Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Gina Turner}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Porter (character)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Porter (character)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsen Soori}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsen Soori}}

Revision as of 09:54, 8 November 2016

< 7 November 9 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Gina Turner

DJ Gina Turner (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 musician, unreliable sources, written in a promotional manner. - John Dane Benelli (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Porter (character)

Annie Porter (character) (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)

Character is not notable enough for own article. Additionally, most of the article content is just plot summaries copied from Speed (1994 film) and Speed 2: Cruise Control. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ignoring all the non-policy based !votes by SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Soori

Mohsen Soori (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 biography of a researcher - effectively a repetition of his Google home page. The contributor and an IP have repeatedly erased maintenance tags without providing the 3rd party references sought by those tags. The subject is one among multiple authors of 8 papers - some of which the contributor has also added as a reference to other articles - but I don't see these as sufficient to meet the WP:ACADEMIC #1 or wider WP:BASIC biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latinoo.west (talk) 9:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep.I also think that the page should be kept. Because, it can help to the his college to be more familiar with the person. Also, the Wikipedia page can be seen more.

JIM.Artor (talk) 9:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think the page can be edited and saved.

Amirhossini (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please note that neither being a living person nor helping his college provides an argument which can justify a Wikipedia article: see the notability criteria which were linked in the rationale. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see the Virtual machining page. The articles of the Mohsen Soori and other authors are the main references of the page. So, the page can help to the other readers to know more about him.
JIM.Artor (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The red links have suddenly turned blue! This seems to be an effective way of encouraging editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
And does the spa have reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I think your effort is a spa. Timon.R (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think creating a scientific page as virtual machining which is based on about 180 published papers in field of virtual machining can create notability. The page is helping to the people knowledge in virtual machining with a simple presenting. So, all readers can see biography of main author of the page as Mohsen Soori. On the other hand, responsibility of the presented knowledge in the virtual machining page is also with Mohsen Soori.§

Amirhossini (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to G-Slimm. MBisanz talk 02:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fours Deuces & Trays

Fours Deuces & Trays (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 had previously redirected this album article to the artist, G-Slimm, because after searching high and low I was unable to substantiate the claim that it had charted. It's now been recreated, and the references are still inadequate to establish notability; one is a bare mention, another is a music download, and the remaining two merely assert that it was locally important. The artist's tragically premature death and plans by a major label to reissue the album notwithstanding, there are not reliable sources demonstrating the album's notability and justifying its having its own article. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk, this is exactly what I was talking about in my statement above – the Billboard sales position appears to be pure fiction, as we haven't been able to find any evidence of the album charting, so there is no evidence of national popularity. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afghanistan One Day International matches

List of Afghanistan One Day International matches (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)

Per the several similar AfDs of lists this type created by the same user. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce J. Gebhardt

Bruce J. Gebhardt (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 nocontent speedy delete has been rejected, because there was an infobox. The page contains exactly the same information as the item in the table of deputies. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See possible references: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As for A3, it only applies if there is no content at all, except external links/cats/see also. To have an infobox is to have content, as useless as it may be. I assume at least a stub could be written using these sources. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia contains pages, not infoboxes.
I know it has a content so I don't speedy delete.
Unreferenced pseudobiography. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  21:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue ribbon badge

Blue ribbon badge (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, no sources, unreferenced since 2008 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Blue Ribbon Movement. Under that name the movement has a good deal of coverage independent of Murphy, as E.M.Gregory points out. I've added a bit more to the article focused on the movement.Smmurphy(Talk) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect (or merge) to Francis Murphy (evangelist). I do not think there is anything worth merging. Absolute Surrender by Andrew Murray, was a notable work in its time and has been reprinted since, but WP policy does not encourage the inclusion of passing literary allusions. Such trivia used to go into "popular culture" sections of articles, but they were largely deleted many years ago. I therefore consider there is nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to reconsider my vote. It is possible the article has grown since I voted. I am still not quite sure. If kept it should certainly be renamed, as others have suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Those blue ribbons were a major big deal in the temperance marches, back in the day. Sources:
  • Shiman, Lilian Lewis. “The Blue Ribbon Army: Gospel Temperance in England.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, vol. 50, no. 4, 1981, pp. 391–408. www.jstor.org/stable/42973859.
  • "Given the dominant belief that economic success required temperance, the Blue Ribbon Movement appealed to many working- and lower-middle-class men who ..." Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia [5] Jack S. Blocker, ‎David M. Fahey, ‎Ian R. Tyrrell - 2003 - ‎History.
  • "His belief was that such movements as Temperance So cieties, Bands of Hope, and notably the Blue Ribbon movement , had contributed to the..." “Medico-Parliamentary.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 1177, 1883, pp. 146–147. www.jstor.org/stable/25263756.
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 low participation herein.) North America1000 01:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born Country (album)

