Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 August	19 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 Speedy delete per A7. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathought Consulting Group

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

No calim to any special notability and refs provide no evidence of notability other than that the company exists and has been involved in two presentations. Earlier PROD removed by IP editor presumably the author editing whilst logged out. Fails WP:GNG. Searches yield nothing of value Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing to be found through a search. Even the website carrying the name seems to belong to a different company. Only one of the citations in the article seemed to even mention Mathought and that one actually seemed to be a non-indexed part of the net. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No clear evidence of Notability, and very poorly sourced.Margalob (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I submitted it for speedy deletion under A7. In case that fails: Google has no hits other than the article itself, and the sources given with the article say nothing whatsoever about the company. Largoplazo (talk) 01:33, 19 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Culture Championship

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

An imaginary title created on a YouTube show treated as if it was actually a wrestling championship. "WhatCulture" does not have an article, nor does the WhatCulture Wrestling promotion (was AFD'ed) this should not exist. It fails notability big time, no sources, no coverage, nothing actually worthwhile. MPJ-DK 23:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like noted by nominator, neither the main company nor the channel have an article due to lack of notability. This championship has even less notability, having no coverage whatsoever. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nah mang keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.231.80 (talk)

00:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep The organisation should have an article as WhatCulture is a legitimate organisation. They run a highly successful website, as many as five YouTube channels (their wrestling channel is second only to WWE in subscribers) and own a successful wrestling company (WCPW). The belt is a significant part of the website, giving it notoriety, more so than many of the internet based rubbish on this site. User:AJW7X (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are the subject of this article, so "something else is notable" is not a good argument.14:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WhatCulture is currently the second most subscribed wrestling channel in YouTube behind World Wrestling Entertainment with ~850,000 subscribers, a legitimate wrestling promotion under their wing and also controlling more channels about Mixed Martial Arts, gaming, movies and more. If you don't personally know the company, that's why we have sites like Wikipedia. Strongly disagreeing with the nominator. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauROnmiKE (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are the subject of this article, so "something else is notable" is not a good argument.14:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually whoever watches the channel (max. 850.000 people), know about this thing, so it's very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauROnmiKE (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you should have no problems finding reliable independent sources providing significant coverage of this piece of cardboard right? Because that is what the article is missing right now. MPJ-DK 01:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is in WP:CSD#A7 territory. shoy (reactions) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transclude WhatCulture Wrestling is more notable than the fictional title, even the WhatCulture itself. So, the content of the championship title should be transcluded to a new article about WhatCulture or its Wrestling subsidiary (I know their Pro Wrestling company and Pro Wrestling news agency are seperate). Onur T 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the organisation is not deemed notable for a Wikipedia page, then neither should one of its pro-wrestling titles and even if there was, WP:NOTINHERITED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This almost falls under "Hoax" territory. Not notable, not mentioned anywhere, not close to being a keep. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:39, 30 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Csp soccer

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

Non notable sports team,. No independent refs. Previous PROD removed by article creator. Fails WP:GNG. School sports teams are very rarely notable and this is no exception Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to be found for this particular CSP. I found coverage of other CSPs however... Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, reads like an advertisement. DERPALERT^{[citation needed]} 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, little actual content, non-notable. Margalob (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school team. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:40, 26 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 Miss Kentucky USA. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alysha Harris

