Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 6 August	8 August >

Guide to deletion

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Choo

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

This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject fails GNG as there is hardly any coverage in reliable and independent sources. The subject doesn't pass WP:ENT either as it requires significant roles in multiple notable films. From what I can see, the subject has performed minor roles in a few productions. The movie "Epiphany" is actually a short film which was a final year project of a group of university students. Overall, looking at the lack of coverage and the fact that the roles are all minor roles, I would go with a delete. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should have been PRODed, nothing at all for substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of roles in non-student productions turns up. A Train^talk 11:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searching did not find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, I tried to work on this article and I failed to find much of anything for this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:31, 14 August 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 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kooboo

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

I would've frankly speedied or PRODed, but because chances are there's no symmetrical contents, here we are again; all sources are essentially both PR and their own websites and my own searches found this also, PR and their own websites; none of that actually amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial / product brochure / corporate web site content, much of it uncited or self-cited. 3rd party coverage is insufficient to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs third-party sources in a big way. A Train^talk 11:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:30, 14 August 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 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Parent Report

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

Completely unsourced article about a syndicated one-minute interstitial radio segment. Something like this does not get a free pass over WP:NMEDIA just for existing, but must be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG -- but all we've got here for "referencing" is the program's own self-published website about itself. For added bonus, there's a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Mi7ch182" and the "marketing assistant" listed on the program's website has the given name Mitch. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources thus far; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search reveals a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 00:46, 8 August 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 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Avalishvili

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

Can't see how this person passes WP:ARTIST - difficult to understand much of the content that may hint towards notability, but (as a basic test), the only non ex-soviet bloc organisation to engage with him (the boston one) doesn't seem notable in itself, and a google search of subject + gallery throws up no results (also note entire list is unreferenced).
almost no references. SPA/COI editor. horrendously written article. orphan article since its creation. many other issues. Rayman60 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a significant claim to notability that would satisfy WP:ARTIST. If Avalishvili's work has indeed been collected by the Art Museum of Georgia and the National Gallery of Armenia, 4(d) would be met. I have not been able to find any sources that corroborate that claim, mostly because I understand neither [Georgian nor Armenian. Both museums have a searchable database of their collections, so perhaps someone who can read those languages has better luck than I did. If I have to go by the sources available in English, I cannnot find Avalishvili him or the Museum of Modern Renaissance notable. The Museum of Modern Renaissance seems to have anticipated this, as their website proudly states "Modern Renaissance is not to be found in any Encyclopedia of Art"^[1]. Perhaps it should remain so. Mduvekot (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "MUSEUM OF MODERN RENAISSANCE". mod-ren.com. Retrieved 24 July 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried looking through google to help with sources, but found nothing with my limited English-dependent search abilities. I do assume there might be some good coverage in another language, unfortunately I'm not good at guessing which translation of his name to use for a search term in those cases. Yvarta (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It's an extremely interesting case. So, I think we do have a good reasons to delete in article. First of all it does look like a PR article - an author's only work, which is the same for Russian wikipedia, in which creator with the same user name made the only contribution. The Russian article is also of very poor quality, tagged as non satisfying Wikipedia standards. Second, taking into account all the claims of notability in Russia, including competitions and gallery shows, I'd expected to find quite a lot of sources on Russian, which I didn't. Almost no mentions in any secondary sources, not related to PR articles from galleries. Third, for a such celebrated artist it's quite a funny to have a site, made on schoolchild level and located on narod.ru platform - a simple amateur website platform for Russian internet. And the last one - the claim for notability is made by showing permanent collections - on his site there are scans of documents, showing him making donations to Art Museum of Georgia and the National Gallery of Armenia. A bit of a weak claim for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 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 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Town Congress - Nagercoil

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

No references for verification, or to show notability. Article is badly written, but cannot be fixed without references. Article claims subject is a "wing" of the Indian National Congress, but the INC article does not mention it. ubiquity (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Notability found. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything to establish notability. Appears more like an offshoot of Indian National Congress but still no refs to provide that connection. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:56, 12 August 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 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahniwal

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable publications, with the added note that this article has managed to go five years without any. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been unable to find anything in reliable sources that would suggest this meets WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list of (real or fictitious) Jat clans of Punjab. Sources (if unreliable) do exist, so this is a term that readers are likely to encounter in the literature and come here looking for information. Uanfala (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this discussion before, Uanfala. You were !outvoted then and should be now. We are not a repository of trivia, nor of what unreliable sources say. There is a long-standing consensus to delete articles such as this where the only sourcing is that from the Raj era. That is because the Raj writers knew bugger-all about their subject matter and usually just accepted the myriad of contradictory claims, stories and aspirations that they encountered. Their methodology was flawed, their expertise virtually nil and their ability to critique absolutely so. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 13 August 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. The one "keep" does not address the notability of the topic, except to admit that the content is in fact not notable. Sandstein 19:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Passions

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

Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. While I respect and admire the work put into this page, the children of the show's main characters do not have enough notability for their own page. Instead, the information about the children can easily be covered in the page about his or her parents. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CSC clause 2 specifically calls out minor characters lists like this: we absolutely do not want individual articles for these NN elements of a notable fictional franchise, so we lump them all together in one place where they can be watched and trimmed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived comments

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Jclemens: Quite frankly, I still do not understand the need for this article. The information about these characters (children of the show's major characters) can easily be placed in the article about their parents. This fits this comment from the WP:CSC ("Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic.") so again I do not fully understand the need for this article when a "parent" topic or article (quite literally in this context) exists. Just to be clear, I am not calling for individual articles as I completely agree that these are NN elements so I am not entirely sure where you got that from my prior statement. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said you said these were anything other than NN fictional elements. If NN fictional elements are redlinked, however, they are more likely to gather new articles from well-meaning inexperienced editors. Per WP:CWW, if we delete this article, we can't reuse the content because attribution breaks. If it's redirected or merged, that can be dealt with, but not if it's deleted, which is what you proposed. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: Then, any links to the children should removed to avoid redlinks and the possibility of editors from either recreating this page or creating pages about individual NN characters. That is a very easy issue to fix so I do not understand the problem with that. I stand with my suggestion for deletion, because I do not honestly know where would you merge or redirect this information. I would be okay with individual redirects to the parents, but even then would you redirect to the mother or father (as both articles would contain information about the child or children)? I am also uncertain of where this could be merged to either. As for the content, it is entirely summary with only primary sources taken directly from episodes being used so there would not be a major loss of content as you mention above. I firmly believe this article is unnecessary and should be removed. If you believe a redirect or merge could work, I am open to the possibility, but I have doubts (which I have stated above). Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you seriously just recommend removing redlinks? The only reason redlinks exist is that one author thought the characters important enough to cover, and started writing about them--quite extensively, as we can see here. If you think that is 1) a problem, and/or 2) deletion solves it, then I think you really need to reexamine how and why people contribute content to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jclemens: First, there is no reason to take that tone with me. Getting defensive or rude towards me solves nothing. I would prefer this to be a place of discussion rather than accusations. You have also not commented on my entire response, such as my question (Where would the characters be redirected if you believe that is an option) and instead choose to focus on one aspect of my response. Quite simply, these characters are NN and do not deserve an article of their own, even in this state, and can easily be placed in other articles covering more notable material/characters. I take issue with your comment that "one author thought the characters important enough to cover, and started writing about them--quite extensively, as we can see here" as just because one author thought something was notable does not immediately make that the case. As for the "extensive" work you mentioned, it is all from primary sources, which does nothing to establish the notability of the page.
      - In this specific case, I would recommend removing redlinks to characters that have been deemed NN and not important enough to cover in their own article. I understand and appreciate the value of redlinks to allow for future growth/expansion, but this is not one of those cases. I agree with TTN in that I do not see the value of a containment article. Again, I want this to be a safe place of discussion (which I thought Wikipedia was all about in the first place). Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Either way, I would suggest waiting until an outcome from this discussion is reached as this discussion will most likely lead nowhere. I respect you have a different opinion, so we should just wait and see where this goes for now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You have simply failed to understand what I said, what tone I took in saying, and most importantly, why I said it in the first place. This convinces me that further investment in dialogue is simply not worth my time. My opinion stands. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jclemens: Okay, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You still have a very negative and condescending tone towards me. First, you question my judgement and now you get defensive and assume that I have failed. My only intentions when starting this dialogue was to understanding your opinion. That was all. As for the redlinks, I never said that I was against them. Not even once. I am against making links to NN material that has no likelihood of survival. I am sorry for wasting both of our time in my inquiry about your opinion especially since it, as you have plainly put it, "is simply not worth [your] time". I am sorry for trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia and its policies further. My comment and nomination stands, and I will trust the judgement of whatever decision is made here. I have to say that this dialogue has been very disappointing and negatively reflects on Wikipedia as a whole, especially when it comes to a dialogue between a more experienced user and a new user such as myself. But I guess after I must have, as you so plainly put it, "simply failed to understand". This encounter has certainly changed my view of Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not establish notability. There is no need to cover every single character in a series. Some series may have hundreds of named characters (especially something that can go on for decades like a soap opera), but only the most core characters need any coverage. If these characters are not important, they don't need anything more than a brief inclusion on an episode list summary if they're even that relevant. Saying that a containment article is necessary is pointless. The main article can be watched and trimmed appropriately TTN (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article itself is poorly referenced and can easily be merged with, like what Aoba47 said, the respective articles for his or her parents. Carbrera (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List_of_Passions_characters_and_cast, Minor Passions characters, or respective articles on their parents. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability and poorly referenced article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:26, 14 August 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 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVL Tree in CSharp

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

Large computer science original research; POV fork of AVL tree article - üser:Altenmann >t 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP;NOT —Ruud 11:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patently ridiculous to have another AVL tree article, and especially one to be a holder for huge amounts of computer code (whether in CSharp or any other language). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above...WP:NOT definitely applies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:27, 14 August 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 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones supporting GLONASS navigation

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

While this list has a pretty clear inclusion criteria, it isn't a discerning feature of the phones involved. Many of the products listed aren't referenced here, and aren't notable enough to merit their own articles. Mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nom doesn't make a compelling argument for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too many red-linked articles and no clear purpose for the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be directory. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List doesn't seem to make sense to be included in the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:28, 14 August 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 Yngwie Malmsteen . MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster

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

Non-notable variation of a commercial product. No viable, non-trivial references are forthcoming for this configuration of Stratocaster. After deletion,w e can leave a redirect to the main Stratocaster article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I no longer give a crap Mlpearc (open channel) 17:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Yngwie is notable, this guitar model isn't; notability is not contageous. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~::@Mikeblas: There are many specific modifications to his signature model which is quite unique. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unique isn't notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge albeit a tiny one. This probably merits a one-line mention in the Yngwie Malmsteen article but definitely not a whole article onto itself, given the paucity of sources. Happy to do it myself. A Train^talk 11:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Yngwie Malmsteen ~~Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is the Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster article. How can we merge it into itself? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 13 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sinkholes

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

The article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinkhole, already contains a list of notable examples. Sinkholes are pretty common place, I don't think this requires a dedicated list. EditorDownUnder (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with EditorDownUnder, this doesn't need it's own list. -- Dane2007 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know of any WP policy that says we shouldn't have a list of sinkholes.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Thoughtmonkey: My thinking is that WP:NOT and WP:SAL may apply in this case. I could be wrong though, but just giving some insight into where my decision came from. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't see anything there that's a problem. Sinkhole is well defined, and the items are notable and not that numerous. I do agree with you that we don't need the list, but that's not a reason to delete it.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with EditorDownUnder that a dedicated list is not required.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But sink holes are numerous and common place. EditorDownUnder (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with anything. Only the notable ones have been listed. Not every sinkhole is notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sinkholes. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. This is a more comprehensive list compared to the one at the main Sinkhole article. Another option is to merge the list to the Sinkhole article, rather than deleting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an acceptable way to present notable sinkholes. I think it needs a bit of clean-up, but the fact that sinkholes are "common place" (sic) is a pretty nonsensical reason to want to delete a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a reasonable way to organise the information. An article on sinkholes as a topic, a category for notable sinkholes with their own article, a list for sinkholes reported in media but not notable enough for their own article to keep the main sinkholes article concise is a reasonable way to present this topic. Blythwood (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mountains and rivers are fairly commonplace too and there are loads of lists for them, so that's not a strong argument. The article, sinkhole, should probably not have a list though, unless it's very short and specific. Bermicourt (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Tavix said, this article might need cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. Ditto North America. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 14 August 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 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yendri

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Source searches are providing no significant coverage. The first AfD discussion in January 2012 was closed as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news articles I could find about this group and no song hits that have been on top musical charts. Fails WP:BAND. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:52, 7 August 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 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna Records

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

An earlier PROD tag was placed on the article but removed by the article's creator. Here is my initial concern:

I wish them all the best but this record label is a few weeks old and has only released music by one of its founders. Quite clearly, the label is not notable enough. In fact there's another record company with the same name that was founded in the Philippines in 1957 and is probably more notable than the Dyna Records of the present article. (see [1]) Finally (and this is just a minor point as far as deletion is concerned) the username of the creator suggests a potential conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is not notable enough and it's way too recent. -- Dane2007 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. The Banner talk 19:50, 9 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go Goodwins

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

Non notable bus company again Fails GNG, (I had tagged it under G4 assuming it was created recently however after being rollbacked I've realized it was created back in April), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also there was a first AFD however that for some reason deleted hence it not being above, cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've moved the 2nd AFD to 1st and this nom to 2nd as the 2nd nom should've technically been the first anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by all means simply a local transportation company, I'm honestly not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small article, well cited in both local and industry press. Cygnes64 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually convincing for convincing substance, however. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable local outfit. Fails WP:CORP.Charles (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 7 August 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 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HPE Mobile Center