Born Country (album) (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 compilation, spent one week at the lowest position on the chart. Only one review, no other third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No objections against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaraama Dravidulu

Aaraama Dravidulu (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 reliable sources (Global Vision Publishing House is a republisher) and I can't find any. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pariakal

Pariakal (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... beach? KDS4444 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm doubting the factual accuracy of the content. There is a "Parikkal" in Tamil Nadu which is nowhere near Midalam.[6] I can't find anything resembling "Pariakal" near Midalam.[7] Okay, I do see there is a "Pariakal Beach" in that area, but right now I don't know if it's notable. [8] --Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)::[reply]

...And existence ≠ notability, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GEOLAND. Thanks to Oakshade for at least identifying that the subject exists. However, rarely has a Google search turned up as little as one for "Pariakal Beach", even without quotes - a Facebook timeline, some wiki, bad OCR, and a few spambot pages. I wouldn't for a second think that a Google search in English for a foreign location is the be-all-and-end-all of notability tests, but this doesn't inspire confidence in the existence of deep sources elsewhere. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't source it, although when I ran a map search for the 2 place names mentioned in the article, this beach showed halfway between them. No prejudice against re-starting this article if someone can source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Biju

Dr. Biju (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)

This is a promotional autobiography, created by the subject and edited by him under two different but similar usernames, Drdbijufilmmaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Drdbijukumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) plus likely sockpuppet WP:SPA Movie Nomads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With the exception of trivial fixes, almost all content has been written by the subject. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For this we have WP:TNT... Guy (Help!) 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have copyvio issues here. Just point out the sections of the article which seem undue or over-autobiographical and remove them. Deleting the whole article about such a notable person and waiting for someone else to come and rewrite it is bad policy -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bit after the name and before the References section at the bottom. That's the part written by the subject for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It is clear that, although the article may have been more promotional in the past, it is currently supplemented with reliable, third party sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, regardless of whether the company wrote it or not. Current promotional tones in the article can be fixed; remember that deletion is not cleanup, and that being a scam is not a reason to delete a page. Also, Light2021, see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DealDash

DealDash (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)

Article is written by company itself. Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions. Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. this article makes zero worth for an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator of this article is under consideration for a topic ban from deletion discussions at WP:AN/I for their behavior here and elsewhere - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'm Adrian. First off, I would like to declare my WP:COI as an employee of DealDash.

User:Light2021 has not provided any explanation as to why the references provided on the Contested deletion section on the article's Talk page would not qualify as reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you’re not familiar with these referenced publications, I recommend you study them or consult one of the Finnish Wikipedia moderators: Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Finnish projects

As explained in detail on the talk page, DealDash has been frequently featured by the most prominent independent business papers of their home country. These are not trivial stories, the company has eg. been featured on the cover story of Kauppalehti (est. 1898). [1]

It is my understanding that the argument of “No one bother to know about this company. Not even their industry” is besides the point, as notability is established through reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that according to Google Keyword Planner tool that estimates Google search volume, 100K to 1M people each month are searching for information about DealDash on Google in the US alone. [2]

This is more than all the other players in the industry and the category keywords combined (Beezid 10K-100K, QuiBids 10K-100K, Online auctions 10K-100K, Penny auctions 1K-10K, Bidding fee auctions 10-100).

Also, according to Adweek DealDash was the most talked about brand on Facebook topping Fortune 500 companies like Coca-Cola and Walmart. [3]