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

The question here is is Wikipedia a smutty tabloid, or is it an encyclopedia. Half the sources in this article consist of indepth analysis of pictures taken of Harris at a party, and debating if the dancing she was engaged in there was acceptable. If being Miss Kentucky USA was really a notable position, we would not have 3 of our 6 sources from one single "incident" at a single party. Harris does not pass notability guidelines. The previous discussion closed keep because it was thought that on close examionation some of the people would be found to be notable, but Harris is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA; valid search term and the subject is listed there. Cursory source searches (Gnews, Gsearch, Gbooks) are not providing significant coverage, and sources in the article are inadequate to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my position in the previous AfD. In my view, state winners of major beauty contests have presumed notability. AfD's aren't about article quality. If a state winner of a major beauty contest doesn't have significant media coverage, there's something wrong with the media. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, I think the part about Harris and Randy Moss should be deleted. It has no inherent or lasting notability, and in a very short article that is not likely to expand much beyond its present content, it indeed makes Wikipedia look like a "smutty tabloid", per JPL. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with other awards, only national winner have presumed notability DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have removed the section mentioned by Acdixon as a BLP violation. Per BLP policy, do not restore it without clear consensus. Even for semi-notable semi-public figures, we do not include that sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:ANYBIO#1, as Miss Kentucky USA is a well-known and significant award. The in-depth article from the Madison Courier includes the comment, "As Miss Kentucky USA, Harris will spend a year making personal appearances throughout the Commonwealth and will compete in the Miss USA pageant, which is nationally televised." The topic also satisfies WP:GNG. Both the Kentucky Senate and the Kentucky House passed resolutions honoring Alysha Harris for being crowned Miss Kentucky USA in Somerset on 6 January 2008, HR150 and SR149. As partially mentioned above, there are articles from Boston, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and Hollywood about the topic's dancing photographed at a Kentucky Derby party. This stock photo credited to the Lexington Herald Leader was taken at the Kentucky Derby. Harris's result was identified as a "success" here by a Kentucky government education committee. Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The resolutions and the minutes are primary documents and thus (I believe) cannot be used to establish a subject's notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:N nutshell, "...notable topics [are] those that have gained sufficiently significant attention..." This is 38 members of the Kentucky Senate, and 100 members of the Kentucky House, who have given attention to the topic. These two groups represent 4.4 million Kentuckians. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe that the resolution would be considered a secondary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. The event itself is not notable as there's no stand-alone article for the specific year that that subject competed in. A state-level win in a 2nd-tier (?) pageant does not meet ANYBIO1, and thus the subject is not presumed notable. The level of coverage does not rise to meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E says nothing about "the year spent making personal appearances throughout the Commonwealth", or that the topic "will compete in the Miss USA pageant, which is nationally televised." Nor does this "event" end after one year. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this !vote analyzes the alternatives to deletion, which is required to raise a notability argument to the level of WP:DEL8. Among other alternatives, consider that:

WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems states, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider...[m]erging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ""will compete in the Miss USA pageant, which is nationally televised" is not a notable achievement by the standard of Wikipedia, under ANYBIO1. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per the lede of WP:N, wp:notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." I'm ok with a merge being a recommendation of this AfD, but if no one volunteering, then IMO this article should remain as stand alone. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 23:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA - Not notable for an article however consensus is to always redirect these. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 25 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Adams

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

The subject relies totally on sporadic mentions in one magazine source from 1978. Hardly should be considered in-depth coverage and her accomplishments are not enough to overrule that point. ALongStay (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 18 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) 23:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My searches didn't find much to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no evidence she competed at a world championship or Olympics. None of the coverage qualifies as significant.Jakejr (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Editors please ignore CrazyAces489's sockpuppets.ALongStay (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pamela does not pass significant coverage or notability based on achievements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable judo competitor at the junior level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 20 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 WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Hadid

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

Not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: What do you mean by yet? Do you think he'll be notable in the future? If so then I accept the deletion nomination, and would like the page to be moved to the Draftspace please. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 18 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 Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Anderton

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

Delete: insufficiently notable individual. Serious COI issuesd; editor who created article called Andertonian. Quis separabit? 20:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit this page again if it means keeping it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andertonian (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG with no substantial coverage from in-depth, independent reliable sources. GAB^gab 23:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made a good faith search for independent reliable sources discussing Anderton and found nothing. The only source in the article is the book he illustrated, which is not independent so does not establish notability. Andertonian, we do not make deals like that and you should not be editing the article anyway due to your conflict of interest. If you want the article saved, then bring forth reliable sources. That is all that matters in this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is the research due? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andertonian (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andertonian, Articles for Deletion debates normally last one week, although they may be extended to two or three weeks if consensus is unclear. If the article is deleted from encyclopedia main space, then userfication is an option. The article could be turned into a draft for further work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ornithologist and illustrator. Johnpacklambert (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the book he has illustrated could be covered under point 3 of WP:NARTIST ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", the book does have a wikiarticle, but whether this is enough to warrant a standalone article for him? .. a few lines about him could be added to that article. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was not created by Andertonian. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:33, 28 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 arguments for deletion, i.e., lack of sourcing. Sandstein 15:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product registration