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Some coverage in reliable sources but nothing significant. Meatsgains (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a bunch of references have been added. Forrester is certainly significant and calls it our specifically. Not sure why you would want to delete the entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by D landsberg (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many references there explaining the mobile testing tools space include analyst report that cover the entire market, as well as link to Mobile application testing in Wikipedia. please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman285 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Dane2007 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 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 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Sullivan

AfDs for this article:

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

The two articles (2014 and 2016) are in fact actually the same, but apparently G4 has been declined because of the levels of consensus (which I frankly believe it's still deletion-worthy); regardless, my searches and examinations have sitll found nothing actually convincing, the longest works he's had are only each 5 and 4 episodes, there's essentially nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor that isn't the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources, seems pretty clear cut CrispyGlover (talk) 19:43, 14 August 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 speedy delete by DGG. Rebb ing 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KickassMovieTorrents

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

Alexa rank 11,000, no significant news coverage or other significance, the article is written like an advertisemen. Seems to be a site seeking to use the fame of defunct website KickassTorrents for its own purpose. Also, the article was created by GKurupt. In this article, the creator of the website is listed as "Kurupt". rayukk | talk 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a website without a credible claim of significance. I tagged the article, but I'm voting to save myself the trouble in case it doesn't stick. Rebb ing 21:14, 7 August 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 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Boyle

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, [as he] has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for info: I don't like this article because it uses lots of peacock words and the references are pretty light considering the praise they're heaping on him. But according to the article and one of the sources, he has played for Dundalk F.C. and even won their "Player of the Year" award. Could someone please explain to this soccer-know-nothing why that's not "first-team football in a fully professional league"? Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubiquity: Gladly. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NFOOTBALL, which says that a footballer is notable if they've played in one of the fully professional leagues. Broadly, this means all players in the league are full time professionals. For use with this guideline, the WikiProject football has compiled a list (see WP:FPL) for which the fully pro status can be reliably sourced. You'll note that the League of Ireland is listed under Top level leagues which are not fully professional. This means playing that league explicitly does not satisfy the subject specific notability guideline. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - the majority players in the League of Ireland are only part-time (they also have "day jobs") ergo it is not a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers, and fails GNG otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as clarified. ubiquity (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:48, 8 August 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 merge to Myles Standish State Forest. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three Cornered Pond

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

I came across this via A7, which doesn't really cover geography per se, so I'm bringing this here. A search brings up nothing that would show that this pond is ultimately remarkable enough for an entry on Wikipedia, so this looks like it would overall fail notability guidelines - although I will admit that I'm not as familiar with the notability guidelines for geography as I am with other facets of the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a search on the subject in an effort to find information to improve the article and add some references which the article lacked. The searched produced 0 results other than the Wiki article. The search did produce another, more prominent lake with the same name in the state of Maine. The only link on the page is a dead link so that was no help either in establishing significance or importance of the subject. I vote for deletion of the article or alternatively, merge it into the Myles Standish State Forest article. Cbs527 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: to the Myles Standish article. I grew up in that forest and love it to pieces, but there are several dozen kettle ponds in it, and even in my biased opinion they're not all notable. Three Cornered Pond is one of the more teensy and non-descript of the lot. (Could be worse; there could be an article on the teensy pond that was called "Nigger Pond" well into the 1970s.) Ravenswing 20:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sounds like a good idea. That someone wrote about this does show that there's an interest of some type. As for the name of the other pond... I'll just say that I'm not surprised that it took them that long to rename it. Over in Virginia we had a hospital for children with severe mental health issues that until 2001, bore the name of Joseph DeJarnette, a die hard eugenics advocate who endorsed the sterilization of anyone they deemed "mentally unfit". Which also included the family of anyone they deemed "mentally unfit". I love supernatural horror, but Freddy Kreuger has nothing on some of the people who have walked this earth. (shudders) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 9 August 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 Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocool

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

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find reliable, secondary sources about this; in fact, I can't find any sources about the lab, other than its website. All other sources I found are unrelated. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, may have been created by a lab member, username is close to one of the staff listed here - [2]. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by now, the article is plain advertising The Banner talk 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing ORG. I found passing mentions of it (by its full name), but no coverage, significant or otherwise, directly addressing the subject. I removed the promotional material (I don't know why); it no longer satisfies G11. Rebb ing 10:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The underlying page BioCOOL was speedy deleted per A7 (log), but I suggest this discussion should run the full week and have a non-speedy close so G4 would apply to a recreation. Rebb ing 22:03, 13 August 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 Pip Donaghy. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Donaghy

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

Article clearly fails WP:ENT. ~~Suggest delete.~~ 5 albert square (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks Sam, I didn't realise it was the same person. Suggest redirecting to Pip Donaghy.--5 albert square (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT, he has not had multiple significant roles. anemoneprojectors 08:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pip Donaghy per Sam Sailor. I failed to find anything substantial but clearly I failed to spot that Philip is Pip. anemone projectors 12:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pip Donaghy, the name he is most often credited as. It's the same guy.^[1]^[2]^[3] Courtesy ping (5 albert square—AnemoneProjectors). — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Drama. 147-154. British Theatre Association. 1983. p. 13. No one else in the theatre can make the daily experience of his miserable life pay in the way that a playwright can. Unlike Eamon Bo/and and Pip Donaghy in COMING CLEAN by Kevin Elyot directors, designers and actors, I have complete ...
^ "Coming Clean". Retrieved 8 August 2016.
^ "Theatre collections: record view". Retrieved 8 August 2016.

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 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Librex

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

Actually PRODed once before by WikiDan61 but I also still confirm my own: Searches, including with its other name Hexatek, are not finding anything actually convincing and substantial, the listed sources here are either simply not convincing or unacceptable; there's still no substance for independent notability. There's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG. Rebb ing 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 8 August 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 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejiro Okosieme

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

Disputed PROD. Doesn't meet the football notability guideline as he's never played a professional game. — foxj 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created this account with some of the information stated being false. This page should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 8 August 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 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Maharramli

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

Can't find evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No cites to be found on GS, possibly due to another incompetently written BLP not saying what name the subject publishes under, but until this is clarified, no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and this should've also been explored with PROD as I would have considered, nothing for applicable notability and only 2 listings at WorldCat. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 8 August 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 Academy_Awards#Awards_of_Merit_categories. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Winner

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

another unsourced contentfork The Banner talk 18:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Academy_Awards#Awards_of_Merit_categories. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move It should be titled "List of Academy Award winners", but I won't change it if it's going to be deleted -- and I agree that it should be, because it's not sourced and the info can be found elsewhere (and the years aren't linked). —Musdan77 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 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 (deleted per WP:BLPPROD by A Train). (non-admin closure) nyuszika7h (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Adekiyesi

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

Non-notable football player Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Marvellous Spider-Man: The article was already tagged for WP:BLPPROD, which still applies. I've restored that tag as it seems to have been removed by Twinkle. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I also have no objection to deletion per BLPPROD, should the tag expire before this discussion is closed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 August 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 merge to Arrivederci, Fiero. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zitch dog

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

No indication of significance Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could have easily been put under PROD. This is a Wikia-style entry with no claim of external notability. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable catchphrase without coverage. If anything, it might warrant a mention on the How I Met Your Mother episode summaries. Yvarta (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fake game on a TV show is hardly notable. Lepricavark (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a g search yields lots of you tube/personal blogs and other no useable bits ie. "Zitch Eastern Europe"[3] (cute but no), did find these: LA Times - "Bro! Here are 'How I Met Your Mother's' best long-running jokes .. Other miscellaneous picks: ... the road trip game Zitch Dog,"[4], Rolling Stone - "HIMYMania: The 30 Best 'How I Met Your Mother' Moments .. 15. "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" (Season 2, "Arrividerci, Fiero") .. frizzy-haired Ted (aka Doctor X) gets his ass kicked in Zitch Dog by Marshall, a champion game player even then."[5], and a book How I Met Your Mother and Philosophy - "About The Authors: Elize de Mul gets violently competitive when playing Zitch Dog."[6], but not enough for a stand alone article, if need be, some extra words could be added at Car game. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as in, mention it once and leave a redirect) in How I Met Your Mother. The delete !voters above are correct that there's simply not enough in-depth coverage for this to remain a standalone article. Yet, the title is unlikely to be used for anything else, ever; redirects are cheap; and merging non-notable elements is preferred to deletion under WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arrivederci, Fiero, which is stated as its first appearance in the series. Not sure this is important enough to deserve a mention on the main series page (I don't watch the show), but if it is a recurring in-universe element, having it on the episode page is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 13 August 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 withdrawn (speedy keep #1). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gutteridge

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

NN musician. It would appear he qualifies on #6, but he does not, as the criteria reads, Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Gutteridge, based on when he was with the bands listed, apparently did not record with either The Clean or The Chills, and thus does not appear to be a prominent member of either act (both of which have extensive discographies). His later indie act, Snapper, appears to be notable only because he was in it, which is a WP:NOTINHERITED problem - the band itself appears not to be notable on its own. It also seems improbable that he has WP:SIGCOV as required in #1, given that the sources cited are all survey works of the genre over a period of 30 or more years, and he is only referenced on single pages. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject charted a single for two weeks (at #49 and #50), and the single was not included in the article information (it was incorrectly labeled as an album charting). However, the chart in question is listed as Top 40 and lists to 50. That creates a question as to whether it was really on the chart or not. I'm going to leave this AfD open until I clarify, because barring that, the article subject meets no other criteria. If he does, I will withdraw as clearly meeting a criterion. MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search would probably have avoided this. Obituaries and news items on his death from many publications including Exclaim!, The Stranger ("a key figure in New Zealand's shockingly strong rock scene from the '80s and '90s"), SPIN ("New Zealand Indie Rock Icon"), Rolling Stone ("One of New Zealand's indie-rock pioneers...Artists including Yo La Tengo, Ducktails and Wooden Shjips have all covered Gutteridge's music"), Radio NZ, The Quiteus ("a key figure in the development of the Dunedin sound"), The Guardian, ("one of New Zealand music's spiky heroes...he was an important musician"), New Zealand Herald ("underground music legend...He later went on to form the legendary noise-drone outfit Snapper and make his own solo recordings"), etc., etc., and Snapper are plenty notable ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and 2 albums on Flying Nun are enough to satisfy WP:BAND), and his solo work also received significant coverage ([12], [13]). --Michig (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Fair enough. MSJapan (talk) 19:48, 7 August 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 speedy delete. CSD G3 as a blatant hoax, none of the references to this person containing any information about them at all, and absolutely nada to support any of the claims made here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuei Kuei

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

If he is Australian musician (according to the article), then we must find better sources. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Genuine notability highly questionable. Blablabrbrbrbrbrbrhuhuhuhuhuh (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: almost entirely fictitious article about a 15-year-old kid, very likely created by the subject. Sections on music, film, and list of awards all point to the correct websites but with no evidence that the subject has had anything to do with them. So-called "viral" vine has fewer than 400 "likes"... hardly viral. Fails WP:GNG by quite some distance. Richard3120 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- article contains promotional wordings. Mentions does not establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 18:45, 8 August 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. This has been under discussion for a full month, and shows no sign of converging to a consensus. The keepers are arguing that there are sufficient sources. The deleters counter that, yes, there may be citations in the literature, but they're not worth much because it's a small set of papers/authors circularly citing each other. In any case, neither side seems to have convinced the other, and I can't see how relisting this again will make any progress. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glowworm swarm optimization

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

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 20:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefly_algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State transition algorithm and Talk:Artificial bee colony algorithm#Deletion proposal for some additional background (especially concerning the reliability of those articles). —Ruud 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud Koot It seems like the argument for deletion is a subjective judgment that the academic journals cited are not reliable sources in their claimed field of expertise. AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable. Among these 6 deletion discussions there is a challenge to at least 10 academic journals and 20-30 different articles published over years. It is beyond the scope of a typical AfD review to challenge what are usually the most trusted sources. Can you think of a way to briefly say why so many sources should not meet RS criteria? I see that another academic says this is bad science, but I am unable to easily process this debate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish highly cited "good" science (that is highly cited because it's good) from highly cited "bad" science (that is highly cited because it's part of citation circle, but otherwise mostly ignored) by some objective criterion. This distinction, and whether we want to include that science in Wikipeida, must thus depend on tacit knowledge and a subjective judgement. For me that would be:

that this whole class of algorithms has been called out as being "bad" science in other papers (which I believe to have been published in more reputable venues) and by other academics, and has been barred from at least one reputable journal [14][15][16][17][18][19];
the observation that these algorithms are "obviously" equivalent to other older and already well-established algorithms (and thus don't add to the sum of human knowledge);
the fact the most of these articles wouldn't have existed if they wouldn't have been created by single-purpose account that are, more probable than not, the authors of these papers (and that the articles on this topic that currently exist on Wikipedia are only a fraction of the articles that could potentially exist, if we would use just citation count as a criterion);
the pragmatic consideration that we're not serving our core goal of educating our readers if we distract them from the good science with an overwhelming number of articles that present bad science as good science.