Dd adrian (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dd adrian: Walls of text will not save your article. Please select 3-5 sources you think are best (broad coverage, renowned magazines/sites) and let others review them. Note: interviews, articles based mostly on text provided by company or its representatives, articles based on press releases are all too weak sources to estabilish notability for Wikipedia purposes. Pavlor (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes the response and question of AfD from none other than the Employee of a company. This is highest degree of misuse of Wikiepdia. As citing policies and grave concerns in Wikipedia these days. Only creation for promotions, using media references to build this article. Where no one care to know about this one. Insignificant piece of promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, who he is - I did read article talk page and author´s talk page(s). Despite of that, I give him chance to prove his point... Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in process of speedy keep, as soon as I can figure out how. Folks, this is a bad nomination, no point wasting editor time on it. If anybody wants to help, please improve the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you do not need to influence other saying "This is bad", you do not like this. Fine. Keep vote and discussions would be enough. I am also trying to find How to make an efficient Counter actions of biased admins! . Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, which one of the speedy keep criterion apply to this AFD? -- GB fan 16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator per WP:SK#NOT, as the subject clearly and undeniably satisfies WP:GNG and WP:CORP, if not by an overwhelming amount, through sustained significant coverage in third party reliable sources. They largely report that the company is scammy if not an outright scam, but achieved wide usage, making it (as DGG says below) a notable scam. The article could use some serious clean-up, but has plenty of useful citations and content and is far from being unsalvageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep. As tried earlier as well. You must read the assesmemt below. Such Article has ZERO Place in Encyclopedia. Do not just go by citing. Speedy Keep, Snow Keep and whatever keep. Do not mislead. Provide substance. As given in detail below. ZERO Credibility and 1000% Spam created on wikipedia. Thanks a lot! Light2021 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Light2021 - "I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep." - Well that's bull for a start as I couldn't careless whether this is kept, deleted or sent to the moon!, I speedy closed as a procedural thing and that's all it was, You may believe something is spam but the community may think otherwise, You're welcome!. –Davey2010Talk 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ "DealDash cover story of Kauppalehti". Retrieved May 30, 2013.
  2. ^ "Google Keyword Planner search volumes for DealDash and other related queries". Retrieved November 1, 2016.
  3. ^ "Obscure Direct Response Brands Dominate Facebook Chatter". Adweek. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
  • weak Keep. as an an apparently notable scam. There's enough discussion of it to be worth keeping. This really should have been checked before nominating. I don't really see how this article at the time of nomination can be seen as promotional, though it certainly was at an earlier period in its history. But if it had been, Promotionalism isa perfectly good reason for deletion unless it actually gets fixed-any of the restrictions in WP:NOT is grounds for deletion, including NOT ADVERTISING . (fwiw, there is no agreed guideline for when something is worth fixing--we have to judge by whether or not it actually does get fixed) DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Update to redirect, pls see below) // Original comment: per WP:PROMO; the article spends too much time discussing the intricate detail of how the bid process work:
  • Bids cost 60¢,[13] [14] unless on "sale" at the time. Bids are sold in lots (Bid Packs) varying in amounts from 100 to 1000 bids. Standard auctions begin with an opening price of $0.00 and every time someone bids the price increases by $0.01 and removes one paid "bid credit" (60¢) from the user's bid balance. The auction clock restarts from a maximum of 10 seconds every time a bid is placed. (Etc. Etc)
See WP:MANUAL.
The topic of penny auctions appears to be notable (see for example coverage from ConsumerReports.org Bidding on penny auction sites is risky), but the company itself not so much -- I've found nothing on Google books, gnews are also slim picking. Even if the company were notable (which it may be from the consumer protection point of view, given the mention in CR), then the article would need to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, so WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes & Assessment Here are few examples of Blatant promotional writing (As written by none other than Company -Violating COI/ Very professional highly misleading article). Media References are used to Write this article. No in-depth coverage is found on media. If we remove everything from this article. Only One Paragraph would be remained. Surely not an Encyclopedia Material.
  • Having more than eight million registered users makes the company one of the largest providers of pay-to-participate auctions in the world. Sources are Unreliable CrunchBase Corporate Profile (This is their first paragraph to begin with)
  • DealDash was the most talked about brand in the world on Facebook's "People Talking About This" metric (No where close to notability standard set by Wikipedia)
  • In August 2013, DealDash also created the site DealDashReviewed.com to house and aggregate reviews and testimonials from their customers (what is this? Feature of a website/ Clear Press)
  • Business Model is written like 1000% promotional intend and nothing else, as written by company itself.
  • Remain With Funding news. Again non-notable thing for an Encyclopedia.
    • In the End What is remained? 2-3 lines for this promotional content?
  • Question If we do keep this, how can we keep it reverting to promotionalism  ? DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same way Wikipedia stops other abusive editors: by banning them when they become consistent abusers. This is ludicrous. Deleting an article means you don't think the article should exist at all, or that copyright violations require the deletion of the edit history. Neither apply here. The nominator just doesn't like the content of the article, despite the subject being notable. That's not good enough. This discussion should be closed immediately. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As K.e.coffman and other have noted, as an 'apparent scam' or from a consumer protection perspective it's notable. (I note that 'notable' doesn't mean 'helpful' or 'good'.) The links to Consumer Reports, AdWeek and Truth in Advertising are all notable, credible sources. peterl (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep going back and forth on this one. Concerns over notability and promotion seem legit, but there are some sources. The Adweek article specifically calls the company 'obscure' and little else, and is churnalism based on a questionable Socialbakers blurb. TiNA and Consumer Reports seem more substantial, though. I don't know enough about Kauppalehti and Talouselämä to say. It's weird to me that this company does all their business in the US, but is mainly discussed in Finnish sources. Most of the interviews with the founder are based as much on his youth and eccentricity as the company itself, and interviews are poor for notability anyway. It's messy, and the walls-of-texts from the COI editor is not a good sign for future improvement. