User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

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 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Eugena Washington	6 years ago	1	7374	0	763.13
Gemini (mail/news)	6 years ago	0	2488	0	598.6
Cotes d'Armor (True Rebels)	6 years ago	0	3417	2	404.09
Conshafter (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	0	3235	2	403.99
List of Formula One circuits outright fastest lap and lap record	6 years ago	0	1920	0	388.34
Modern Love Records	6 years ago	1	3885	1	384.84
DC Solar	6 years ago	1	2330	0	366.69
Twist (App)	6 years ago	0	1903	0	363.27
Wesley Harrington Ketchum	6 years ago	0	1301	0	362.07
Olga T. Weber (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	0	3969	0	360.67
Member of technical staff	6 years ago	1	2943	0	357.75
The Sign (band)	6 years ago	1	4932	2	354.8
Zaid Ali (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	1	7400	1	349.88
Cousins Subs	6 years ago	0	2398	0	346.79
Aygün Kazımova	6 years ago	1	4336	0	345.53
Ooops a Desi	6 years ago	0	1430	0	342.09
Lama (martial art)	6 years ago	1	3028	1	340.7
Namibian ultra marathon	6 years ago	1	2814	1	339.05
Baba Sen	6 years ago	1	1516	0	338.94
Koogle TV	6 years ago	1	1694	0	331.66
DJPC	6 years ago	1	1826	0	328.65
Dando Drilling	6 years ago	0	1704	0	324.77
Dennis Alink	6 years ago	1	4448	1	319.96
Progressive Property	6 years ago	0	1871	0	317.46
Joseph and Lisabeth Marziello	6 years ago	1	2020	0	315.79

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

The result was keep. Consensus remains that POY gives a presumption of notability. I don't know whether that consensus is present for POM, but that is not the issue here DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Eugena Washington

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

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

Non-notable person. Lack of GNG and has dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Background: tagged for WP:PROD by the nominator (Sportsfan 1234) with the comment:

Non-notable person

Proposed deletion contested by me (Syrenka V) with the comment:

Presumptively notable as having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (Playboy Playmate of the Year) per section WP:ANYBIO within guideline WP:BIO

Whatever any one person thinks of Playboy Playmate of the Year, it is, without reasonable doubt, a "well-known and significant award or honor" from the point of view of the general culture. And the General notability guideline (WP:GNG) is only one section of the guideline WP:Notability (WP:N), which unequivocally states that the GNG is not the only way of showing presumptive notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The guideline WP:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) is one of those listed in that box. Contrary to popular deletionist opinion, a topic need not necessarily meet WP:GNG in order to have a presumption of notability. Does Eugena Washington meet WP:GNG? We don't even need to know.

Likewise, the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N states as its title:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Deletionists frequently allege "dubious sources" currently cited within an article, but that is not a valid basis for deletion according to the guidelines. I'm aware that there are essays that make claims to the contrary. They're simply wrong.

This nomination for deletion was contrary to the guidelines and should be rejected out of hand, without any need to improve the article beforehand, or to investigate its sourcing, or to evaluate whether its topic meets the GNG. Doubtless as a recognized Start-class article it does need improvement to make a better encyclopedia—but not to justify keeping the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The "award" here is not one based on merit, and so does not fit our guidelines for "significant award or honor". No other reason to have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Based on merit" is not in the guidelines. Only what is well-known to the public and seen as significant by the public matters.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Like most, if not all, of the hundreds of Playmates of the Month (See List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, while recognizing that not all of them have their own main articles) and dozens of Playmates of the Year (see List of Playboy Playmates of the Year), she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a Tu quoque argument. Rather, it supports the inference that the award recipients are notable precisely because they received these awards. Indeed, because she was the last of the Hugh Hefner/Playboy Mansion announced POTY winner, she is unique. This is the bar we have set; she is over that bar. Res ipsa loquitor. I did update the sourcing some. She appears to have a successful modeling career.