—Ruud 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:, you write, "AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable," but you may be overlooking the fact that determining the sources' reliability is a prerequisite to determining a topic's notability. Recall that notability is generally determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it is absolutely proper in a deletion discussion to mount a challenge to notability based on the reliability (or coverage, or independence) of the sources. Furthermore, per our guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP, claims that a particular source is peer-reviewed should be critically examined, particularly in light of the recent explosion in predatory journals. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it is vexatious to see poorly researched optimization algorithms dressed in fun new metaphors and terminology somehow gain traction in the academic world. David Eppstein's description as junk science is a good one. But we are here, not to right great wrongs, but to determine notability. A quick search found a pretty solid review in PLoS One A Comprehensive Review of Swarm Optimization Algorithms that goes in some depth into GSO. There are a couple of GSO specific reviews in Glowworm Swarm Optimization (GSO) Algorithm for Optimization Problems: A State-of-the-Art Review and A Survey of Applications of Glowworm Swarm Optimization Algorithm in less well known journals. Multiple secondary reviews by authors independent of the GSO's creators show notability of the topic. The article isn't in great shape with only primary sources, but is capable of improvement. Or we could merge into Swarm intelligence#Glowworm swarm optimization to place it in context. But either way, I don't see a good case for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of algorithms in Swarm intelligence is just unnecessary dragging the quality and usefulness of that article down. Encyclopedic articles should give a balanced overview, making clear what the most influential work in a particular field is. Instead, I will likely merge most of those metaheuristics that are deemed to be "notable" into a chronologically ordered List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics, while also adding a beefy introduction stating the problems with that class of algorithms in general for context. —Ruud 14:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic preaching to the converted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Swarm intelligence. There may be some content here to merge elsewhere in a sentence or two about the biological underpinning of the method and what it's intended to do, but I'm not seeing a degree of coverage in secondary sources to warrant that mention in the article yet much less it's own standalone article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find more coverage in respectable sources such as Natural Computing Algorithms. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also an entry for this algorithm at List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics § Glowworm swarm. This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect. —Ruud 14:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the target suggested by Ruud. The notability of this topic is beyond doubt: in addition to the source provided by Andrew, there is this and [20], both of which give the topic significant coverage. However, in my view the coverage is not large enough that a merge is unreasonable: indeed an article examining all of the metaheuristics inspired by nature seems to me to be slightly more useful than separate stubs or start-class articles on each. Vanamonde (talk) 17:59, 15 August 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 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alarice Keesick

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

Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a youth activist with no strong claim of encyclopedic notability per any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. The only references here are the primary source web page of an organization she's directly involved with and a single article on a non-notable news blog, and even that "news" article verifies only that the subject made her high school honour roll. But making your high school honour roll isn't something that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself, and nothing else written or sourced here makes a credible claim of notability either. Also probable conflict of interest of some sort, as the article was created by User:Theaboriginalinspiredteen (which clearly implies the creator is either the subject herself, or someone she knows who's trying to promote her.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly not notable. And the creator is almost certainly the subject given that one of the headings is in the first person. Graham (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and as said above there's a strong possibility its an autobio. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:41, 8 August 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 Hamish Kilgour#Discography. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Trip Thru Monsterland

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

Indie album sourced solely to discogs. No assertion of notability, and fails WP:NALBUMS. I am not choosing redir at this time because there's a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here, and I don't know what the primary is going to end up being, if there is one at all - it could go up to the band, but it might just as likely go up to Hamish Kilgour because it looks like the band is going to fail WP:NBAND. However, Kilgour might fail NMUSIC as well - I have to deal with each "piece" separately. Any pertinent info from these album articles already exists in the band article.

Also nominating, for the same reason:

Sealight (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blip (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Hamish Kilgour. He's definitely notable; in fact a national treasure. -- haminoon (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of the issue was poor sourcing on many of the articles related to him - I was able to find better information overall, so his article certainly meets necessary criteria. MSJapan (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamish Kilgour#Discography. Album not notable and/or no evidence of it. Ajf773 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamish_Kilgour#Discography The albums are not notable enough that we have to keep their own articles. But the artist is notable, so a redirect will suffice here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:03, 12 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idriss M. Bennani-Baiti

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

Deceptive puff piece. Before I did some cleanup (see here) the article claimed that he was a "Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Scholar". That already made alarm bells go off, because the correct term is "HHMI Investigator". Indeed, Bennani-Baiti is not listed on the HHMI website. It looks like he worked in the lab of an HHMI investigator, nothing more. The article further claimed that he is "the Editor or Executive Editor" of several journals. Two of these are newly established (and actually don't list any editorial board; articles were deleted -by me, that's how I got here- as copyvio), the third one actually does list him, but only as an editorial board member. The article further claims that "Bennani-Baiti has published or reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles and reviews". I don't know how many articles he has reviewed, but conflating that with articles published is rather unusual. So I checked the Web of Science. WoS lists 42 publications, that have been cited a grand total of 565 times (h-index = 13; three highest-cited papers score 125, 63, and 50 citations). For high-citation density fields like epigenetics and oncology, that is decidedly unimpressive. A Google search finds a link that says that he currently works in Vienna (so much for being an HHMI investigator) and as this information is user-contributed, we can assume that this is correct. The editorial board listing here says that he's an "associate investigator". All references are to articles by the subject himself. No other sources found on Google or elsewheer. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. The subject of the article is a named author in all seven of the journal articles currently included as sources. The fifth of these is one of Human Pathology's most cited articles (published since 2011). Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage of this person provided that would offer support to any claims of notability. As such, notability has not been demonstrated. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The efforts to clean up this article feel like the you-tube video of a raccoon washing cotton candy - once it's clean there's nothing left. for (;;) (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why any raccoon would be trying to "clean up" my entry. I have myself within one day asked for the entry to be deleted. So why are raccoons wasting their time (and more importantly mine) with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails GNG so we need to evaluate solely on the basis of WP:PROF. The h-index of 13 is much less than what is desired. I do not see any other claim - path breaking research or awards or any contribution outside academia. Neither is the subject the chief editor of a well established journal. None of these satisfy WP:PROF. In addition to all of this, I am concerned that the incorrect claims in the article implies that Wikipedia is possibly being used to promote the "achievements" of the subject and maybe legitimise it. A clear delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deceptive puff as suggested by Randykitty above. First, The correct term for an HHMI scholar is not HHMI investigator. These are two different things. An HHMI investigator is an HHMI group leader. An HHMI scholar is a scientist how was selected for an HHMI scholarship. I was an HHMI scholar from 1993-1997, and there is no amount of claimed "puff" that can change that. Second, Randykitty goes on to say: that I am only listed as an "editorial board member" on one of the journals, not as an editor. It is clear that Randykitty has a limited understanding of the editorial board structure of journals. Editorial board members are editors of a journal (as opposed to academic editors). In addition, I listed only three journals on which I am an editor or executive editor, but had stated that I am an editor at several journals including those three. It means that I am an editor (or executive editor) at many more journals. I did not list them because I actually want to avoid too much fluff "or puff" as Randykitty would put it. The entire list is as follows: Cancer Epigenetics, Clinical Cancer Epigenetics, Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research, Cancer Informatics, Gene Regulation and Systems Biology, Genomics Discovery, International Journal of Clinical Therapeutics and Diagnosis, Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis, Journal of Data Mining in Genomics & Proteomics. And this leads me to my third point: as an editor of these journals, and reviewer (and ad hoc reviewer) of many more, I on average review one article per week. I reviewed my first article in 1991; I'll let Randykitty do the math on whether I have reviewed hundred of articles since he/she seems to have a lot of time (but not enough to thoroughly research things). Fourth, yes I work in Vienna and this is not a secret (this can be seen not only on Researchgate but also on my public profile on LinkedIn), and again, I never claimed I am/was an HHMI investigator. I am an HHMI scholar. If Randykitty were privy to the working of the HHMI, she/he would know that while being an investigator has an expiration date, once one had an HHMI scholarship, it is for life and cannot be taken away. So independently of what Randykitty may think or believe, I did not just work in some HHMI lab, I am an HHMI scholar. Finally, the "user-contributed" information on researchgate is outdated and obselete(for many years now), and I am not longer (and have not been for years) an associate investigator (no shame in that, it is just not my current status). My current status can be looked up on LinkedIn. Finally, once I realized that someone was mocking around with my entry, I am the one who initiated a call for "delete" on the entire entry: as can be seen from my long list of functions and duties above (only a very partial list), I just don't have time for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: my references are peer-reviewed publications in some of the most respected journals in the world of scientific publishing. These can be looked up on PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly in the concerned journals. In science, this as high of a bar for scientific contribution than anything else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I don't know who changed my functions from Editor/Executive editor to "Editor-in-chief"! I do not fulfill this function and have never stated so! I guess it speaks poorly of Wikipedia's "curators" who would take an accurate account of one's functions, change it extensively, and include several inaccuracies making the account useless, if not fraudulent. I can just imagine what my colleagues would think of me seeing my so-called "Editor-in-chief" function (knowing that there is none) and thinking I contributed that entry!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1/ Any evidence for this "HHMI scholarship? 2/ An editorial board member is a very different thing from an "editor" and an "executive editor" is usually just another name for "editor-in-chief". The two journals listed in the article have updated their websites and although they don't list any board members, they both list you as "executive editor", meaning that apparently you are the head honcho. As for your other editorships, I Googled some of the journals that you list above. Almost all are predatory journals and being on their boards is more something to be ashamed of than to put forward as evidence of notability. You are "executive editor" on the Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research. For what that means, please see here. I recommend that you separate yourself from that seedy outfit as soon as you can. 3/ As the peer-review process is confidential, it is very easy to claim that one has reviewed hundreds of articles. The thing about it being confidential being that this is a claim that cannot be verified (there is now a service called Publons that allows verification of such claims, but only for recent reviews). 4/ Nothing I said was intended to belittle your scientific contributions. However, the citation data do not indicate any notability according to WP:PROF (which is not the same thing as saying that your contributions are not valuable, it actually has nothing to do with "quality"). --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't really have time for this as this has taken much more of my time than I've ever intended. I have early on placed a request to delete the entire entry. Would you please go ahead and delete it? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request SNOW close Given the above comment by the article creator and the unanimous !votes to delete, I request a SNOW close. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not as much of a slam-dunk case as the above discussion would suggest — he appears to be on-track for a successful academic career, has citations to his publications, and is editor-in-chief of two journals, suggesting a plausible case for WP:PROF criteria #C1 (citations) and #C8 (journal editorships). However, the citation counts are too low and the journals too new and not-well-established for him to actually pass these criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 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 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KD (rapper)

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

No RS-cited evidence of meeting any of the twelve possible claims under WP:MUSBIO, no WP:RSes (sources primary or blogs), most claims not even backed by unreliable sources, grossly insufficient sourcing to have as a WP:BLP. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take the good sourcing, well-cited evidence of meeting WP:MUSBIO, etc. David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing, still no actual substance and the sources are certainly not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 00:55, 8 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of LocalWikis

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

none of these arenotable projects by WP standards. wp articles are not directories, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collectively they are notable, the list article is to avoid clutter on the main page.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it is okay for a comprehensive list of all examples to be split out of LocalWiki article. But sort of reluctantly, because the current version of the list is poor, almost mind-numbingly so. While it could conceivably tabulate useful or interesting information about the local wikis (dates of creation, size, number of active editors, evidence on any observable effects in their communities, links to reliable sources about the local wikis), it in fact provides no information at all. It does not even provide links to the local wikis! --do ncr am 18:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment this isnt even a list of wikis. its just a list of places, with a localwiki name, not even an external link. the reference is just the single website. is even one of these notable. the reference is really just as good as an external link on the localwiki article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If LocalWiki stands, then I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – My impression is that this comes across as a reasonable branch of the LocalWiki article. Perhaps this can be merged into the LocalWiki article, which is not too long, with a present size of 10kb (see WP:SIZERULE). The article has also realized significant copy editing after being nominated for deletion. For example, it was converted into a table format and now includes links. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 14 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuva Sena

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG.The subject is already covered in a section of its parent organization Shiv Sena. No much references available. The information available on the Shiv Sena's page would be enough. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination . Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, yet I do see quite a bit of coverage on the Google News link and we do have articles on notable youth wings of parties, such as Young Republicans? Based on the Gnews coverage linked above, I would disagree what the statement "No much references available." They seem to be available! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I agree with you, but the article I have nominated has no significant coverage in the news as Young Republicans has. I think that a section in the parent article would be enough. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you've clicked on the Afd-generated Gnews link above, right? Just curious. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be possible to merge this article, which would avoid having the same information in 2 places. However the youth party seems to be notable on its own and by policy its article should not be deleted.Borock (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find numerous references in reliable sources such as [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Searching for "Yuva Sena" at Indian version of google emits 300 thousands results. Seems to pass WP:GNG easily. Hitro talk 18:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I'll !vote too. While I would otherwise yield to your superior knowledge as an Indian Wikipedian, based on WP:ORG, we do seem to have a bona fide article topic, within Category:Youth wings of political parties in India. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hitro's research. Yvarta (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination . Please close the discussion. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:35, 9 August 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geshtai

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:30, 11 August 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. Nobody actually makes a "keep" argument. Sandstein 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Rojahn