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

Unsourced essay. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Quis separabit? 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a poor-quality essay. Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. It's not so terrible as to be wrecked. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 23 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the greatest ski jumpers ever

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

An inherently WP:POV ("greatest ... ever") WP:NOT#FANSITE topic that consist solely of WP:SYNTH to conclude whomever the author of the article thinks is greatest. No indication of WP:LISTN either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even as an avid editor of ski jumping articles, I cannot lend my support to having one like this. No other sports have "list of greatest" articles, and there are already plenty of statistical lists on ski jumping/flying for readers to arrive at their own conclusions. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a WP:MADEUP ranking system. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources as to why they are the "greatest", this is definitely a violation of WP:NOT#OR. Margalob (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:OR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:48, 26 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 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon Air Flight 1860

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

Sad but fails WP:GNG, no consequences , changes to legislation or procedures etc.etc. Would fail WP:AIRCRASH if it was policy Petebutt (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of this being particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable 2607:FB90:768:B9D9:562B:487B:2E91:140E (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable aviation accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:08, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric Beust

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a software engineer, with no strong claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for software engineers and no reliable source coverage to support it -- except for one reliable source which simply namechecks his existence a single time in the process of failing to be about him, the sourcing here is otherwise parked entirely on user-generated discussion forums and blogs. This was created as a draft by an anonymous IP, and then "accepted" one week later by a newly registered user (who's probably the original IP) without ever actually being submitted for consideration by AFC reviewers -- but new users aren't allowed to game the AFC process this way. I don't see strong grounds for restoring this to draftspace, either, as I don't see any credible claim of potential notability or any strong sourcing out there. It should also be noted that all of this happened just a couple of weeks after an earlier version was prodded for not having a strong claim of notability or any better sourcing than this, and the earlier version was (a) generally almost identical to this, and (b) created by User:Cedricbeust and thus verifiably a conflict of interest. (COI is still probable this time as well, given the near-identicality of the new version, but is not as definitively provable because of the different username involved.) The only reason I'm not speedying this outright is because G4 requires the first deletion to have been via discussion and not prod. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software engineer. jon (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - we can't mess around with BLPs like this - for recreation when something half-decent is offered - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristín A. Árnadóttir

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

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability of ambassadors. Only a primary source provided. Secondly no significant coverage about her as the subject LibStar (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article now has several sources. While ambassadors might normally not meet GNG solely for being ambassadors, this one is pretty interesting for the different posts she's held and having to represent Iceland in multiple nations. Sources such as this and this appear significant. Montanabw^(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather easily passes GNG. As well as the above, here, for example and other pretty substantial coverage. Thincat (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think i'm more or less done improving the article. There's probably a number of more sources I could find if I looked, but I think it's good enough for now. The sources I found, many of which are from before her ambassadorship even, clearly are significant coverage and pass the GNG. Silver seren^C 21:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. You've turned it into a worthwhile article about someone it's worth having an article about. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 19 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Henry Robinson

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

Non-notable person. The Google Books reference says nothing about this person. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to be found other than vague family records. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and there is hardly any proof this person exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audi1merc2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No need for an article on the sparsely documented cofounder of a small town. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications or notability and I cannot find any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- On the first AFD, I commented that founding a town might make a person notable, but there are 1000s of settled places in the Midwest, which must each have one or more founders. On reflection, I now say NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 21 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Staff Service Medal

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Unreferenced since October 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think this is a record-breaker of Longest Time to not be referenced by any sources, wow Audi1merc2 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~if any sources at all can be found to confirm its existence, although it seems unlikely it's a hoax~~. We have articles on pretty much every other medal ever awarded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officially established medal of South Vietnam during the era of the Vietnam War. Appears in every awards regulation manual I have ever seen detailing foreign awards authorized to United States military service medals [1] as it was in the top ten Vietnam service medals awarded to US military members. Google alone has 186,000 page hits and several hundred image hits [2]. -O.R.^Comms 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough to meet the guidelines, but REALLY needs some WP:RS sources to support the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 19 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PsyShark