If there is a cognizable proper reason to delete this, while ignoring the other articles, I'd like to hear it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 11 November 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  09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Gemini (mail/news)

Gemini (mail/news) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, fails WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. no evidence at all for any possible notability -- nor even significance. If it were a company not a product, it would be a clear A7 speedy

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. ansh666 09:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Cotes d'Armor (True Rebels)

Cotes d'Armor (True Rebels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. The artist is notable, but not all of his works are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Reviews found from jesusfreakhideout ([1]) and Cross Rhythms ([2]), and an article from Christian Today which unfortunately doesn't display properly for me ([3]). I'm not really up on which Christian sources are considered reliable so just putting these here for consideration. --Michig (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article makes no claim of notability. Ifnord (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the source given by Michig above are reliable and the review content is not trivial. The first jesusfreakhideout.com is used on hundreds pages on Wikipedia to support Christian music review while the second though not heavily used but it is listed as reliable in Wiki project Music. (Both results via XL link search). I can't access the third either, but I think these sources can make this pass WP:GNG vis a vis the artist is notable, hence his fans both search for him and his work  — Ammarpad (talk) 22:37, 17 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Uncontested.  Sandstein  12:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Conshafter

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Conshafter
• Articles for deletion/Conshafter (2nd nomination)

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

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

WP:YAMB. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 08:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 November 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Formula One circuits outright fastest lap and lap record

List of Formula One circuits outright fastest lap and lap record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pure trivia. Tvx1 01:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivia, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. As the list fails to show notability around this topic and per WP:NOTSTATS. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 23 November 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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern Love Records

Modern Love Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only sources are self-published. A Google search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Narky Blert (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per above, also the notability of the artists on the label is questionable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Champion: One or two of the bluelinked artists on the label look at first sight as if they might pass WP:GNG. If their notability is in doubt, they need individual discussion, and they should not be drawn into this discussion. Of course, neither artists nor label can WP:INHERIT notability from each other (I have WP:WG in mind). Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I wasn't suggesting that they be discussed here, and I pretty much agree with you on that point. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 7 November 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DC Solar

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

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

Promotionally written article with claim for notability through WP:INHERITORG as NASCAR sponsor. However, little by way of independent media coverage about the company as such, therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Internet searches bring up results relating to Nascar sponsorship and items reading like press-released/details from press packs. The article also contains unsourced information and details from a completely unrelated company, which I will remove. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly promotional article, no evidence of it passing WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 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 Speedy deleted. It seems the article got chopped as an A7 before this debate ran its course. Oh well, another one bites the dust. (non-admin closure) And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Twist (App)

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

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

Verging on promotional "app". No need for this to be in Wikipedia Nightfury 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Article was moved from Draftspace by SPA editor in apparent violation of WP:COI/WP:PAID. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete non notable app without broad coverage and written in obvious promotional tone.  — Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 14 November 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 merge to Edgar Cayce. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 06:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Harrington Ketchum

Wesley Harrington Ketchum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, except for connection with Edgar Cayce - about whom there is no article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment No article about Edgar Cayce? Incredible. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I didn't find the article about Cayce. Why dont we merge the two? Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. Only of interest due to his connection to Cayce. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 16 November 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. J04n(talk page) 19:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Olga T. Weber

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Olga T. Weber
• Articles for deletion/Olga T. Weber (2nd nomination)