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

BLP that has been unsourced since it was created by an apparent single-purpose account 10 years ago, and tagged as such for almost 2 years. I took this on with a view to improving and sourcing it but simply didn't find enough to justify keeping the article. The subject is co-artistic director of a Chicago opera company that has received some coverage in local press, but none that I can find from further afield, and itself doesn't have clear notability. I don't see a case for keeping this article, the best coverage I found being [26], [27], [28], and [29] - generally brief mentions from local press (admittedly some with large circulation) in the context of performances by the company. I redirected to the company, which was reverted on the basis that discussion was needed, so here we are. Michig (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have scores. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but these appear to be self-published so would not affect WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum This is a content discussion, which can be fixed by normal editing. As per WP:Deletion policy, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a dispute over page content. I don't think we should have a page on Rodolf Rojahn at all. If the article on the Opera company is also deleted (not covered by this discussion), we wouldn't even have a redirect. --Michig (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your nomination argument to be a discussion about a non-deletion redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that you're choosing to cast it in that light, and ignoring the part where Michig set forth the proposition that the subject was not notable and lacked significant coverage? If you say so. Ravenswing 21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Not notable and lacked significant coverage" is a notability argument, not a deletion argument (WP:DEL8). Michig is capable of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said. His workmanship in the nomination deserves respect from the AfD community. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DEL8 clearly states that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. I don't follow whatever point you are trying to make. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at WP:BEFORE A1, to which the edit notice advised you when you posted here. You will find that part of WP:Deletion policy is the Alternatives to deletion, by which we protect the work of our content contributors from deletions-by-committee. This is a policy, which all editors should normally follow. Anything else? Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:DEL8, and it was quite clear that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. So yes, this is a deletion argument, and it certainly is not a content dispute. I understand the desire for alternatives to deletion, but in this instance I find deletion to be the appropriate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL8 does not exist out of the context of WP:Deletion policy. Your claim that "it certainly is not a content dispute" is not policy based. What source of authority do you accept for your understanding of deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've admittedly been having trouble following your statements here, so I'm going to summarize my position very succinctly: I believe that this article fails GNG and therefore should be deleted. Does that answer your question? Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet your "trouble" stonewalls a remedy. So I'll simply say, WP:N is not a deletion policy, and you've not made a WP:Deletion policy argument since you've not refuted the possibility of alternatives to deletion. In the current context, this is a hole in your argument. Anyway, thank you for the response. Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did address alternatives to deletion when I said that I considered deletion to be the best outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We lack any RSs on this person. The scores are not enough to show he is notable, the same goes for his own webpages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the other editors, I failed to find reliable sources supporting the subject's notability, and certainly don't count a mere list of works on International Music Score Library Project (which is a user-submitted wiki) to be one. As far as Unscintillating's dissent goes, it seems to focus very heavily on not caring for the first sentence of Michig's nomination while completely ignoring the perfectly valid deletion grounds which follow. One would think a much surer way of saving the article would be to produce evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing over semantics. Ravenswing 06:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Michig originally boldly deleted the article and substituted a redirect to Guerilla Opera. Ths seemed to me rather too bold, so I reverted his deletion and suggested he take the article to AfD. I think the case is marginal - there ought to be sources, since the subject has won various awards etc. for which I am willing to AGF - but I find no convincing argument at present as regards WP:NOTABILITY in the article's favour. Therefore I incline to the view that Michig's original decision (delete and redirect) was in principle correct. But at least we've opened it to discussion.--Smerus (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right. The article has never been deleted. It was simply redirected. --Michig (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michig that referring to this action as a deletion is not a good use of terminology. "Delete and redirect" has a specific technical meaning, which is that the edit history is deleted and a new redirect is created. Delete and redirect requires the use of admin tools. This is the diff in which Michig redirected the article. Here is the deletion log for this page, and it says, "No matching items in log." Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 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 speedily deleted as a creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson of Samajwadi Party

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

This article is not required, when we have Samajwadi Party. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 13:17, 7 August 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 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pentel

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician who was only a gubernational listed-person for a few times, there's essentially been nothing else, not only for this article but for coverage itself; my own searches are barely finding anything and, anything there actually is, only for that time and even the sources that were past mentioned as being "big" and "significant" are no longer actually convincing (they barely even were, at the time). For example, the 2nd AfD said "I believe consensus on individuals such as Pentel has shifted since the first AfD" which it in fact had even at the time, and certainly is known now. The history itself also speaks for itself considering there's barely been anything and what was ever even listed was not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he must win the election and thereby hold office to get an article because election. But nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, and the volume of reliable source coverage here is not enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable perennial candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 8 August 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 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Famous verses in the Quran

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

Listing together these verses and then slapping a "famous" tag on it, constitutes WP:OR/WP:SYNTH with a touch of WP:POV. I mean, who decides which verse is famous and which not? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Editing history shows only one person has put any content into it and there are no "Famous" lists for other holy books. I really can't what the inclusion criteria is...--Savonneux (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC) --Savonneux (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not based on any fact except that they are verses from the Quran itself. I don't think that is correct when you see random verses, you just put the name "famous" on ithem then make it an article. Anyway, any chance for an opinionedia? Democratics (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:OR Eperoton (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned by pretty much everyone above, this misguided list entry is based on the editor's subjective definition of "famous", so it is complete OR. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These verses are common in the Muslims society and used more than other verses. It is better keep and suggest new name for the article.Saff V. (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per LISTCRITERIA; "famous" is almost inherently subjective, and a list such as "Famous Uzbek politicians" would be similarly problematic. GAB^gab 03:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an open-shut case of original research. There's no evidence that these verses are more famous than others or that they deserve special attention, and there's no precedent for such a list on the site. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 14 August 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali mohammad Noorian

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

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NPOL. Has not been elected into any post. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to be notable as secretary-general of the vast Islamic Azad University. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official Karate Magazine

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

Magazine is not significant even in what it covers. All sources avaliable briefly mention what the magazine does but not much else. No significant coverage is given beyond passing mentions. ALongStay (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Magazine exists but has no significant independent coverage and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of significant coverage is why this doesn't meet WP:GNG. I think it's hard for niche publications to generate the coverage needed to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 13 August 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 sources provided by Northamerica1000 are solid and give plenty of weight to his keep vote. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ForgeRock

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

Another case of noticeable advertorialism and puffery, nothing actually convincing since the listed sources are simply press releases, PR and puff-speak, trivial passing mentions, funding and finance news and the like; my own searches are simply finding this too so there's, all in all, simply nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial content & insufficient coverage in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Examples of bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources include: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning that I've left on my talk page. Note to closing admin: I previously closed this discussion but I was requested to undo my closure. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to note that the listed sources here are not actually what they may seem at first, looking at them simply found a few paragraphs each which even then included interviews and funding and financing information, the current concerns are about this thus still suggest PR attempts. I question whether the Keep users kept this to mind. Note that the BizJourbals has been confirmed with past consensus at AfDs for basically bring a notorious source for local PR and advertising. Thus the weight of these Keep votes are still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Assertions of "PR attempts" should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. All eight articles I provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. Also, if articles have some content about funding, but also cover other aspects of a topic, they should not be dismissed merely due to the presence of the former as some sort of automatic disqualifier. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 14 August 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. Majority argument, backed up by evidence, is that the subject has sufficient coverage to be notable. Arguments for deletion are that the article constitutes advertising and that the identified sources are promotional, but these views lack consensus. Michig (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VMTurbo

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of substance as the only links are either press releases, advertorial and PR speak, trivial passing mentions and my searches are also finding the same with none of it actually being convincing; there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Well sourced article, covered by Bloomberg, no policies cited for review at AfD. No evidence of a problem to be considered at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no intentions of interacting or speaking to the user above (Speedy Keep voter) and wish they would not ping or notify me, but I comment regarding " speedy keep" which is not applicable because the article is entirely advertorial to where even the coverage is PR itself (all either about advertising awards, sales financing or funding). SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply doesn't cite any policies or provide evidence of a problem. WP:SK#1 applies given that the nomination has not made a deletion argument. A reliable source remains a reliable source when it talks about advertising awards, financing, and funding. There is no problem to be resolved here. Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested to talk politics here, but your own vote mentions "reliable sources....advertising awards, financing and funding" but these sources are essentially PR themselves and thus cannot be accepted. Regardless if this article can be improved (which it cannot), this is still an advertisement article. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. These sources are not essentially PR (until you can demonstrate that to be true). On the face of it, these awards are third party awards and have to be won by deserving companies. Similarly, nothing in WP:CORP suggests that articles written by third parties on a company's financing and funding are unaccepted. Can you please explain the justification for your continued putting forward of these reasons? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough to meet criteria for notability. If SwisterTwister believes that the article is advertorial, then the correct course of action is to edit the article, not delete it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But even the sources themselves are PR. SwisterTwister talk 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up that broad sweeping statement with some concrete statements? For example, how can you consider the Forbes references as "PR"? They appear to be reliable sources independent of the subject matter. Just because they say positive things doesn't mean you should discount them as PR. I agree with you that it appears that a number of the sources cannot be regarded as "independent of the subject matter" since the articles are essentially recounting details of interviews verbatim originating from VMTurbo. But even after discounting those, more than enough remains. Finally, sometimes information regarding funding is notable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: Someone can list sources from Forbes, Wall Street Journal, where ever, but if the article themselves are simply interviews, PR speak (noted in my nomination) that only talk about the funding, partnerships, events and finances, then it's not actually convincing coverage. This would be basically costuming articles with sourced that may seem acceptable but are not actually as informative or substantial as they may be. Also, "funding" being acceptable is actually rare because it usually states the company is still attempting to gain and establish ground; even the highest major companies would not list this as there would not been an existence of such information. Fot example, also, this article hardly had any actual substance since it's majorly about either funding or awards, none of which re actually convincing. Awards, also, such as "Companies to Watch For" and "Listed Starting Companies" essentially suggest and confirm they are not notable if they have been labeled as "Watch For" and "Starting". SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have not provided any detail in your response and again use sweeping generalities. Why do you classify all of the references as "only talk about the funding, partnerships, events and finances". It is clear to me that you have not checked the references. For example, the Forbes articles could not be classifed as such. Likewise "The Register" article. Also note that in order to meet the criteria, policy states that the organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The qualification used on content (what I believe you refer to as substance) states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The references attached to this article meet all of the above criteria. In fact, even if *all* of the references were solely concerned with funding, the fact that multiple independent sources published articles is sufficient to meet the criteria of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I in fact had but again, look at the sources themselves and even the sources' headlines refer to the funding and financing, even emphasizing the fact there's only sources about this. Also, as for the "significant coverage", news about funding and financing is not actually significant coverage as it's only either the company talking about its own finances or the news sources talking about it. As for the Forbes (which, again, I examined), (1) only has a select number of mentions and paragraphs for the actual company itself and then (2) simply talks about how the company's financing and business activities have changed; even then, we would have still needed better coverage, but there is none, considering the other listed sources are simply about its funding and finances. Note that even The Register, not only has its headline about the finances, but is nothing else convincing apart from that subject itself. Keep to mind, the Business Journals are not ever considered convincing coversge because it's notorious for PR and the company talking about itself (this cannot be considered acceptable or reliable (the latter because of matters involving the company PR). I'll also mention that there's no convincing from any of the listed awards as they are trivial. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain to me the difference between an article *mentioning* funding as part of an overall piece on a company and an article announcing a round of funding as the sole topic. And you are referring to the wrong reference from "The Register" (are you sure you've actually read the references??!) In addition, neither policy nor WP:CORP excludes articles concerning funding - that's simply not part of the criteria. As I stated above even if *all* of the references were solely concerned with funding, the fact that multiple independent sources published articles is sufficient to meet the criteria of notability as listed in guidelines. But I stress again, even excluding the references from blatent PR sources and even excluding any mention of awards (I agree many are entirely not notable), there's enough remaining to still meet the required level of coverage from independent sources. I've made my point, I'll leave this one to the closing admin. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 01:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I do not know how one can postulate that there's essentially nothing else better when I readily found two Forbes articles that show up doing an intitle: search. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intentions to start a discussion with this user, but for historical purposes, I'll note that the "corpdepth" is all based from simply news about its funding and other company finances which basically amount to PR. Several users who have mentioned this at AfD include DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who keeps saying that they have no intention of starting "a discussion with this user", why then do you keep responding? You don't automatically have a "right to respond" and then deny the person you are responding to the right to continue the discussion and address any points you might raise. That is not in the spirit of collegic editing. Also, I've fixed the indentation of your replies to make it easy to follow. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted earlier, I simply listed my notes for the purposes of the AfD itself, not for the specific user. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. E.g. [38], [39], [40], [41]. Sources that say positive things about companies are not automatically public relations content by default. Forbes and The Register were not paid by the company to publish these articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope this can be relisted to allow others to further analyze and examine the listed sources, as there are still concerns here, of which some users are simply citing coverage but the coverage itself is still actually questionable, thus further examinations are needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In ten posts here the nominator has yet to support the nomination viewpoint with identified policies, guidelines, or essays. This AfD remains eligible for a Speedy Keep. Although a Keep IMO would be a valid close, a Speedy Keep WP:NPASR would allow the nominator the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in the nomination and resubmit the nomination without prejudice. See Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive. Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm honestly not sure why this user is selecting particular AfD to criticize when I and other users have used this explanation numerous times; if you want one, WP:PROMO is an example. Please do not continue to beat this horse. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, WP:PROMO... "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are typically unacceptable." Just below that paragraph is the statement, "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, 'article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.' (see, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)." Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an advertisement for their product. It should be deleted regardless of whether or not the company is notable, tho I think it is at best very borderline. The utterly absurd comments that the nomination is defective seem inappropriate: SwisterTwisiter has explained in detail the reasons why the article is promotional. The response was basically IDONTHEARTHAT. Normally, I'd just refer to the nomination as my reason, but I'm explaining it again, because perahps it may lead to understanding. The technology paragraph is advertising: their algorithms may be patentable, but the principles of resource allocation described in the article are not. Including the basic science here is not encyclopedic -- a link would be sufficient. The sort of publication which does include this, because it is self contained, is web pages and advertorial copy. Most of the awards are trivial and if analyzed, offer proof of non-notability: "Most promising" means might be notable some day; "Vendor to watch" , ditto also "Emerging Vendor." An emerging company is one that has yet to emerge into notability. Including awards such as these serves only the promotional purpose of making the company appear more important. Including executives other than the CEO gratifies their ego, but unless they are separately notable, is just promotion. Listing articles as further reading which are already in the references is promotional--it's the advertising technique of saying the same thing twice. Promotional writing is what the company would like to say about itself. `Encyclopedic writing is what a reader who has heard of the company might want to know. There's a difference.

