and personal opinions. The added references don't show any sign of significant coverage in RS, being mostly either short or material like blogs and answer websites. There is indication in the search results of possible notability, but that would need to be incorporated and then re-evaluated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - TheMagnificentist 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG, but requires A LOT of work towards following WP:MOS and content guidelines. Will take time, but I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and start. --IsaacSt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hood Famous

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Go Grizzly

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jon C

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Winner's Circle Productions

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability (or existence). Magnolia677 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- no notability established nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a relevant article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leo Boyle

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

Leo Boyle was an NCO with well-known Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. However, Boyle does not qualify as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Virtually the entire page is anecdotal. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - There appear to be a large number of links to Boyle. Many are because Boyle appears in the {{Band of Brothers (miniseries)}} template.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - Boyle died before the Band of Brothers tv series when its living subjects became more famous. He did not achieve the same level of fame~~, and thus doesn't, in my opinion, meet GNG~~. There is a Leo Boyle who was major general and later adjutant general in the Illinois National Guard in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a search at newspapers.com; I presume that is a different individual, is anyone sure? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm striking my !vote. While I think that GNG is weaker for Easy Company members who died before the miniseries and thus did not receive as much press, I'm not sure GNG isn't met, at least for Boyle, by coverage in books about Easy Company, especially given the level of detail about this individual's life included in those sources. If pressed, I'd !vote Weak keep on those grounds. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete I cant see anything of note in the article that would make him notable enough for an article, the main claim in the article is being wounded twice not unlike tens of thousands of other brave soldiers who did there duty that we dont have articles on either for similar reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment When I follow the links to News, Newspapers, Books, and NYT, I get nothing identifiable with the Leo Boyle to whom this article applies. If there's something I'm not seeing, I appreciate having it pointed out to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete I'm sensitive to Smmurphy's comments, but also think the only reason he has this attention is because of the miniseries. Yes, he was there, did that, and came home. Nothing about his life during or after his service is otherwise notable by our standards. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans, which resulted in deletion. I'm looking at Template:Band of Brothers (miniseries) and seeing many of these characters that do not warrant an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Oliver the 2nd

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

The page has no sources at all, so it might actually be possible to Prod delete or speedy delete it. I searched for sources, and all I came up with was a twitter account and web-sites run by the subject. Nothing comes close to showing he is a notable musician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete - This page has no sources and is a notability issue. Joseffritzl (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2017 (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.

[1] Lawson, Russel M. (2013). Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. ABC-CLIO. p. 551. ISBN 0313381453.

[2] tioned in a 2015 eulogy: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/native-news/warriors-of-our-time-remembering-john-trudell

[1]

[2]