Olga T. Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Many brief notices, no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• DGG there was a Keep decision in a previous AfD less than a fortnight ago? AllyD (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

reading more carefully, I see the article says that she was the originator of the national Constitution Day celebration, not just the state one. Butin that case wouldn'twe expect more non-local references ? DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nom should be withdrawn - there is no policy basis for sending the article back to AfD less than two weeks after an unequivocal consensus for keep. Any irregularities in the previous process should be handled through an appeal, not a new nom. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nom should be withdrawn I agree wholeheartedly with Newimpartial. I was one of the people who worked really hard to bring this article up to standards and it clearly passes GNG now. Weber is not just mentioned in several Ohio news sources, but also in books as well. In addition, there is no prohibition against using local sources to measure notability, so she passes GNG easily and most likely ANYBIO since this holiday was her idea and crusade. This AfD is really puzzling to me, especially, as AllyD points out, it's only been 2 weeks since a near unanimous keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nom should be withdrawn - There are multiple sources, be it local. This AfD should be withdrawn.ConstitutionTown (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• What coverage did Weber have outside of Ohio? czar 05:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar! It doesn't matter if she has coverage outside of Ohio. The fact is that she is covered in many reliable sources (Many of which I added). GNG does not specify that a person cannot be local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The GNG is a presumption, not a formula that sources = article. A lack of sources from outside a small region can indicate that the subject is only of local interest or incidental to a larger topic. Surely Weber should have sources from outside Ohio? czar 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar, I have to say that it's too bad that there aren't more national sources, though I'm not surprised: it's the 1960s and going through news archives isn't easy, nor are all of them digitized. Now, I have to seriously disagree with you on GNG. Without GNG, we have no guideline as to what will be included or not in Wikipedia. If we just throw it out whenever we wish, we aren't going to get anywhere. I understand where you are coming from, but I do think that GNG is a sort of formula. If there isn't a standard for us to use, then anything goes. In this case, I want to emphasize that local coverage is certainly permissible (and valid) through GNG. Local topics are still of interest to thousands, if not millions of people, so I find the argument unpersuasive. It's important to stand by our standards and guidelines on Wikipedia. If they need changing, that's a different argument all-together. In addition to GNG, Weber certainly falls under the standard, ANYBIO, for her creation of the holiday not just in Ohio, but nationwide. Because of her an entire town has its nickname. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the bolded part of the GNG (the word "presumed"), as in there are other factors than simply having sourcing—for instance, that the majority of the content and sourcing is about Constitution Day (which does have wider coverage and includes Weber in its scope). I imagine this was the sentiment of DGG's brief nom. The standards/guidelines in that case would be to follow the proportionality of the sourcing and cover Weber in context of the Constitution Day article, indeed as the Ohio section already does.

I've done a fair amount of bibliographic work from the American 60s, so I can appreciate the fact that not everything is digitized, but most major publications from that era are, including the ones that would note Weber's biographical details vis-à-vis something as public as a state holiday. Local and special interest publications would likely be among the last to be digitized, but we'd also have an indication of that offline sourcing from existing bibliographies, which tend to be compiled on independently noteworthy figures. czar 04:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is User:ConstitutionTown from the same town as the subject or is there a COI here? Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac, ConstitutionTown hasn't said where they are from, but from their edits, I think they're from Louisville, OH. However, that said, I don't think it would be proper to ask someone to "out" themselves either as being from the town or not. Let's assume we're dealing with someone who has a particular interest, as their Contribution list shows. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - since the nom has (unwisely, in my view) declined to withdraw the nom, and since no policy grounds have been proposed to delete the article (which clearly meets the GNG), someone unINVOLVED should close it keep tomorrow, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Close This should not have been put up for consideration right after it passed an AfD discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment It might have been strategic for me to wait a while longer, but at this point I cannot withdraw it, as others have commented for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

To assume good faith, I imagine that you have not read the discussion carefully, DGG. There are no !votes for deletion, whether per policy or otherwise. The merge !vote is neither here nor there, and neither is the cross-talk about the validity of strictly Ohio sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Length of reference has nothing to do with whether there is adequate coverage in RS to develop a biography without doing original research. Guidelines clearly allow for chaining together information. Meets GNG. Also, while there is no requirement that sources not be regional, two different Congressional Records, i.e. not Ohio sources, confirm that page A6653, page 14041 her unique accomplishment was recognized outside of Ohio. While not substantial, they defeat the argument that the only recognition of her accomplishment was in her home state. SusunW (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Constitution Day (United_States)#History, which is what most of the content is actually about, not the otherwise apparently unremarkable person.  Sandstein  12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• 'Keep per SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 15 November 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 consensus on recreating this on Wiktionary. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Member of technical staff