There are two factors which might show notability: The Inc placement, and the exploited patents. But by themselves they are not enough to be more than borderline.

As for the sourcing: I've seen a lot of Peter Cohan's work cited in WP, because he does a series of profiles of companies, where he lets the company say whatever they please: that's just providing them an opportunity to advertise. (He also does real journalism, and those can be readily distinguished.) The notices of funding are mere notices, and so are the pseudo-awards. :Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for advertising, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that this response comes, without citing any policies, just after a quote that says, "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG appears to be referring to WP:NOTADVERT. I'm of the view for this particular article that it could be copy edited to address any promotional tone, some of which I have performed. At this time, if the Funding section were to be removed, the article would then be non-promotional in nature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the evidence that DGG is making a policy based argument. If it were WP:NOTADVERT, I've already quoted from WP:PROMO, which I think is far from the case that DGG's post wants us to accept. It says, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources..." We've done that; the topic is verified with independent, third-party sources. "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." No dispute there, yet the editors at this AfD are trying to take WP:NOTADVERT to a level that links to reliable sources are themselves violations of WP:NOT; and even then, any such violations would be a content issue, not a deletion issue. His post also dabbles in a non-policy basis with WP:N, for example, it uses the phrase "proof of non-notability". Anyone who understands wp:notability knows that there is no such thing. The policy-based concept to which the post is referring in this instance is called WP:SUSTAINED, but once this policy basis is established, the post's argument dissipates, since this company is mature compared to the intent of WP:SUSTAINED. The post wants to disallow WP:GNG for this AfD, but once outside the bounds of WP:NOT, any path to define wp:notability is a sufficient path. So is DGG's post making a WP:IAR argument? I doubt it, as I think a veil over relevant policy is part of the message, and that an assertion of WP:IAR would improve the msssage. I think our future as a volunteer community lies in supporting our policies and guidelines, and the future of AfD lies in improving the quality of AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep VMTurbo#Industry_recognition list all the notable awards it has received. If you have a problem with the tone of an article, edit it don't delete it. Dream Focus 03:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know if this vote above is actually noticing both my own nomination comments and DGG's analysis above, which show these awards are, in fact, by Wikipedia AfD consensus (both past and present) known are trivial as they are only business awards given for starting company, and are essentially PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes magazine is a reliable source. If they think the company is notable enough to mention in their magazine and give that award too, then that counts towards notability. If you have a link to where consensus was clearly established for every award listed, please post it. There should be somewhere on Wikipedia listing every award there is, and links to discussions about them, and listing that consensus was about them. JPMorgan Chase & Co is a legitimate company, so I believe their award would be seen as notable. Dream Focus 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister - Seriously, that's a pretty insulting comment. Are we supposed to bow down to your and DGG's superiour rights to opinion and wisdom or something? Wikipedia AfD consensus means nothing if it doesn't adhere to policy or isn't even mentioned in guidelines.

Let me remind you that there is nothing in the guidelines or policy to suppose two of your assertions made in this AfD to date

that reliable third party arms length reporting on funding is not a measure of notability
that awards provided by third parties at arms length is not a measure of notability

It may be that these reasons were proffered and accepted in other AfD's (and had I seen them I would have argued against such reasons) but that does not make those reasons policy, nor does it give weight to the reasons. WP:CORP states Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products and this appears to be happening here. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article's sections are "Terminology"; "History"; "Funding" & "Recognition" -- this reads like a company website combined with an investment prospectus. This does not suggest an encyclopedia article to me. Clearly promotional content and weakly sourced to puff pieces such as "Tech Trailblazers Winners 2013". Tech Trailblazers & "JPMorgan Chase Inducts VMTurbo into Hall of Innovation". MarketWatch. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice for this discussion states, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements... Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff pieces" meaning "these are not WP:RS sources" and the content does not amount to "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was copy edited after the !vote above, by the same user, apparently to address these concerns, which removed a large chunk of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted that in the comment below. Some of the content/sources were restored, but it's still not convincing. For example, according to IDG / IT Station, VMTurbo was the "top product for Virtualisation Management". The report states that it's "based on product reviews, crowdsourced rankings, and buyer intent data as of January 1, 2016" -- so the methodology of this "report" is unknown, and it could very well be a marketing vehicle / directory. This is great PR / sales tool, but not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. My general conclusion, having observed a number of company/product AfDs is that most of the companies in venture capital stage are just not that notable, unless they've raised roughly $100M+ and/or announced an IPO. K.e.coffman (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A hugely noteable virtualisation company, per very extensive coverage and in depth coverage in the industry press. The thoughts of arbritator DGG are always well worth close attention, but so is the analyses of good NorthAmerica1000 and the impossibly cool DreamFocus, who I find more convincing in this discussion. It's invetiable that an article on a company will have some functional overlap with an advert, yet that is no reason to destroy an ariticle unless it's taken to an excess. To address concerns about advertising, the rescue squad have added some critical content to the article. If any wanted to add more criticism it should be easy to find. Some businessmen feel this company have paid back VMware for their early support by stitching them up, and they don't like how VMTurbo are now partnering with a certain cloud company known for it's tax dodging and for imposing slave labour like conditions across the world. IMO though we now have enough negative coverage for NPOV, though no strong feelings about that as have not reasearched this company extnsively. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was clearly written by someone connected to the company, there no doubt about that. [42] I asked him on the article talk page to just identify his connection. It is not written as a proper Wikipedia article, but filled with business jargon. So it should be rewritten. But the reliable sources others have already mentioned, do give it significant coverage. Dream Focus 16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entire article is promotional at best. Overall, the format of the language is promotional and is written as a “magnet” to potential customers.

Let me go into a few points.

the Industry recognition is best promotional. Despite being Forbes, the “America's Most Promising Companies list” shows growth but it only does for incubating companies that are currently “no name” companies.

In addition, the propduct history section is filled with technical jargon that only a professional would understand. In addition, the final sentence is written as an attempt to downplay the promotional side of the article, but it isn't well hidden.

A regular article of a company does not write about its principles to such a large extent in the article. In fact, other notable articles on companies speak of their end products and their usefullness, reliability and success. A completely non-advertising article would not entertain language such as “Applies the principles of supply and demand to abstract virtual data center resources into comodities bought and sold within the environment and perform intelligent workload management”. Just look at other articles. They don't clearly advertise that.

Finally, a precendent must be hard set. This article must be deleted. If this si kept, then who knows what sort of slipslide we will have. Seriously? Who will stop other companies from random lists to publish advertisements on Wikipedia? If kept, Wikipedia will become a glorified version of the classfied section of newspapers or Google ads or even the reviled clickbait on the internet. I clearly oppose it based on the above reasons and the reason to protect wikipedia as an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:57 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC) — 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning comment -- I trimmed the article of fluff sources, original research/synthesis and marketing lingo, and there's not much left: one paragraph. I don't believe the article meets CORPDEPTH at this time; I still support deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not notable for a stand alone article. The article reads like a press release advertising for their product. Kierzek (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my !vote at the start of this AfD I mentioned that the topic was "covered by Bloomberg". Bloomberg has an army of reporters and reliability is essential for their business model. It has been my experience that coverage by investing.businessweek.com (Bloomberg) is a good indicator of Wikipedia notability. At 22:41 today, I saw that the Bloomberg link was not in the article so I added it to the "Further reading" section, [43]. At 23:03, an editor moved this citation to the external links, [44], and also removed the quote I had provided from the article, with the edit comment "trim". At 23:22, the citation was removed with the edit comment "trivial", [45]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg: I believe the editor refers to this link:
- "VMTurbo, Inc. Private Company Information. Businessweek". Bloomberg L. P. Retrieved 2016-08-06.

The link provides the quick snapshot of the company (more of a directory entry), plus the headlines/briefs of the company's press releases, such as: "VMTurbo, Inc. Presents at 11th Annual Pacific Crest Emerging Technology Summit, Mar-01-2016", "VMTurbo Releases Version 5.3 of Operations Manager" and "VMTurbo Extends QoS Adherence to Control the Full Stack". This seemed trivial to me, but I'm not opposed to this link being re-added to external links. However, this does not amount to significant coverage by Bloomberg, as I see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG via [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Aust331 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of those listed sources are simply trivial, being either about its moving the locations, funding and having "high hopes" to then nothing actually substantial (the first source, as it is, seems like both a PR piece and trivial coverage). Despite no one still seems to accept this, the listed sources are all still trivial and based with finances, there has been consensus at AfD (regardless of who ever said whatever) that that alone is not enough for establishing a convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I like those sources. Several of them provide a great deal of significant background coverage about the company. For example, in this article from The Register, the title of the article "VMTurbo trousers $7.5m to bring Adam Smith's hand to more clouds", can be misleading as only providing routine coverage, because it has a routine-style title. But the content is actually substantial and provides significant additional detail and background information about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the article is really that in-depth, as it's built on an interview with the company executive:

"Derek Slayton, vice president of marketing at VMTurbo, tells El Reg that VMTurbo did not need the money, but had the opportunity to nab the cash and accelerate some of its development and sales efforts.

This time last year the company had 60 paying customers for its Operations Manager tool; it now has over 350. Revenues tripled last year to $8.5m and are forecast to double this year to $17m.

These are company claims and cannot be independently verified as the company is private. Moreso, $8M in revenue is rather trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That figure was reported in 2013 as being applicable for 2012. When Zuckerberg invested in 2015 the author did some calculations (based on VMTurbo's announcements) that VMTurbo did $14m revenues in 2013 and $32m in 2014. The valuation at that time was $500million (very non-trivial). In 2016, a press release stated that they achieved 100%+ revenue growth on the previous year which would put revenues in 2015 at close to $65m. I know there's no independent reporting of these numbers because its a private company, but just thought some clarity on the revenue figure of $8m was in order. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When you're getting as high-level coverage as "Bloomberg" or "Forbes" on a subject, and you've got concerns about being promotional, that's when you turn to cleanup (even if it needs to be heavy-handed) rather than deletion, because the subject meets the WP:GNG. You're setting the bar far too high if "its just coverage about finances" is the counter-argument here. Its no FA, but it certainly scrapes by "third party coverage by multiple sources". Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Analyzing the listed The Register source even still only finds it simply talk about the company's finances and how jobs work there such as their company positions. Having "A company the size of VMTurbo is what Reisig knows how to grow, and that is what VMTurbo CEO Louis Shipley, who used to be general manager of data center and cloud products at Citrix, is counting on" with a "R" symbol at the end is PR-speak through and through. Also "Operations Manager can manage virtual machines" and "It hired Chris Reisig to be vice president of worldwide sales....Before that, Reisig spent two years at Kiva Systems, a provider of distribution center management software, where sales doubled, and prior to that he was at Endeca (eaten by Oracle last year) for seven years where he ran the sales operation and helped quintuple sales over that time". Who wants to actually know about that and call it substance? .... if it wasn't the company speaking about itself of course. The first few paragraphs are even simply talking from the businesspeople's POV. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 8 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Grey (designer)

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

Still actually advertorial and puffed considering the listed sources are all either of the following: press releases or PR-like, interviews, galleries of photos and related, trivial passing mentions and any other unacceptable coverage. My own searches have also found nothing substantially better. I'll note this was actually deleted last year as G11 but was apparently restored by request. This is an interesting one, because although WorldCat lists over 2,000 books, I highly would've preferred this had been submitted at AfC, where it could have been better improved, although I haven't found any noticeable books reviews yet, the advertorial sources and information overall still concerns me. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources that is based upon coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. The very minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Several of these sources were present in the External links section of the article, which I moved to a new Further reading section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
~~Chicago Tribune~~ (see comment below)
Elle
The Guardian
Financial Times
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Scroll left to see first part of article)
The Free Lance-Star
Gainesville Sun
Reading Eagle. (Scroll left to see first part of article)
The New York Times. (Describes Grey as being "one of the world’s most influential kitchen experts" in contemporary times).