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

Quite not notable label. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Record label is not covered in reliable sources and doesn't meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator and Meatsgains. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just mostly a list of music. Audi1merc2 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see the links in Discogs.com , thedjlist.com , beatport.com and more. 5.28.161.109 (talk) 15:22, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petrosoft

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

Clearly promotional article. No evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Of the three sources, two are press releases and one does not mention the subject or verify the claim it's cited to. Has not improved in any of these regards since its creation in 2013. News coverage appears to be press releases, including apparent RSes. I'm willing to be convinced, but ... David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article comprising mainly of product feature lists. The given references do not meet WP:RS and my searches are locating nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with many specialized technology companies, this one just seems to have no been covered in Reliable Sources at all. Their press page is all Self authored and press releases, and page ater page of web results are all directory listings and job postings. Another company that feels like it could be notable but doesn't appear to meet the tests. BoyRD (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. shoy (reactions) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:47, 25 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 Walla!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walla!shops

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

promotional article abouta non-noable company. Of the 4 refs, 1. is a general article,2. is another general article, just mentioning the company , 3 is a directory listing, and 4 is a general article about a meeting where the CEo gave one of the many speeches. I can find nothing much better. DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, COREDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walla! -- not independently notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's still nothing to amount for any independent notability and thus can be deleted as such. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walla!; mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer39

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

Clearly promotional. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP - most sources are primary (or fail verification), there's one interview with the founder and some stuff on their venture funding, but material on the company itself is basically absent. Google News is wall-to-wall press releases nobody bit on. It's been merged into another company since, and even that merger only shows up in press releases that no third-party source seems to have considered worth running. Passed AFD in 2008 with the aid of some single-issue opinions, I submit it doesn't pass muster in 2016 - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough WP:RS to pass WP:NCORP. shoy (reactions) 19:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR by all means, none of this comes close at all for actual substance. The consensus at the 1st AfD simply shows how different and necessarily critical Wikipedia is now. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage is either trivial or PR-like. Insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Nixo Efthimiou

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Nothing notable about this individual. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable since he has played in a full professional league & won 2 championships. Cr71946 (talk)11:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Cr71946 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck !vote by blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep This article is about an American Soccer Player who also played for the US National national team in the United States national futsal team in Brazil in 1998, that is quite a history.^[1]~~ Struck !vote by blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although his career evolved at the time when there were not much media coverage, He is adequately mentioned in newspaper publication ^[2], he is mentioned on his club official website as well ^[3] and other archive articles for ESPN ^[4].

He also runs an appearal company called "Never Say Never" (NSN) company sponsored the practice jersies in the 1998 season for Dallas Sidekicks FC.

Other of his team mates which I won't want to mention their names, have their pages online with even no references. That is not an exaggeration.