Member of technical staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not finding significant coverage of this term itself, just mentions of people who are such staff members and passing mentions, such as in this source. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - essentially a neologism or definition of a title. No substance, no real sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary a redirect to Bell Labs isn't quite appropriate, as the term has expanded from its initial use there . The article is a dictdef of a job title, and will almost certainly stay as one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 12 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Given the weird history / hijacking, it may be better to TNT and start again, if this group is even notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Sign (band)

The Sign (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, could not find sources describing notability according to criteria in WP:BAND. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Could have been a speedy as there is no claim to notability or a PROD, but this will do as well. I searched using the Google links above and modified it so that it looked for "The Sign" "Volta" (the family name of the band members). Nothing that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Commment The article was hijcaked 2015-11-29T07:58:35 by an anon from Tasmania, the location of the subjects as it currently stands. The version before the hijcaking has a claim to notability, but is unreferenced as well. If nominator does not object, I suggest withdrawing the nomination and let's revert to that version and try to source it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Walter Görlitz: Feel free to revert it, but I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD yet, since notability is still questionable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert discussion

If the AfD goes forward, would it be a problem to restore the earlier version? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:Feel free to do so, just leave the AfD tag on the page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 November 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. bd2412 T 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Zaid Ali

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Zaid Ali
• Articles for deletion/Zaid Ali (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Zaid Ali Tahir

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

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

I'm not sure how this was kept last time. This person easily fails WP:GNG as the majority of the coverage in the article is about his purported "Hollywood" movie offer which fails to explain its significance or its scope within the industry. He hasn't uploaded videos to his main channel in over three years, so there isn't anything he's done recently that can be added to save this page. A search of his name on Google finds questionable tabloid-like "reporting" of his actions in relation to his wife (aka WP:GOSSIP) and nothing else. Nihlus 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Same reasons as mentioned in the last Afd. Qualifies on WP:BASIC. Referred to in multiple RS as an internet sensation, the subject has been covered – or rather, headlined – in a plethora of reliable sources. Keeping up with Zaid Ali T, Zaid Ali T set to tie the knot, Zaid Ali T vs Hollywood, Zaid Ali says no to Hollywood and innumerable more. Celebs of course will get their own fair share of gossip; but one can't thereby ignore the notable material within the news coverage. Ranked amongst the top 7 must-follow Pakistani social media stars by ProPakistani news,[4] this is presumably a keep. Lourdes 15:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Lourdes: Please explain how each of those tabloid journalism examples are reliable sources. They're all written under "News Desk" or "Entertainment Desk" and show signs of unreliable/biased sourcing for the material. One article is essentially a regurgitation of his social media. This page was also created by a paid editor (now banned), and his social media displays patterns of purchasing followers. See the trend? Nihlus 15:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nihlus. Hope you're doing well. I understand what you're saying. However, in my opinion, newspapers like The News on Sunday, The Nation, Dawn, Tribune et al are significantly reliable sources. If you read WP:CREATIVE ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."), the subject's youtube channel and his various videos have been the primary subject of multiple independent articles, a very few which I have documented above. As an example, for your benefit, from the The News on Sunday, I have taken out all material that the source has covered on the subject and listed it at User:Lourdes/ZaidAli. I see close to 600 words in six paragraphs. This is significant. You'll find at least two or three paragraphs of significant coverage in all the other sources too. Celebrities might purchase followers and have paid editors creating their pages; I don't debate that. But that doesn't take away this subject's notability. Hope this provides the clarity of my stand. Warmly, Lourdes 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Unfortunately, telling me that they are "significantly reliable" does nothing to explain how they are reliable. Nihlus 05:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus, hello again. It is my opinion that they are reliable, based on my reading of the content and the overall positioning of the publications. If you believe that the sources I have quoted belonging to The News (claims to be the largest English language newspaper in Pakistan), The Nation (printed apparently since 1996), The Dawn (claims to be Pakistan's oldest newspaper), The Tribune (claims to be Pakistan's only internationally affiliated newspaper) etc are unreliable, I would suggest you take this up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would however understand if you might continue to differ from my point of view. Warmly. Lourdes 12:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete still non notable. WP:CREATIVE is not passed as well. Capitals00 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cousins Subs