Keep sources found by NorthAmerica1000 are ample.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Examining these sources found that the NYT and CT are in fact the same article, simply republished so it's not actually different; the FT times only has him speak a few times and, aside from that, barely is about him. The other 2 newspapers such as ReadinEagle (1) cite Johnny himself as a source and the other thing is (2) they still are not in-depth enough. The Wall Street Journal could be acceptable but it focuses with shoeing his own clients thud could be insinuated as PR. The last one NYT is actually simply an interview which begins with a photo of himself.... The Guardian is another that is not actually focusing with him exactly. The Free Lance itself is simply a republication of NYT and even that was the one showcasing his clients. The Gainesville Sun is essentially the same and, lastly, the Elle, could be acceptable....if it was not so blatantly labeled as "Interview" at the start. My analysis here is enough to take to mind. With this, this exactly is not actually helping with the puffery if the sources (including new) themselves are not substantially enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran a Proquest archives search on "The Art of Kitchen Design" + Johnny Grey. Note that since it was published in 1994 many searches will suffer from RECENTISM. This book garnered attention from major British and American media, not only the year it was published (KITCHEN WIZARD A COOK REWRITES THE BOOK ON KITCHEN DESIGN WITH ERGONOMICALLY CORRECT IDEAS: [DU PAGE FINAL Edition] Landis, Dylan. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Chicago, Ill] 02 Oct 1994: 10....at the shopping stage in Balducci's, where Johnny Grey, the...to make the kitchen less of a laboratory, it brought in Johnny Grey. (No one has...easy to organize and sell." Johnny Grey kitchens juxtapose inlays, painted...), but for years afterwards ('Unfitted' Kitchens Create Home Around the Range Series: DESIGN 2000 / One in an occasional series.: [Home Edition]KOENENN, CONNIE. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 08 June 2000: 1...."Johnny Grey" style as such, because he custom- designs each kitchen project....an open, sociable kitchen, a philosophy that was coined years ago by Johnny Grey...recently revised his amply illustrated book "The Art of Kitchen Design"). I did not read all 47 sources that came up on this one search (others can be done) I just gave you 2 form the top, ten scrolled down to # 47 (Forget sun-dried tomatoes, the new big thing is decorating, Joseph, Joe. The Times [London (UK)] 21 Mar 1997: 18.... * The Art of Kitchen Design by Johnny Grey...). He's notable. User:SwisterTwister, would you consider withdrawing this AFD, to save everyone's time for other things. As you say, the article does need improvement and should be appropriately tagged for tone, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I struck the Chicago Tribune source in my list above, because it's duplicative of this The New York Times article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage identified is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs work, like inline cites, and reduction of promotional tone, but subject appears to be notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrispyGlover (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of MySims characters

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

Fails WP:GNG, a long, long list of trivial video game characters fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. No notability, no sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Since WP:VGSCOPE is a link within MOS:VG, it is a guideline on how to curate acknowledged encyclopedic content, and therefore no legitimate reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jclemens:, I have to ask: why exactly are you voting keep? Because you're not saying why it should stay. I said it fails WP:GNG and didn't respond to that, which, you know, is a pretty important guideline. Just like in this deletion discussion and that one (which were both deleted) you did claim that because I'm saying it fails a guideline that it shouldn't be deleted. On June 29, I asked you to point to the guideline or essay that says "Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic", which I still haven't seen. So I'm wondering, why are you voting keep? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have advanced no legitimate argument for deletion, or, at best, a self-contradictory one. Every time any editor argues that a style guideline is a legitimate reason for deleting an article, every editor who understands the difference should oppose it on principle. Strike your references to WP:VGSCOPE entirely, rest your case on the GNG, and the problem goes away. Whether or not any individual article is kept or not is not near as important as never letting an MOS mention go unopposed in any deletion discussion. If you don't understand that MOS'es only apply to content that is kept in the encyclopedia, then I don't particularly owe you either a history or a logic lesson, but suffice it to say that there have been plenty of cantankerous folks who have tried to apply the MOS in the most Procrustean manners imaginable, such that any AfD referring to an MOS as support for deletion is clearly more harmful than letting the content in question stay. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the other discussion, WP:VGSCOPE says "Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics". While I'm always up for a history lesson, you could just point me to the relevant guideline that says that a content policy guideline shouldn't be cited in a deletion discussion. WP:PGL? WP:AADD? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style pages are not content inclusion/exclusion guidelines, they're content presentation guidelines. WP:UGLY applies to MOS-based deletion reasons. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps discuss merging notable entries into their parent game pages on talk pages. A quick search shows that some of these characters do get coverage (e.g. King Roland [51] and Morcubus [52]). Jclemens is right in that VGSCOPE does not offer advice on the wholesale deletion of pages, just the removal of cruft from existing articles. The MySims games is part of a major franchise, has several entries, all with reviews of which some do talk about specific characters, so it's not clear that this has to go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGLY does not mention anything about guidelines. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." It does not. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED, a notable franchise does not automatically mean the characters are too. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never brought up UGLY, so I'll respond to the points relevant to my !vote. VGSCOPE 6 is what should be in articles, not what should be articles. Failing it does not in of itself mean it should be deleted, since it could still pass notability guidelines as a stand alone list. As I showed in my !vote, some of the characters do get coverage in reliable sources, so per our deletion policy, alternatives to deletion such as merging should be conidered before wholesale deletion. NOTINHERITED wouldn't apply in this case because some of the list members do get verifiable coverage from RS. If most of the other characters get no coverage, my preference would be to merge the ones with coverage to their individual game pages and then have this page as a redirect to the main MySims page to preserve history.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think coverage is a stretch, Patar knight. In the IGN piece it is a developer explaining their own game and mentions King Roland a couple of times, while the review says "after creating a character, players may jump into the story mode, taking players head on with the main villain, Morcubus. Morcubus runs a company known as MorcuCorp, who has literally taken over the skies". That being said, I'm not opposed to redirecting or merging it into a small section of characters (as long as it is sourced, of course ;-)). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A developer talking in an interview with a reliable source about a character in which three paragraphs (2 on the 2nd page, 1 on the 3rd page) are devoted to a character or even a couple of sentences from a review is significantly better than the norm for character descriptions on Wikipedia (completely uncited, "this is correct as shown in the title work" stuff). Redirecting this to the original game after all mergers wouldn't be a problem, but these characters come from several different games in the MySims series, so any character with coverage would have to be listed under their individual game. That seems like something to be done at the talk page instead of at AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, I noticed this discussion didn't pop up at WP:VG/AA. You're more articulate than I am when it comes to this, maybe you can take a look at it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the talk page wasn't tagged for the project--fixed czar 05:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims to coverage above are not credible. To review, this is an 88 kB article with nary a single source. That's 88 kB of primary source cruft when we look to split at 50 kB. If you merge to the main series or individual games articles, we'll be forced to redirect to preserve attribution, but there is otherwise nothing here worth saving. There is nothing exceptional in the sources to warrant a separate treatment of the characters in this series. They can be appropriately handled in their parent articles' Character sections and only split out summary style if/when necessary. Arguing for keeping this schlock based on passing mentions in sources primarily about other parts of the series is out of order. czar 23:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per other "keep" rationales above. If not keep, then at least redirect. Please just don't delete it. The MySims article is an acceptable target, where any coverage these characters get can be covered. Deletion should be a last resort kind of thing, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been identified so that the article can be improved with real world content from those sources, merging the article may make other articles cumbersome for loading on mobile phones with poor broadband so a stand alone list is preferable in view of the use by readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Atlantic306:, since when do we have to keep broadband reception in mind when we're discussing deleting or merging articles? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

think we should always keep in mind the best interests of wikipedia's readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be another case where people are claiming that reliable sources exist, but most end up being entirely irrelevant. TTN (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Quiet

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

This article is blatant advertising for a safety campaign. The entire article is written as a PSA, and it even includes two TV commercials. The problem is that there are no independent sources that have covered Buy Quiet. I was able to find one significant article, Suter (1989) that I added to Further Reading, but that is actually about ways the Reagan Administration cut back on safety programs in the 1980s, and it only mentions Buy Quiet in one sentence.

There's a lot one could write on noise control, particularly the conflict between Chamber of Commerce/Association of Manufacturers/Heritage Foundation support for (cheap) hearing conservation programs rather than more costly efforts to engineer the noise out of machinery supported by NIOSH and others. There's a lot of sources out there that and articles could be written or expanded on these topics. See Nash, James L. "What's Wrong With Hearing Conservation?" Occupational Hazards Jan. 2000: 41. for example.

The Buy Quiet subject fails the WP:GNG because it lacks sources Independent of the subject, which "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22buy+quiet%22+%2B+NIOSH Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? Which of these google hits is an example of significant independent coverage? The first hit is the CDC website. Your second hit is not about Buy Quiet at all. It's mentioned in one sentence, at the very end of the article. This is an announcement of an announcement: NIOSH sent Safety & Health a press release, and they passed it on to their readers. Oh, and the topic isn't even Buy Quiet, it's about the Safe-in-Sound award winners. The fourth, fifth, and sixth hit don't even mention Buy Quiet at all, not even in passing. Google is not magic; you have to read this stuff with your own eyes. It's pretty much turtles all the way down after that. Article after article that is not about Buy Quiet. It hasn't been the subject of any significant coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not getting the same hits. Hit 2 is [53]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Can you please cite one example of significant coverage of Buy Quiet in an independent source? You just posted a link to an article that has some interesting things to say about noise control, and almost nothing about Buy Quiet, which gets a tiny shout out at the very end of the article. If we could look at even one example, then we could talk about whether one is enough to keep this article. Dare we ask for two? The notability guidelines do say that "multiple sources are generally expected". You could save us all some time if you would either cite them or admit they don't exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Buy Quiet has been written about by organizations other than NIOSH, as catalogued on the partners page. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Quiet partners are participants in the Buy Quiet program. To establish notability we need coverage in independent sources, not organizations tied to the article subject. If we had one independent source with significant coverage, that would still be debatable. But we don't even have to that. Only passing mentions, or self-published works but the subject or the subject's associates. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh [54] [55] [56], [57]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another article that is not about Buy Quiet. It mentions Buy Quiet at the end. We've already seen several articles like this. The notablitiy standards require substantial coverage, not mere passing mention. This is WP:ROUTINE, and it's quick gloss of a press release. This, again, is not about Buy Quiet. It's yet another article about noise control and hearing loss. Buy Quiet is not the subject. The last one, [58], is more of the same. A very brief article, not in-depth coverage, and the main topic is not Buy Quiet.
I will be happy to withdraw this nomination and request a speedy keep if anybody can cite significant coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it: [59] [60]! This is extremely WP:POINTY Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Acoustics Australia article is actually about Buy Quiet, which is significantly different than anything cited up to now. It might very well be the first evidence of notability anyone has cited. Pointing out why all the previous citations failed to qualify as evidence of notability is not disruptive. Anyone will tell you the citations you offered up to now were not cutting it. Now you've cited one that is at least in the ballpark. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist Dane2007 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can this just not be closed!? It obviously has sources, of which at least 5 are in the article. Why did you relist Dane2007, Anarchyte — there is far more information here than needed to close it per WP:SNOW. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@CFCF: I relisted because there were only 3 participants. I disagree with the third relisting, though. If it had been open for 3 weeks and your references weren't properly rebutted, I see no reason why this is still open. I don't think I can't close it because I was the relister and participated in the process, so I'll vote keep instead. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:13, 13 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton LRT Carhouse

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

Not every building is notable, and this one isn't even built yet. It's just a yard for buses--that it's mentioned in a few newspaper articles doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:

--do ncr am 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a grain of truth in this nomination. Not every building is notable. One of the flaws in the nomination is the assertion that press coverage doesn't make a building notable. Of course press coverage, and other reliable, authoritative coverage, is precisely what makes topics notable. That is Notability 101.
The nomination incorrectly says it is a "yard for buses". It is a carhouse for light rail vehicles. While yards for buses do require special purpose adaptations, these adaptations are dwarfed by the special purpose adaptations required to maintain light rail vehicles.
Toronto has an extensive transit system. Every other maintenance facility in Toronto has a standalone article, and it makes sense for this facility to have its own article, as well. In 2012 I started the article on the Leslie Barns carhouse, which opened a few months ago. No one used its incomplete state to justify deleting it, and it is a lousy reason to suggest this article should be deleted, when there are already sufficient references to establish its notability. Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, show me some articles that prove notability. An article in the local paper that announces something is going to be built, that the land has been bought, etc., that does not make for notability. Significant coverage please. Oh, "Every other maintenance facility in Toronto has a standalone article"--OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also AfD 101. It really means nothing, except that there's an editor or two who wrote up every building in the Toronto transit system. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I am going to remind you that the assertion in your nomination, that the facility was "just a yard for buses", very strongly suggests you barely glanced at the article before you jumped to deletion. Can you really say you read the article, properly, before you jumped to deletion? Did you actually look at the existing references, at the time you made this nomination?
    Second, don't our policies and commonly agreed practices oblige you to do a web search, of your own, before you nominate an article for deletion? Isn't deletion supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, so contributors thinking of initiating an AFD, are supposed to stop, reverse themselves, and place tags, or voice their concerns on the article's talk page? So, why didn't you do so? Surely you can see that, if you had done so, you would have found there were additional references? I have added some of them to the article.
    You placed your prod on Roncesvalles Carhouse 12 minutes before you finished drafting this comment; you initiated an AFD on Russell Carhouse 14 minutes before you left this comment; and you initiated an AFD on Wilson Yard 26 minutes later. Didn't it occur to you that this could look like a lapse from WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND?
    Finally, have you considered how it appears that you started three new deletion procedures, on related articles, after I brought up the existence of related articles? You could, after all, waited to see how this AFD played out. Over on Talk:Roncesvalles Carhouse I asked you serious questions, and made what I think were meaningful, substantive, policy-based points, about the {{prod}} you placed on that article. Rather than give a meaningful, substantive reply, you wrote: "You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure."
    Joking is not appropriate. Your joking strongly suggests you don't have reasoned arguments as to why you don't recognize expensive and important infrastructure as important enough to be notable. Breakdowns in essential infrastructure can be disastrous. We have special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN. We need a similar guideline, named something like WP:INFRASTRUCTURE.
    Two of the areas I work on are maritime commerce and military vessels. When articles on maritime vessels are challenged they are always kept. IIRC, The Bushranger's rule of thumb was those vessels longer than 100 feet were very likely to be notable. My rule of thumb is different -- it's whether they have a full-time paid crew of professionals. There is a general recognition that million dollar vessels don't need to have a scandal, or loss of life, to be notable. IMO Ships, bridges, canals, freeways, aqueducts, pipelines, container ports, and yes, transit lines, and transit facilities, are among the kinds of things that old, traditional, paper encyclopedias covered, still cover. Do you really mean to argue that we should force our readers to go consult a paper encyclopedia, because you have an as to yet unexplained bias against covering this kind of topic?
    Now maybe if we had a widely attended debate, over the wording of WP:INFRASTRUCTURE, it would go the opposite way of the long-standing practice in maritime matters, and require deaths, or a financial scandal, or something other than that the project was a multi-million dollar project, that could cause chaos if it broke down at the wrong time. I don't think so. But, let me point out, that you haven't made any effort, whatsoever, to explain your position. It seems to me you are merely arguing that your position is "obvious". I wrote an essay, where I try to explain that nothing is obvious.
    Maybe you don't have the time or energy to explain yourself? Well, in that case, I am going to suggest you withdraw these nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A 23 hectare facility seems notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' see any connection between the size of a facility and its notability, which is determined by having "significant coverage in RS". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not go off-topic. We are discussing the topic of an article on the Eglinton Carhouse. The maintenance and storage facilities for the Eglinton Crosstown line will use a campus that is not only quite large as urban developments go, and expensive, at half a billion dollars, most importantly, is covered in RS. If you haven't actually taken a look at the article's references, how valuable is your opinion as to whether or not they amount to "significant coverage"? If you haven't actually taken a good look at the references yourself, I suggest your opinion on them is, well, worthless. Closing administrators have the authority to discount opinions that are counter-policy, based on mistakes, or otherwise flawed.
If you have taken a meaningful look at the references, and, having done so still think they don't measure up, then I request you be specific as to what you would need references to say, before you would agree that they provide significant coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For heaven's sake it doesn't even exist. Proposed to perhaps exist maybe five years from now. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fails notability -- only passing mentions in local coverage, many of which are not even RS or are not even independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the subject is not notable, and it does not yet exist; it's in planning stages: "Eglinton LRT maintenance and storage facility will be required by the Toronto Transit Commission for its Eglinton Crosstown line currently under construction. The site will have storage for 162 Flexity Freedom LRT vehicles and have extensive maintenance facilities to keep them running smoothly." K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:CRYSTAL. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Puzzlingly, both @Softlavender: and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: made explicit assertions that the article does not comply with WP:CRYSTAL. Softlavender and @K.e.coffman: both stated the the facility "doesn't even exist", that it is still in the planning stage, and imply that it may never be built.
I don't know how to respond to these comments without lecturing.