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've gone ahead and cleaned the article up, adding content and sourcing.[9] On review, the company and its site are not a scam as such, but its entire field of business, penny auction sites, is controversial for luring consumers into making poor choices. As one of the top 3-5 exemplars, it is certainly something a casual Wikipedia reader interested in knowing about this field should know about. It would not have been on my burning list of articles that need creation, but we cover the good and the bad here on Wikipedia, the exciting and the boring. One might compare that with other disreputable fields like payday lending, multilevel marketing, or informercials. Because of the scammy and rather uninteresting nature of the business it has gained relatively weak coverage despite its size ($100M+ revenues, more than many famous Silicon Valley startups) outside of trade publications that specialize in its field or area of the world. But it has earned sustained significant coverage in relatively niche publications like Arctic Startup and Adweek, as well as occasional mentions in broader-based publications like Forbes and Wall Street Journal. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your desperation has come this far! have you read those Wall street, Adwek aricle? and for your argument sake you can mention all kind of media garbage as references. Even this article is being kept. Your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here. Light2021 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits removed the intensity of Scam it represent. This is called manipulations of information from what it is covered in media. Scam can not be called as Criticism. You have presented Whole article as Legit Business Model. Comparing with Silicon Valley Startups has no meaning here. References are not from credible media Sources. Light2021 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO criticism is correct here, calling something a scam especially when it's disputed probably isn't a good idea, Refs look fine to me. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Light2021's ongoing WP:BATTLE behavior is duly noted. I'm mentioning their AN/I report at the top of this discussion, and will add this to the AN/I report. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "No one bother to know about this company"(?) is not grounds for deletion. Being a "scam" or a poor value for consumers is not grounds for deletion. There are plenty of non-PR third party sources, many of them critical of the company, that easily satisfy WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk
No doubt you are unable to find sources with non-notability. Your intend are clear as water. This article is filled with garbage and claims with all kind of shit possible on media. Light2021 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thin penny auctions are huge gamble and very addicting for some. However, they are by no means a scam. They are a legitimate business model which some people like and some people don't. I disagree with prostitution, but I am not about to call Moonlite BunnyRanch immoral because I disagree with it. I believe the references presented, especially AdWeek meet WP:RS. Of course, here come the WP:Churnalism comments so I would ask how the AdWeek article qualifies as such. As far as keeping promotion off the page, I don't think we can. Unfortunately, too many people come to Wikipedia without knowing the rules and simply try to promote their businesses. If we delete everything that has a chance of being promoted, we would need to eliminate half of Wikipedia. It sucks as there really is no balance, but deleting an article to avoid a risk of future promotional content would bastardize the AfD process. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have proudly mentioned AdWeek and others. Have you really opened that link and read yourself what is being written there? I highly doubt that! and one not in depth coverage is not suitable for Wikipedia. We are not building a newspaper or directory here! Atleast read what people says. Just come here and make a keep vote. Have you read my assessment. I have presented a detail analysis for this one!Light2021 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manipulators here comes the army of Keep Voters. Who are not here because it meant to be. The biased one who desperately want to block me. and miserably failed to see my contributions. You can keep manipulating the facts And ruin this wikipedia with fifthly articles and SCAMS/SPAM for encyclopedia content. The very funny guy OhNoitsJamie who became somehow Admin but Intellectually incapable to see over 80% vote deletion and call my luck and other even fail to count the %. Go on and please ask someone to Close as Either No-consensus or Keep by vote. You yourself must know Wikipedia is no where meant for such article. On the other hand ignoring who wrote this article and what is their intend. Now he will write "Nothing makes any-sense". Complete waste of time to even banging my head to wall with you people. CNMall41 you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta. Why are you even wasting your time. You have enough group for Keep vote counts. No Assessment can prove you anything. You can become blind and see nothing! Sadly VOTE like Politics does matter on Wikipedia. Any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep not because it makes sense but you are non-likable to prove few people miserably wrong in their assessment on their face. Such as shame This is the knowledge we are preserving for our generations and people on Wikipedia by manipulations and twisting things. Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have intentionally not engaged you this last week due to your hostile behavior towards those who disagree with you. You state that all I do is vote !keep for articles. In actuality, I vote !delete more than 2/3 of the time [10]. I have also agreed with many of your nominations and voted inline with your recommendations. However, due to your comments and suggestions (" FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta") I believe I will again agree with your suggestion and take it up there. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- thinking more on the "consumer protection" angle of this, my input on this would be that it's better to delete the article as a stand-alone page vs keeping it. Consumers can just as easily find the Consumer Report article as this page. But: any potential future COI editors have no access to CR pieces, while they could manipulate this page, once the AfD passes and they eyes are not on it. Since the notability is rather marginal, I'd still advocate deletion and / or redirection. As I noted above, when I encountered the page it was subtly promotional and WP:MANUAL like, and I'm afraid it would be easy for this page to continue its promotional purpose. As an alternative to deletion, the page can be redirected to Bidding fee auction. Anything useful (a couple of sentences) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: since the keep was "weak", any opinions on a redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Da Bulldogs