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

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

I am not impressed by this article on this medium company - I think it falls on the wrong side of notable, failing WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to regional media and is narrow, relying on a lot of marketing/PR materials. The article is clearly promotional (contributors include a bunch of WP:SPAs including a certain User:Cousinssubs and while we could clean it up to a factual stub-like entry, the notability issue still remain. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Not every company is going to be Subway or Jimmy John's. Well-known regional sandwich chain and not seeing how it violates YP. Also the COI's contribs can be easily rectified with a simple SOFIXIT. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mrschimpf: "How it violates WP" - please read WP:N. The entry on this company IMHO violates this policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- an insignificant regional chain and reads like a franchise ad:

• "The company's products mainly utilize Wisconsin-sourced products, including Wisconsin cheesees, along with meat products from locally-based Badger Ham, Klement's and Johnsonville Foods, along with Best Maid cookies and soft drinks from Sprecher!"

Additional puffed up language includes "focus on quality" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying it it needs cleanup, not something AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

By "insignificant chain" I mean non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, so if there is a promotional tone that needs to be fixed with editing, not deletion. Potential sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [15] [16], [17] [18], and more indicate there is enough here to pass WP:GNG. Companies are not evil and their Wikipedia pages are not automatically promotion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the sources are WP:SPIP, such as HTR bearing this disclaimer: The Chamber of Manitowoc County, with its publishing of The Chamber Notebook, provides space for chamber members to present information about their business. The publishing of this information is not intended to show preference for that business by The Chamber.