The Eglinton Crosstown route does exist, in that it is currently being built. Ground-breaking on the launch shaft for the tunnel boring machines was in early 2013. So, construction has been underway for almost three and half years. Billions of dollars have been spent.
It is not possible to run a rapid transit line without a nearby maintenance facility. Toronto's most recent streetcars were bought thirty years ago. A program of methodical preventative maintenance has allowed these vehicles to last thirty years. MetroLinx, the agency running the line, expects the new vehicles to last thirty years. It is absolutely essential that these vehicles have a maintenance facility. And, because they run on rails, that facility has to be nearby.
On April 9, 2013, I bought a day-pass and rode the buses that currently service riders where the LRT will run. I got off at every intersection where a station is being built, and took a couple of dozen before pictures. When the route is complete I will return to each station and take after pictures. There are no other good alternate locations for the maintenance facility.
The TTC had to choose between six alternate locations before they chose the site of the Leslie Barns, for its new streetcar fleet, because there weren't any really good sites. But, although I did a lot of research into this line, I haven't seen any other sites being considered. I am sure Mount Dennis was chosen as the western terminus because it was adjacent to a site suitable for the maintenance facility.

What the above means is that any assertions that the facility doesn't exist, and may never be built, simply aren't credible.

Is the facility "still in the planning stage". There are some references that say the plans for the site were completed in 2013. On the other hand, if you look at the revision history, you'll see I added coverage to the controversy over what kind of backup power the system will use. So, yes, the design is still in some flux. But the chance that the maintenance facility won't be built, or won't be built on this site, are zero.

I am going to quote the first sentence of point 1 of CRYSTAL. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I suggest that, since it is essentially certain this facility will be built, CRYSTAL just doesn't apply. Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources here. If sources deemed inadequate for some reason, then "Merge" is obviously the better alternative than "Delete". (Copying my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard): It is legitimate material for larger article Toronto Transit Commission facilities, which has a short section about it. It's not too long that most of it could not be merged back to the larger article's section, leaving a redirect behind and hence leaving the page's edit history, which can be revived if more coverage turns up. However, it is also okay that it is split out to a separate article, so that extra detail does not clog up the main article. There is not much to be gained by this AFD.

Further, it is an editing decision at Toronto Transit Commission facilities about when its material can/should be split out, so if this is deleted then I think it can be recreated at any time by editors there. I think this should have been a discussion at Talk:Toronto Transit Commission facilities instead of at AFD. --do ncr am 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. At best, it can be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Banner, contributors who add new material to the wikipedia put in time and effort. I think we are entitled to ask the quality control volunteers who weigh in at AFD to make a meaningful effort to understand what they are !voting on.
  You suggest this article be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities? Wouldn't that make sense if it were to be owned and operated by the TTC? The Eglinton Crosstown line, and Toronto's other new LRT lines, are NOT going to be owned by the City of Toronto. Rather they are going to be owned by MetroLinx, a provincial agency with overall responsibility for all public transit within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The GTA is three to four times the size of Toronto itself. MetroLinx will also own LRT lines in Hamilton, Mississauga, and Waterloo.
  Will the TTC actually operate the route? Most people assume it will, but MetroLinx has said it has considered other options, like hiring it own staff, and running their lines themselves, and hiring a private industry company to run their lines for them.
  With regard to your comment that this facility is not notable? Okay, what about the very similar facility, the recently completed Leslie Barns? They are about the same size; they were both budgeted at half a billion dollars; they service very similar vehicles.
  Not even our nominator is questioning whether the topic of the Leslie Barns is notable.
  So, please be serious. Take this topic seriously. Take your responsibility to weigh in here in a helpful way seriously. I think every reasonable person will acknowledge that, when the Eglinton Carhouse is ready to open, the Eglinton Carhouse article's notability will be backed up by a comparable number of references as the Leslie Barns article. So, if you are going to continue to hold your opinion that the Eglinton Carhouse facility is not notable, can you tell us when you think the Leslie Barns facility satisfied your stringent criteria for notability? Can you tell us what additional element you would require before you would agree that the Eglinton Carhouse was also measuring up to your stringent criteria?
  Please think about this. Are you really going to call for this article to be deleted, today, when it is sure to measure up to your criteria in the future? Think about this. Isn't this a grave disservice to the people who want to read what is know about it today? Think about this. Isn't your insistence on a deletion, today, a waste of the time of the people who have already done good, competent work on this current version?
  I have one more question of you. If you can't offer meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanations of your position, why shouldn't the closing administrator exercise his or her authority to ignore poorly informed and counter-policy opinions, and ignore your opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story, as the article clearly states in its infobox: "Operated by Toronto Transit Commission". The Banner talk 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I requested you to take this seriously. Instead you joke.

The line may be operated by the TTC, on MetroLinx behalf. That would not make it a TTC facility. And, as I noted above, when the two agencies spar, MetroLinx hints that they will not delegate the line's operation to the TTC.

I raised several substantive issues in response to your opinion. You haven't addressed them. I'd urge to closing administrator to discount your opinion, since you haven't taken your responsibilities seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Banner, without regard to whether the MetroLinx does or doesn't choose to have the TTC operate the Crosstown line, they already decided, in 2013, that they would contract with a third party to operate the maintenance facility. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator, the seven day period is close to ending. It's my understanding that closing administrator's mandate is to not merely count noses, but to weigh arguments over their compliance with policy, and on whether they seem well informed, or based on misconceptions.
I'd like to point out that, The Banner voiced "delete" and merge to Toronto Transit Commission facilities, based on the misconception that the facility was owned or operated by the TTC. Clearly that merge is inappropriate when the facility is owned by MetroLinx and will be operated by a third party, under contract.
Softlavender, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and K.e.coffman, all based their "delete" opinions on WP:CRYSTAL. They did so based on the misconception that this facility was still in the planning stage, and might never be built. The Eglinton Crosstown that will require this facility is over a third of a way towards completion, and billions of dollars have been spent. Planning, environmental assessment, and plan approval, was completed in 2013 -- over three years ago. CRYSTAL explicitly says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I've explained why I think Crystal doesn't apply. I've asked these contributors to return here, and consider those points, or explain why they continue to favour deletion. I've also added over half a dozen new references, and other notability factors, since they weighed in. So, are their arguments ones you think should be discounted?
Finally, if we were to take the nominator at face value, when they wrote:"You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure," then this nomination was not motivated by policy, but rather by an unexamined bias. Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant story, but only in your last edit on the article you retracted the claim that it will be operated by Toronto Transit Commission and replaced it by an unsourced claim. In the plain text you placed a similar unsourced claim. The sourced claim that MetroLinx will contract a "private company", does not exclude the Toronto Transport Commission straight away. The Banner talk 07:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner, you claim the assertion I added to the article that MetroLinx is going to contract the operation of the facility to a private company is unreferenced? The paragraph in the body of the article that makes this assertion IS referenced -- to an article that EXPLICITLY states: "The maintenance and storage site will be operated by a private company." That is a direct quote. No, it could not be referring to the TTC as a possible contractor. Why? The TTC is a city agency, not a "private company". Are you one of those AFD participants who reaches a conclusion by looking at the first screenful of an article, and never bothers to scroll down to the body of the article? Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was somebody called Geo Swan who stated in the article that it would be operated by TTC. Are you one of these editors who puts unsubstantiated info in articles and than attacks other who question that? In fact, it has a negative impact on the reliability of the article. The Banner talk 17:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - To whatever extent I initially implied this line was a TTC line that was what we call a "mistake". Scholars say "even Homer nods", meaning everyone is fallible. We don't delete articles on notable topics because they contain mistakes. We correct those mistakes. Only if acrimony and disputes prevent the article from being corrected would we normally even consider deletion. I suggest we particularly don't delete an article on a notable topic over a mistake that has been corrected. Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major transit infrastructure has always been considered notable here, tho we've so far covered almost exclusively the public-facing side of it; this sort of facility is the sort of topic we've been ignoring, and ought to work on. I'm glad someone has started.. I don't see this as CRYSTAL. The term is usually applied only to films, books, and the like, most of which may be planned, but never come into existence. Projects like this usually do get built, and if they don't , often because of citizen opposition or the like, they become even more newsworthy. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very large and important facility. It will be built. Martin Morin (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. The article is properly sourced and the level of detail already present here militates against merging to a more general article, and the detail is likely to increase as the project proceeds. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard largely applies here as well: Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it, especially as it's only being planned. Sources treat the topic superficially, are of a local nature or are not independent. Sandstein 22:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote: at the other AFD, I am mystified to see arguments that boil down to the most commonly used phrase the WP:Arguments to avoid essay warns us about -- "I don't like it" would advance a variation of that argument here.
- The assertion that the facility is "only being planned" is a serious misconception. Formal planning was basically completed over three years ago.
  There is a real danger of making a fool of one's self, when one weighs in on a topic one doesn't understand. Subway (Metro) routes, light rail routes, and streetcar (tram) routes absolutely must have a maintenance facility adjacent, or nearby. The maintenance facility is not optional. It is essential, as the route's success depends on a rigourous and methodical preventative maintenance schedule, so the vehicles last for decades.
  Since the route it will serve has been under construction for three and a half years, and billions of dollars has been spent, the facility will be completed, barring a disaster that destroys our civilization.
- It's routine for our articles to use a mixture of references only capable of backing up a single point, and references that go into detail. That is what this article does, and the assertion that all the references treat the topic superficially must have been made without the commentor making a meaningful attempt to actually check the references for themself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Black Creek Yard, as this is the name commonly used in the media. The name Eglinton is rarely applied to this facility. It will become notable after the Flexity Freedom vehicles arrive in the city. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Keep vote. Renaming can be suggested at the Talk page later. It's not at all clear to me, as an uninvolved party, What are any negative "aspersions" implied by the suggestion, by the way. --do ncr am 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- what about merging with/redirecting to Line 5 Eglinton which is currently under construction? The sources in the article are all local based, so I don't yet see individual notability. As a section, it may work in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very reasonable suggestion as a compromise option, but too late in this AFD process to really be considered as an outcome, I think. In this diff I just added mention of the Eglinton LRT Carhouse into a new subsection in that article, with a "main" link. The carhouse is at the end of the new line, and is part and parcel of it, so it certainly can naturally be covered as part of that article. The whole article is not too long to be included in its entirety as a section there. But based on how other AFDs have gone, though, IMHO it's way too late to get previous participants to consider this as an option and revisit their !votes. It is too late for a compromise. For example, those who settled on argument that the Eglinton LRT Carhouse article is well enough supported in reliable sources will not now change their minds. I personally think the AFD outcome should be explicitly "Keep" or "No consensus", either way keeping the separate article. Merging into the Line 5 Eglinton article can be suggested, afterwards, at the Talk page. This compromise could have come up and been agreed upon in a gentler discussion at the Talk page, which would have been better than opening this AFD, IMHO, but again it is too late for that. And it really doesn't matter. Editors at the Line 5 Edlinton article would have continued to have the option to split it out at any time, anyhow. Thanks for trying! Maybe participants could look at this as a reminder that more effort to consider Alternatives To Deletion would be worthwhile, before AFDing or during early stages of an AFD. :) --do ncr am 18:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As a major transit infrastructure. I'm still not sure if this suitable for a stand-alone article at this time, but voting keep for now to keep the options open. There's also a reasonable expectation that substantial coverage will be available in the future as the construction moves forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Line 5 Eglinton There is enough material to keep, but within the Line 5 Eglinton article, rather than its own article. Alternatively, parts of it can be mentioned in the Kodak Heights article as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Call for closure. This discussion was relisted almost two weeks ago. I thought the opinions offered, then, constituted a call for keep -- particularly since the delete opinions seemed to be opinions that I thought merited being discounted, because they weren't based on GNG, or were based on misinformation about the topic, or about the article. I think the opinions offered, since then, call, more strongly, for keep.
Is there really any reason why this discussion should be relisted?
Is there any reason why this discussion shouldn't be closed, as keep? Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's close this AfD already :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is merging is a disservice to readers?