Da Bulldogs (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)

Group has one brief mention in Allmusic, but no other reliable independent coverage exists on this non-charting act. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner (Steve Angello song)

Prisoner (Steve Angello song) (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:NALBUM. Non-notable song. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Main arguments for "keep" boil down to a. passing the GNG, which is disputed, and this addition being judged trivial, if I may paraphrase; and b. "won a notable award", but that notability is disputed with strong arguments. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Amber

Britney Amber (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 BLP lacking in reliable independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources include interviews and award materials. The award listed (from NightMoves Award) is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that age means a lot in terms of assertiveness and recognition. I guess, you know all the usually failed tries of establashing a new award, usually called spammery by you? Nightmoves even differentiates between regional industry from Florida (which is actually no part of the article NightMoves Award) and national one and does not even try to mix their regional personalities with the national awards, which are given to well-known Los Angeles performers and not to Unknowns from Florida. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the age of the award does not mean anything. To rephrase from another AfD: Editors' opinions do not constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".. Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not mean anything" is absolute non-sense. It does not mean everything, however, the exceptional and rare age is of course very important. I could go back to an AfD which quoted a serious newspaper calling the NightMoves Award the third most important award in porn industry, but I won't as we don't need to spam this here with dozens of quotes and should instead accept that common knowledge. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award itself may be notable, but this particular category is not. Nor does the awarding of the category generate sufficient coverage to help meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, SamWinchester can't "go back" to an old AFD because he's misremembered the quote. The claim was "third largest" as of 2002, and the source was a local newspaper. What "largest" means in this context isn't at all clear, and as I pointed out the first time that claim was advanced, the newspaper that was reporting on the event didn't even bother to report the names of any of the award winners -- a pretty damning signal that the awards themselves aren't significant. Note also that the claim has never been found sufficient to sustain a "keep" consensus. And, fiven the striking dearth of independent reliable sourcing, a marginal award claim is far outweighed by clear failure to satisfy GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimum activity over many weeks, closing with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (Steve Angello song)

Tiger (Steve Angello song) (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:NALBUM. Non-notable song. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 04:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twice filmography

Twice filmography (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)

This is not a filmography, it's a list of TV appearances--variety shows, co-hosting things, etc. I'd redirect this back into the article, but there's really nothing to merge back into the article. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's clear now that nominating a high school for deletion will result in an automatic keep, unless the school has been proven to be a hoax. So until a discussion is held about this, I'm closing this as keep, with the suggestion to not nominate articles on high schools/colleges for deletion unless you can absolutely, 100% prove it does not exist. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis G. Santos National High School