These sources generally do not meet WP:AUD / SPIP. BizJournals, for example, is best known for republishing press release. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per The Bushranger. Royalbroil 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per The Bushranger. No one is trying to delete Culver's, why should Cousins be deleted? Seems to be in need of cleanup, not deletion. Evanash24 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:KEEPPER are poor arguments. Closing admin will hopefully remember AfDs are not a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not only must references be published by reliable third party sources (which is the bit most reviewers tend to focus on), the references must also be "intellectually independent" and contain in-depth information on the company. References that regurgitate company announcements or interviews or quotations without any independent analysis or opinion do *not* meet the criteria for establishing notability (although might very well meet the "reliability" requirement and include some of the information from the reference in the article). The references in the article and those put forward by The Bushranger fail (mainly) WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as follows:
  • This htrnews.com article is derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". In addition, there is no in-depth information in the article on the company itself and therefore also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This onmilwaukee.com article is substantially derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This other onmilwaukee.com article is also derived from a Press Release and the article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". Is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This jsonline.com article is based on financial data produced by the company, information provided by the company and/or their officers including quotations from the VP marketing and the article does not contain any independent opinion or analysis. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This htrnews.com article is not intellectually independent as it relies on an interview with new franchisees. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  • This gmtoday.com article is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president of the company and has published a verbatim transcript with no independent opinion and/or analysis. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • this bizjournals.com article is also entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president with no independent opinion or analysis. It is also not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This next omnilwaukee.com article is based on this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee".
  • this fox6now.com article is based on a company announcement, acknowledges the CEO and president as the source of the information and contains no indepth information. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This next jsonline.com article is based on this press release and uses information provided by the company with no independent analysis or opinion, therefore not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This next jsonline.com article is essentially an article and profile on the CEO, contains no independent analysis or opinion, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This cbs58.com article is based on an announcement of a van turned into a mobile shop by the VP of Marketing including a quotations. There is no independent opinion or analysis and the article does not contain any in-depth information on the company. Reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This nrn.com article is based on a company announcement made by the CEO (also reported here) that they were going to rebrand. The articles contain no independent analysis or opinion and are not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, this bizjournals.com article is entirely based on a company announcement - the same announcement is also covered in this biztimes.com article, this omnilwaukee.com article (credited to a Press Release) and this qsrmagazine.com article (also credited to a press release) and many others. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
• I'm happy to revisit my !vote if two references can be found that are intellectually independent. But for now, while the references demonstrate an effective marketing department, they clearly do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll note I'm very uncomfortable with the "it's an interview, it doesn't count" position (not just here, in general). It means somebody found it notable enough to cover, still. The "it's based on a press release" argument fails that, for me, even harder. The news source covered it; found it worthy of covering. There's a position in between primary and "intellectually independent" sources that, IMHO, should count torwards notability (secondary) but not to citing exceptional claims (primary), and I think a lot of babies get thrown out in the bathwater in that regard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting a press release essentially reprinted is easy while someone taking the time to cover the company properly means a lot more. So there'd atleast need to be a lot more of that to mean the same as one proper piece of coverage. Also, perhaps an interview in the NYtimes means something, but lot of random people get interviewed in lower-tier newspapers who are not notable - pumpkin farmer with the largest pumpkin sort of thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC) If, say, there's a lot of text on the person apart from the interview in the same article then i'm lenient i'd count it, even though a lot of it will be based on the interview. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INTERVIEW discusses some problems with interviews. Yes, it is a good sign someone is interested in the topic, but they are still half-self-published as they offer the subject's opinion with little to no editorial oversight. And you can't be seriously saying that reprinting/rewriting press releases gives any air of notability, can you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 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. SoWhy 08:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aygün Kazımova

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER and WP:ANYBIO. The sources are at best passing mentions fanclubs and tabloid press coverage Domdeparis (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC) For the same reasons I also nominate for deletion the following page.

List of awards and nominations received by Aygun Kazimova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Domdeparis (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment The awards page is properly sourced and appears to confirm notability, at least at the national level. As for the tabloid press coverage, she is a pop singer, featured also by mainstream media articles (e.g. 1,2). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@84.73.134.206: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". On the page concerning reliable sources the overview states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Is the coverage significant and are the sources in the 2 articles reliable sources? I do not believe so hence my nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the main article and merge the awards page into it. Google news search is showing many sources from Azerbaijan in addition to the 2 mentioned above including non- tabloids, enough to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Merge the two together and keep. I basically agree with what Atlantic306 said above. That being said, the article is low quality, and should be drastically rewritten by someone who understands English and what an Encyclopedia is. Dysklyver 10:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 05:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 08:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooops a Desi

Ooops a Desi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One source, no citations, poorly written, and unable to find anything of note from a Google search... TJH2018talk 16:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable film, plus the only reference/source in the article is a YouTube link to the film's trailer. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 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. Also note Chan Tai San, which uses much of the same sourcing. czar 12:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lama (martial art)

Lama (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My original goal upon coming across this article was to clean it up, but the more I read the more dubious the sourcing appeared. The article needs a massive cleanup for tone and MOS compliance but I don't want to waste anyone's time if this the article isn't worth keeping in the end.