Several respondents, above, have suggested this article should be merged. Note, however, they disagree on the merge target. Some respondents suggested merging to a more general article on TTC maintenance facilities; others suggested merging to Eglinton Crosstown, the $6 billion LRT routes whose vehicles it will service.

Either merge target erodes the freedom of some readers. Any reader who came to wikipedia with an interest in the TTC's maintenance facilities has their work impeded if we unnecessarily bury the material currently in this article into the article on the route. Similarly, any reader who is interested in the Crosstown line has their work impeded if we stuff the material into the article on maintenance facilities.

Doncram mentioned the technique of linking one article to another with a {{main}} template. Yes! Precisely! That is exactly what we should do! All the closely related articles should use a {{main}} template to link to this one.

Merge enthusiasts seem to overlook an important human factors issue. Traveling to information you think you might want to read, by clicking on a link, is much, much, more convenient, when one clicks on a link. When you click, and investigate what is at the other end of a link, it is trivial to return, by clicking the back button. However, when related articles are merged, this is no longer possible. One can scroll, and search by mark one eyeball, or one can use the browser's search function. And, once you got there, there is no good way to return. IMO, in most merge discussions, this is an overwhelmingly powerful argument not to merge.

THere are several other powerful reasons why merging properly referenced related articles, that each measure up to GNG, merely because they are related, is generally a really bad idea. Those other reasons not to merge apply to the idea of merging this particular properly referenced article, that measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 11 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Woman

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

I'm not sure if this falls under WP:ORG, WP:EVENT, or WP:NSPORT, but it doesn't appear to meet any of them. It's a motorsports organization that I can't find any reliable or notable mention of. There are just two sketchy references and nothing comes up on Google (except the Wiki page itself). Pianoman320 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now at least) I searched and found a couple of direct references in BBC [61], [62] and another in The Hindu [63] as well as another in The Guardian [64]. There is also coverage about the participants in the event [65], [66]. This seems to have been a significant event a decade ago. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lemongirl. Royal broil 03:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. E.g. per the above: [67], [68], [69]. Here's another source: The Scotsman. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 13 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humaninstitut

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

This page seems to fail numerous Wikipedia criterion first and foremost notability (WP:N), which makes it a deletion, not a change candidate, also reliable sources (WP:RS) and advertising (WP:SOAP).

All sizeable contributions (that are not only correction of grammar, typos, categorization etc) come from accounts (all but one unregistered IPs) that have only contributed to this page. Use of sockpuppets is likely. Apart from the soapboxing in the article itself, all four external links are to the institute dubbed company (!).

Of eight sources only one (Embassy of Tajikistan) is independent from the Humanistitut. The Link to the University of Vienna is directly to the thesis of Mr. Witzeling jun. The Embassy of Tajikistan has no information on the Humaninstitut itself, but only cites a study they published. The section "Media" also cites use of Humaninstitut's studies in mass media. I suspect this is to feign notability, like the upload of the letter of recommendation by Mr. Ekstein. Both are not encyclopaedic content.

Only two pages in the article namespace link to this article. One by an unregistered IP that contributed only to Humaninstitut and placed a link to a Humaninstitut study on the Vienna Opera Ball article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.104.153.224. It is not even embedded into the article but merely added under external links. The second seems to be legitimate wikification of, again, a cited study. This seems to point to another problem of Humaninstitut, showing how and why this Wikipedia page is used as a cover: Unlike stated in the article the main business of Humaninstitut seems to be providing free surveys to the media, that are heavily biased in favor of their clients. They have also been accused of pressuring entities to pay for favorable results (source: https://cms.falter.at/falter/2013/02/05/das-ist-zum-teil-telefonseelsorge/) They are neither members or certified by the professional association of pollsters in Austria VMÖ, or of international ESOMAR.

Finally there are no interwiki links, not even to de Wikipedia. But the Lemma has been deleted twice (!) from de Wikipedia for lacking notability and soapboxing. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/11._April_2007 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16._Mai_2007 Menschpædia (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are 1st party. Apart from failing notability there doesn't seem to be anything there of encyclopaedic content. Amortias (T)(C) 15:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to be notable, article is gigantic and obviously self-authored. Blythwood (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability and RS. Can't see what is particularly interesting about this organisation and the article fails to communicate basic encyclopedic information. Famous _dog (c) 08:43, 12 August 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GO!radiorock

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

Completely unsourced article, with some advertorial overtones, about an internet radio station. These are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA, and the article was created by an editor whose username matches the stage name of the station's creator -- which means this is a WP:COI. If there were reliable source coverage about it with which this could be properly neutralized and verified, then that would be one thing -- but absent that, it's not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 7 August 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koca Porsuk

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

The article is about a very old yew tree. There are multiple issues:

The name of the tree seems to be original research, coined by editor, unsupported by any source.
The age of the tree is not supported by a reliable scientific source. Many trees have unverified ages. I cannot find a primary source for the age, only newspaper accounts. Hence, tree may fail the notability criteria

—hike395 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name "Koca" means "old" in Turkish and monumental trees are named similairly. "porsuk" is the word for "yew" respectively. Name isn't coined by editor but people call those trees that way. Minister of forests in Turkey and academics mention the tree being the oldest. It's a relatively new discovery and notable indeed.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to merge to the page on yews - Taxus baccata. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not sure that "old yew" is a name for this tree so much as a description. It's awfully generic; I'd expect that a proper name for an individual tree would often include a geographical term for it's location (or a similarly distinctive term). It was recently discovered and the government is planning to add it to a nature reserve, which presumably may lead to it being given a name. No prejudice against recreating the article when the tree can be shown to have a name. It doesn't seem any less notable than much of what's in Category:Individual trees (not that we have any clear notability guidelines for individual trees). Finding coverage on this tree is tricky as most sources are unlikely to be in English; I'm sure there must be a reliable source for the age of the tree, but I don't have the Turkish fluency to find it. Strongly opposed to a merge to Taxus baccata. List of trees would be a more appropriate target if this were to be merged. Plantdrew (talk) 00:42, 10 August 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, after the relisting reasonable arguments were raised that the subject meets WP:BASIC, which were not contested. The discussion was already relisted so yet another relisting probably doesn't add anything - if the post-first relist arguments are contested it ideally should happen via another AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Lasansky

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

I still confirm my PROD regardless of whether the user was "unconvinced" as there's nothing at all suggestive of independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three GBooks results with the contents not entirely visible there, but one describes him as a "brilliant technician and obvious master of the complexities of various intaglio processes". Other coverage: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Let me remind you of your PROD rationale: "No exhibitions or collections, the listed sources are still not convincing of establishing convincing independent notability, searches and examinations have simply found nothing else better." You appear not to have found these sources (which include plenty 'better' as well as plenty of evidence of many exhibitions). Why is that? --Michig (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources. The publisher 4PeaksPress, which produced the book on Lasansky is Lasansky's own vanity press, existing solely to produce that book. See the address here for the publisher, and here for the artist himself: same address. The other sources (one other book in the article and the several mentioned above) are mostly not independent of the artist. Gallery publications by themselves cannot be reliable sources as they are published to promote an artist exhibiting at the gallery. Likewise, government listings are not WP:RS. The press coverage is extremely limited, with only a couple going beyond passing mention. In short, based on available sources, this fails notability requirements. I will remain neutral until I've done a bit more digging around. freshacconci talk to me 01:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Clearly failed WP:GNG and I couldn't find any evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my comments above, I cannot find anything that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. He's an artist who has exhibited his work. That does not make him notable. The most significant exhibition is the Smite Museum of Art, which is a university gallery. Not bad, but not significant by itself. The only third-party sources that go beyond a passing mention are local press. Again, not bad but by themselves do not approach the threshold required. freshacconci talk to me 19:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC on a weak level. The subject has received in-depth, significant coverage in two sources (The Aspen Times, South Bend Tribune), and coverage beyond passing mentions in the University of Notre Dame's Snite Museum of Art. For what it's worth, the subject is also mentioned at the Oxford Dictionary of American Art and Artists (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 13 August 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 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski

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

Do you think she is truly notable for a Wikipedia article? I feel that at the very least, many of the sources exaggerate her achievements. Uval123 (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Students are almost never notable, and this one is no exception. She hasn't got a single cite on GS (normally one looks for ~ 1000). Misguided article creation is no reflection on subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- @Xxanthippe: When I search author:s-Pasterski I see citation counts 67, 30, 18, 18, 6. Still too low for notability that way, but not zero. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is more detail on Inspire, but still not enough citations to pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- non notable PhD candidate. Sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- still very borderline: lot's of hype, but not a lot of substance. Inc.'s profile ("10 things...") is along the same lines: since when being offered a job is an accomplishment? Scientific American piece is an interview; if it were a bylined profile, I think it would have pushed me to "Keep". The coverage seems rather trivial at this point.

That said, the subject is much closer to passing GNG vs some of the articles I've seen closed as no consensus. See, for example, this frankly garbage article Lisa Tenner with zero substance and weak sources (version as closed). So it seems like closing as "no consensus" may be appropriate in this case... K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article is close to borderline, but over the edge toward keep. In the past year or two, she has had quite a few newspaper articles, and has received the Hertz Foundation fellowship, which would seem to meet Criteria 2 for academics. She has also been named a Lindau-Nobel Young Researcher some years back, which is an international organization teamed with Nobel Laureates, again leading towards Criteria 2. She has been featured in Forbes and Scientific American as well. Her CV still needs to grow, but I think she has passed the threshold for notability.-Pax Verbum 03:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think she doesn't pass WP:PROF (WP:TOOSOON, citations don't yet demonstrate impact, too difficult to untangle student accomplishments from their usually-more-notable advisor's, student awards don't usually count, etc). But there is a pretty good case for WP:GNG, especially for the Scientific American and Inc profiles (the Forbes one appears to be insufficiently in-depth, though). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) She's borderline on WP:ACADEMIC criterion 2, per Pax85, which seems to be the point being made by commenters questioning the importance of her achievements. Although @Xxanthippe: a paper she solely authored, and two she co-authored, have been cited by Steven Hawking, so that's at least three. But she easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO, per for example Chicago Tribune, Ozy, and News.com, and that's enough. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think WP:TOOSOON applies here as this person is still a PhD student. Blythwood (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is a PhD candidate. She may eventually be a notable physicist, but she is not such yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't need to be a notable physicist. She's a notable student, on the basis of her extraordinary research and engineering accomplishments, as attested by lots of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with FourViolas (talk) that she has enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet general notability requirements. She is not mentioned merely in passing in these articles, she is the primary subject of almost all of the cited sources. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is covered by the significant third party coverage (portrait articles in Scientific American, Chicago Tribune, Latin Times), she doesnt need to pass WP:ACADEMIC - though I think she does (prestigeous Awards).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She does not meet WP:PROF, but she meets GNG quite comfortably: see [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], and [85]. Vanamonde (talk) 18:06, 15 August 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 merge to List of Christian Brothers school alumni. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Brothers New Zealand school alumni

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

Just another list for the sake of a list that is only concernable to a small proportion of readers, a majority of edits are by the creator. The entire article only focuses on the alumni of a few schools each have their own Notable Alumni section and names could be merged into those articles. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I note that the creator of this article is a WP:SPA who started editing on 16 June 2016, 6 days after a similar SPA, Rick570 (talk · contribs) (see aslo Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rick570/Archive), was blocked. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I missed Rick570 getting blocked, and yes, this has all the hallmarks of his work. Schwede 66 10:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent list article that I had previously not been aware of. Schwede 66 17:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Christian Brothers school alumni (which seems to have been mainly edited by Rick anyway). Mattlore (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Christian Brothers school alumni, which will combine the content into one article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Christian Brothers school alumni.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding merges, my suggestion was to merge the alumnus names into each individual schools article. The parent article List of Christian Brothers school alumni is no different to this article, just fluff. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's no need fir a fork like this, It's of interest to nobody but its creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 11 August 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.

[1] "MUSEUM OF MODERN RENAISSANCE". mod-ren.com. Retrieved 24 July 2016.

[2] Drama. 147-154. British Theatre Association. 1983. p. 13. No one else in the theatre can make the daily experience of his miserable life pay in the way that a playwright can. Unlike Eamon Bo/and and Pip Donaghy in COMING CLEAN by Kevin Elyot directors, designers and actors, I have complete ...

[3] "Coming Clean". Retrieved 8 August 2016.

[4] "Theatre collections: record view". Retrieved 8 August 2016.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]