Alexis G. Santos National High School (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. Not notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 04:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The topic appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND requirements. Thanks for the detective work, y'all. Joyous! | Talk 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liciada, Bustos

Liciada, Bustos (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. The barangay is not that notable. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also tangentially: to clarify, a "neighborhood" is actually also usually legally recognized in the Philippines, as barangays are usually that in dense urban areas (instead of discrete villages). That said, some "neighborhoods", like gated communities, suburbs, or housing projects can be informally referred to as "barangay", despite not having a separate local government.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otis James

Otis James (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)

Looking at the sources they are all either trivial (small mention alongside many others[11]) or part of what looks like an ad[12][13]. Potentially the only source of note is a win in the fashion category of 2011s made in south awards in the Garden & Gun magazine.[14] That does seem to be quite specific when it comes to awards. Also the article in the magazine appears more ad than anything else and I haven't found many reliable secondary sources (i.e. outside the magazine) that mention it.[15][16] There is also a Southern Living mention,[17] which includes 51 other designers. Most of the article is unsourced and given the level of detail probably written by someone close to the subject. All in all I don't think this meets the WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology Complex

Anthology Complex (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)

Cannot find any secondary sources, appears to fail WP:NBOOK. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-notable self-published book and I can't find anything out there to show that it's ultimately notable enough for an article. For transparency's sake, I've blocked the editor that created the page for a promotional username (their username was the same as a website they were trying to enlist people for back in 2010), as I've found evidence of a very strong COI, enough to show that this was likely an attempt at promoting the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chennithala

Prakash Chennithala (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)

Brief mentions in sources but couldn't find anything to show subject meets WP:BIO NeilN talk to me 02:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reads like self-promo. A lot of flowery and purple prose. Perhaps the organization, Human Rights Protection Mission, deserves a Wikipedia article, but the individual's role in the company does not. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This was initiated by the original editor blanking the page/requesting speedy deletion. However, I'm going to invoke the snowball clause and say this subject does not meet the notability criteria and would not survive the full run of the AfD—and CSD G4 may apply if the page is recreated. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz Avery

Cruz Avery (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)

Article about a non-notable individual sourced only to Twitter/Instagram/YouTube. --DAJF (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle law

Bicycle law (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)

This article provides no real information, and seems to merely be someone's opinion piece on bicycle laws. Standard editing would not be sufficient to fix this page. Page should not be on Wikipedia until extremely major changes are made. Harutsedo2 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:HEY close, notability concerns were addressed by User:Carrite's improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua H. Berkey

Joshua H. Berkey (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)

Mr. Berkey does not meet the requirements for ex officio inclusion under WP:NPOL since he is an unsuccessful political candidate nor does the article look to meet WP:ANYBIO. Dolotta (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable unsuccessful candidate. Delete as per above. Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he appears to have been a figure of some importance among reformers and temperance advocates in his region back in the day. A detailed biography of Berkey begins on p. 694 of Commemorative Biographical Record of the Counties of Rock, Green, Grant, Iowa and Lafayette, Wisconsin: Containing Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens, and of Many of the Early Settled Families, Higginson Book Company, 1901. And he is certainly easy to find in news archive searches, including both general circulation newspapers (national not just regional; the New York and other out of state papers covered his campaigns) and in Prohibition newspapers like the American Advance, an old prohibition newspaper that needs an article. Berkley edited a regional temperance newspaper (called The Crank, presumably because old time presser were operated with a crank) in Kansas for several years. He was then called to a pulpit in Monroe, Wisconsin, a post he held for the rest of his life. It was as a popular public speaker for the reform causes of the era that he ran for office several times. The fact is that we don't cover this era very well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I could see how he would be mentioned in other further Prohibition articles if they expand. --FuzzyGopher (talk)
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory-thank you-RFD (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.M.Gregory -- Would you be willing to take what you've found and put it into the article? I'm always excited to learn something new! Dolotta (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. The intent of the Special Notability Guideline (high bar) for losing candidates, I believe, is to block self-serving political propaganda from contemporary wankers on the make, not to filter out historical biography. Finishing in third place in a gubernatorial race from a century ago is a sure-fire indicator that this was a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Substantial improvement done and a bit more to come. It is worth noting that the death of the prominent Wisconsin temperance lecturer Berkey in 1911 was deemed front page news in one Abilene, Kansas newspaper SEE HERE. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_8&oldid=748471206"