This was created as a STUB, with room for improvement, I don't see why this should be a speedy deletion. This is an article that solely passes information about a Soccer player, who also played for the USA national team. I believe this is worth keeping.Vienolly (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - subject may be mentioned, but there is nothing significant about that coverage. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. COmments above voting keep are misguided, this individual has not played in a fully professional league and NFOOTY does not consider futsal players, these must be shown to pass wider GNG. Sources noted above are either primary sources or are passing mentions in articles not focussed on this player. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many of the references are local articles or mere notices, or lists. The first step is tto move it to Draaft space and rewrite it without the fluff. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about an American Soccer Player that played for his country and that is always notable. How can playing and representing your country not be notable. Sure it needs a little editing but as far as notability, he is very notable. Opera woman (Talk) 5:02,August 18,2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.67.195 (talk)
- — 4.14.67.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion appears to still be ongoing... J04n(talk page) 13:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:NFOOTY. He did play for a national team, however futsal is not considered for this area. While I am a huge fan of indoor soccer, he just doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league or in an international match (no, five-a-side doesn't count).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been edited and please check your research & read this again because he IS notable because not only did he win the 1993 C.I.S.L. Continental Indoor Soccer League championship with the Dallas Sidekicks,which has a page on Wikipedia clearly stating it was a professional league. As far the US National Team (Team USA,the same),it is very very notable making any US National Team which means you were selected as the best in our country among 350 million people. With all do respect please do your research before posting delete. Please read the C.I.S.L. page on Wikipedia about what it says about the Continental indoor soccer league being a professional league. . Mollyhighpoint (Talk) 3:03,August 20,2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyhighpoint (talk • contribs)
- — Mollyhighpoint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Above vote was made by confirmed sockpuppet of page creater --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain how he played for FC Dallas in 1990/1991? Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He DOES meet NFOOTY and NCOLLATH. He is notable 2 times over. He played professional soccer in the C.S.L. Continental Indoor Soccer League Efthimiou has had a book published on about him.^[5]^[6] . Miaham1987 (Talk) 11:09,August 20,2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaham1987 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- — Miaham1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Above vote was made by confirmed sockpuppet of page creater --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answer It isn't the same Dallas F.C. of the MISL. This F.C. Dallas is not the same team. This F.C. Dallas was another team almost 25 years and the league the Lone Star Soccer Alliance,go there and check out the championships won by all teams in the Lone Star Soccer Alliance and you will see it there 1991 Champions. Hope that I answered your question. Thanks.^[7](talk) 11:24, 20 August —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - okay, I've fixed linking errors in article. And added some other links. BTW, don't reference Wikipedia articles - just link them. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "U.S. Futsal squad heads to Brazilian tournament". Archive: Associated Press Sports.
^ "The Cavalier Daily". Google News Archive Search.
^ "Dallas Sidekicks Player Register". Archive: ESPN.
^ "Never Say Never, Small". Archive: ESPN.
^ https://books.google.com/books/about/Nick_Efthimiou.html?id=hHiTtwAACAAJ
^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/nick-efthimiou-evander-luther/1108203604
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Star_Soccer_Alliance

Keep - ignoring all the issues in this article, MISL was always considered a fully-professional league. This player has played for a main-stream, well publicized, international fully-professional sports league (they had major main-stream media coverage in the day - for those old enough to remember). Everyone's time would be better spent improving the clearly problematic article than trying to delete it. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:FPL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list no longer covers any indoor soccer leagues. When it did, it was listed, and the discusion (see the talk) does confirm it's fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't now, so you can't use it as a keep rationale, you need to show wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was deleted twice before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicos Efthimiou and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Efthimiou, and the same rationales still apply, not to mention that fact that it was created in evasion of a block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The point raised by Sir Sputnik is a very important one. It is important that the correct process is followed and, in this case, it really hasn't been followed at all. Most importantly, the player still does not meet the criteria nor did he before. Spiderone 10:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:FPL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list no longer covers any indoor soccer leagues. When it did, it was listed, and the discusion (see the talk) does confirm it's fully professional.

Keep - It needs to be written again properly but he does meet WP:FPL, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL,because he played for and won a Continental Indoor Soccer League championship in 1993 which clearly states it was a professional soccer league right here on Wikipedia under Continental Indoor Soccer League. It also meets WP:FPL. because it also states here on Wikipedia that the article has missing lists and needs some more sources which the Continental Indoor Soccer League is and has. (209.180.146.203 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

— 209.180.146.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. No evidence for the subject having played in a fully professional soccer/football league, or for his meeting the general notability criteria. This is the umpteenth recreation of an article on this person by a succession of sockpuppets: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vienolly and the related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccerumors/Archive. We shouldn't be wasting time here that could be spent on improving the encyclopedia. Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Rockmore