@@ 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 04:54, 26 February 2017 (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 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Gauthier Bouchet|Gauthier Bouchet]]||{{Time ago|20150111210229}}||6||7232||0||'''55075.3'''
+|[[#Material Sciences Corporation|Material Sciences Corporation]]||{{Time ago|19700108000000}}||0||0||0||'''1239995.96'''
 |-
-|[[#Eurock|Eurock]]||{{Time ago|20170223124300}}||1||5189||2||'''552.26'''
+|[[#List of Japan-exclusive video games |List of Japan-exclusive video games (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|19700108000000}}||0||0||0||'''1239995.91'''
 |-
-|[[#2001 Merano Cup|2001 Merano Cup]]||{{Time ago|20170224095400}}||1||3672||2||'''508.57'''
+|[[#Gauthier Bouchet|Gauthier Bouchet]]||{{Time ago|20150111210229}}||6||7232||0||'''55089.67'''
 |-
-|[[#CricNepal|CricNepal]]||{{Time ago|20170225000444}}||0||1877||0||'''501.13'''
+|[[#Eurock|Eurock]]||{{Time ago|20170223124300}}||1||5189||2||'''566.62'''
 |-
-|[[#Mark Moore (author)|Mark Moore (author)]]||{{Time ago|20170223053300}}||2||4636||2||'''493.88'''
+|[[#2001 Merano Cup|2001 Merano Cup]]||{{Time ago|20170224095400}}||1||3672||2||'''522.93'''
 |-
-|[[#American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse|American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse]]||{{Time ago|20170222181200}}||2||12709||2||'''492.7'''
+|[[#CricNepal|CricNepal]]||{{Time ago|20170225000444}}||0||1877||0||'''515.5'''
 |-
-|[[#Lugro-Mesh|Lugro-Mesh]]||{{Time ago|20170225034100}}||0||3206||1||'''490.47'''
+|[[#Mark Moore (author)|Mark Moore (author)]]||{{Time ago|20170223053300}}||2||4636||2||'''508.29'''
 |-
-|[[#Pillorian|Pillorian]]||{{Time ago|20170225074421}}||0||1039||0||'''478.38'''
+|[[#American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse|American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse]]||{{Time ago|20170222181200}}||2||12709||2||'''507.06'''
 |-
-|[[#Yaesu FT-707 (S)|Yaesu FT-707 (S)]]||{{Time ago|20170225090638}}||0||851||0||'''474.4'''
+|[[#Lugro-Mesh|Lugro-Mesh]]||{{Time ago|20170225034100}}||0||3206||1||'''504.88'''
 |-
-|[[#Lucatumumab|Lucatumumab]]||{{Time ago|20170223023100}}||2||6938||1||'''467.97'''
+|[[#Pillorian|Pillorian]]||{{Time ago|20170225074421}}||0||1039||0||'''492.81'''
 |-
-|[[#Clash-A-Rama|Clash-A-Rama]]||{{Time ago|20170225004900}}||1||3368||2||'''463.92'''
+|[[#Yaesu FT-707 (S)|Yaesu FT-707 (S)]]||{{Time ago|20170225090638}}||0||851||0||'''488.86'''
 |-
-|[[#Peer group analysis|Peer group analysis]]||{{Time ago|20170225131703}}||0||1415||0||'''461.74'''
+|[[#Lucatumumab|Lucatumumab]]||{{Time ago|20170223023100}}||2||6938||1||'''482.37'''
 |-
-|[[#Twana Amin |Twana Amin (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20170225010000}}||1||2665||1||'''448.7'''
+|[[#Clash-A-Rama|Clash-A-Rama]]||{{Time ago|20170225004900}}||1||3368||2||'''478.28'''
 |-
-|[[#Berk Akın|Berk Akın]]||{{Time ago|20170225010200}}||1||2618||1||'''448.23'''
+|[[#Twana Amin |Twana Amin (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20170225010000}}||1||2665||1||'''463.15'''
 |-
-|[[#Ege Arar|Ege Arar]]||{{Time ago|20170225010400}}||1||2648||1||'''448.2'''
+|[[#Berk Akın|Berk Akın]]||{{Time ago|20170225010200}}||1||2618||1||'''462.59'''
 |-
-|[[#Reed Business Information|Reed Business Information]]||{{Time ago|20170225012213}}||1||1803||0||'''447.5'''
+|[[#Ege Arar|Ege Arar]]||{{Time ago|20170225010400}}||1||2648||1||'''462.57'''
 |-
-|[[#Eli et Papillon|Eli et Papillon]]||{{Time ago|20170225012346}}||1||1780||0||'''447.21'''
+|[[#Eli et Papillon|Eli et Papillon]]||{{Time ago|20170225012346}}||1||1780||0||'''461.58'''
 |-
-|[[#Anna-Marie Wayne|Anna-Marie Wayne]]||{{Time ago|20170225012859}}||1||1656||0||'''446.86'''
+|[[#Anna-Marie Wayne|Anna-Marie Wayne]]||{{Time ago|20170225012859}}||1||1656||0||'''461.22'''
 |-
-|[[#Chidush|Chidush]]||{{Time ago|20170222225900}}||3||8002||2||'''443.41'''
+|[[#Chidush|Chidush]]||{{Time ago|20170222225900}}||3||8002||2||'''457.77'''
 |-
-|[[#Hood Famous|Hood Famous]]||{{Time ago|20170225031109}}||1||819||0||'''441.89'''
+|[[#Hood Famous|Hood Famous]]||{{Time ago|20170225031109}}||1||819||0||'''456.26'''
 |-
-|[[#Go Grizzly|Go Grizzly]]||{{Time ago|20170225031657}}||1||807||0||'''441.59'''
+|[[#Go Grizzly|Go Grizzly]]||{{Time ago|20170225031657}}||1||807||0||'''455.96'''
 |-
-|[[#Jon C|Jon C]]||{{Time ago|20170225031958}}||1||1086||0||'''441.48'''
+|[[#Jon C|Jon C]]||{{Time ago|20170225031958}}||1||1086||0||'''455.86'''
 |-
-|[[#Leo Boyle|Leo Boyle]]||{{Time ago|20170224222425}}||1||3703||0||'''441.29'''
+|[[#Winner's Circle Productions|Winner's Circle Productions]]||{{Time ago|20170225033027}}||1||1808||0||'''455.67'''
 |-
-|[[#Winner's Circle Productions|Winner's Circle Productions]]||{{Time ago|20170225033027}}||1||1808||0||'''441.21'''
+|[[#Leo Boyle|Leo Boyle]]||{{Time ago|20170224222425}}||1||3703||0||'''455.66'''
 |-
-|[[#Oliver the 2nd|Oliver the 2nd]]||{{Time ago|20170225045008}}||1||1374||0||'''437.07'''
+|[[#Oliver the 2nd|Oliver the 2nd]]||{{Time ago|20170225045008}}||1||1374||0||'''451.5'''
 |}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Sciences Corporation}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan-exclusive video games (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauthier Bouchet}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurock}}
@@ Line 72: / Line 74: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucatumumab}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash-A-Rama}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peer group analysis}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twana Amin (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berk Akın}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ege Arar}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Business Information}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli et Papillon}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna-Marie Wayne}}
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Grizzly}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon C}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Boyle}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winner's Circle Productions}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Boyle}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver the 2nd}}