I am not a martial arts expert (or even anything remotely close) but this article is sourced exclusively to obscure websites and the WikiProject Martial arts member I consulted suggested that this article doesn't meet the GNG and I'm inclined to agree. I'm happy to retract this nomination if good sources can be found, but I could not turn up any. A Train^talk 13:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think the sources in the article show the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. My own search also didn't find good coverage. Of course, if someone can show good references I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 14 November 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  12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Namibian ultra marathon

Namibian ultra marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources, all the external links are dead, and I can't find anything to verify the history of this race. There are, however, other ultramarathons in Namibia, so if a list were to be built out (which were significant enough to merit its own article), this could potentially be merged into it. Limited blog history lists Tom Maguire's result, for example, but that's the extent of information. In addition, no clear notability. Upjav (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a notable sports event. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 November 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. SoWhy 08:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Baba Sen

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

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

a few human interest stories about you tube videos is not notability DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Subject is notable and has enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as the BBC. I'm the creator of this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Minimal references, all of which appear to be "slow news day" articles, and only four Wikipedia articles (excluding project or talk pages) link to it, so it's a near-orphan as well as a stub. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E; nn Youtuber with only passing coverage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid; no lasting significance or notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 16 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Koogle TV

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - No reliable sources about what is notable about the site. It is just posting about Kpop artists and its one stat is a Alexa rank. Evaders99 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Website has not been subject to significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ℯxplicit 00:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete non notable company and no sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP,  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:33, 21 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DJPC

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

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

Although he has had one UK hit single, I cannot find any in-depth sources about him or his music on Google, GBooks, GNews, JSTOR, or Highbeam. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 23 November 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. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dando Drilling

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

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

The page reads like an advert: apart from one brief mention in a Guardian write-up of industry awards, all the references are from the company's own website. There's a ten-year-old comment on the talk page highlighting its advert-like nature, with no real progress in the interim. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support deletion: it does not seem notable. Dormskirk (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete: While there are a small amount of Google results, I could only manage to find one significant news article about the unveiling of a new drill for the company. EMachine03 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Alink

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

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

BLP Article with no references. Very minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment More links, sources and articles have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drs. Daja (talk • contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete fails all criteria of basic WP:GNGand specific WP:FILMMAKER. The article is virtually unsourced because the only reference is about a film not about him. @Drs. Daja: you tried to improve the article but instead to provide reliable sources for the entire unsourced article you ended up adding only external links (while some exists already), some were even now removed as spam.  — Ammarpad (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Added information about the documentary-style he developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drs. Daja (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Drs. Daja: the documentary-style addition you mentioned above is here; but it can be added by anybody, as it is only almost 2000 bytes of unsourced content. I tried to search from where it came but didn't find any reliable source and the paragraph has exceptional claim of developing new techniques. Please can you provide the sources here?  — Ammarpad (talk)

Very fair point! I have just added links to Dutch and Belgian media as references in which the new documentary technique is discussed. comment added by Drs. Daja —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 23 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Progressive Property

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The sources used in the article are either citing people from the company for quotes, or are very local coverage of the company's charity donations. Googling, I'm not finding the sort of in-depth coverage we're looking for - there's some coverage on founder Rob Moore, talking about how how he got his money and how he spends it on things like Ferraris and (less than a month later) how he totaled a Ferrari, and this fill-in-the-form "interview". The biggest things I can find on the company's work is This Spectator article which covers how scammy their efforts appear and this review claiming their classes are a scam. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete It should have an article to alert people to their activities before they get involved, unfortunately there aren't the reliable sources to write such an article so we will be better off with no article than a PR piece. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Can find nothing worthwhile beyond what Nat Gertler mentions above. Agree with Philafrenzy - if we cannot find enough to warn readers about the company, we should delete the article to avoid it being used as a promotional vehicle. Edwardx (talk) 11:09, 15 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph and Lisabeth Marziello

Joseph and Lisabeth Marziello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable community activists. All the references are mere notices, not substantial coverage, including a listoingo n one page of a general book. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article created by a WP:SPA, and probable paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- WP:PROMO / WP:ANYBIO fail. Non notable creation by a SPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strong delete overly promotional article. Anyway, heads of local branches of nationwide non-profit organizations are very rarely notable. Especially when we are talking about shrinking organizations like the Boys and Girls Club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 16 November 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.