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

Porn actor that fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The subject lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. The actor won a minor award and a PROD was contested on that basis. References to a Grabby Award are misleading. A film he was in won a Best Screenplay award. Notability is not inherited by the performers. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's cogent analysis and the logic of my original PROD. Winning a non-notable award from a non-notable magazine is not an indicator of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom is mistaken. The subject lacks any coverage by reliable sources. Except for his having won an award, the article says nothing about its subject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indication of notability nor reliable sources. WP:A7 territory. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable award wins - Fails PORNBIO. Finnegas (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 21 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. A1 ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFosSpeed

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

Unremarkable computer program. Previously deleted by PROD, while my CSD tagging was declined by Espresso Addict Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:36, 18 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. Press releases by a company generally don't add to notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkholiday

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

This article is based primarily on press releases seeded by the firm (aka churnalism). None of the sources represents any independent overview of the subject itself. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article subject satisfies WP:ORGIN i.e. the organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Further, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Disclosure: article creator. Daicaregos (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support this. The sources are merely press releases. Incidentally, can you explain why I've found a few articles you wrote which have subsequently been puffed up by an easily identifiable individual who is the PR for the subjects? That's a bizarre coincidence. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I approached the PR to ask if they would provide a copyright-free image for Joe Calzaghe, which they did. I subesquently found some companies on their site who looked interesting (and notable) and created articles on them. Seems the PR decided to 'improve' the articles. Daicaregos (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references is an interview. Daicaregos (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Trivial and promotional.TheOverflow (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If this is kept it'll get culled to a stub on sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Morton's - the medical helpline

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

This article has referenciness but when you look into it the supposed references are just namechecks taken from a single piece of churnalism that was picked up by a few outlets. None of the sources are actually about this subject at all. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginally notable subject. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article subject satisfies WP:ORGIN i.e. the organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Further, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Disclosure: article creator. Daicaregos (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support that claim. They are simply churnalism, and none of them is about the subject (only namechecks). A namecheck is not "significant". Guy (Help!) 09:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability is at best trivial. Agree with the churnalism comment above. TheOverflow (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if more sources come up. Interesting initiative, but not notable on current information. May be too soon, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 23:00, 22 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ira A. Lipman

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I would usually prod this, but the creator (who also stated he has no COI/PAID connections) is active and disagrees with me on notability, so I am taking this for a wider discussion here. This biograpny has zero depth source. The sources present mention the subject in passing (as, for example, does the NYT obituary of his father, which simply mentions he had a son), and a number are related to the subject by virtue of his work (so can be seen as self-published, since such sources are usually based on information written by the subject himself or by someone on their staff). Endowing an award or an educational or another institution is not sufficient to be encyclopedic (it does not match any WP:BIO criteria), and related COI and clearly not independent coverage like [3] is of dubious reliability. If the subject had significant impact on the society, they should be discussed in proper, reliable, and in-depth sources, which are not present here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus: You are literally stalking me, going through my contributions, and harassing me by nominating my referenced articles for AFD. This is becoming extremely unpleasant. If you look at the history, you'll notice that this article was "in use" and I wasn't done yet. Please STOP!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus: I have significantly expanded the article. Would you like to withdraw this AFD?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Lipman has hired 17,000 people in 130 locations in the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Canada. The Memphis University reference is for his wife; notice that I didn't create an article about her, but about him. Also, Newspapers.com has 259 matches about him. I just haven't had time to go through all of them yet.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: a quick Google search suggests this person is likely notable; having a chair named for him is a good indication of this. The article is on the fluffy side--any time there's more on board memberships and stuff than on someone's career, that means there's room for improvement. ZigZig, this nomination is not harassment, though Piotr, your additional commentary is useless in this AfD--if you got a complaint you should take that elsewhere. By the same token, ZigZig, you wrote 3400 articles so you can expect a nomination or two, maybe more. Also, holy moly, 3,400 article: good work! Drmies (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies: It was "in use" because I wasn't done, but someone removed the tag and then Piotr decided to target some of my recent creations, instead of doing the right thing by expanding them. I think he is trying to discourage us from editing Wikipedia. I certainly don't feel like editing right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies: What do you think now?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: I still don't see what makes him notable (employing few thousand people is not anywhere on WP:BIO that I can see). He is a relatively rich and influential person who every few years gets a mention in (usually local) newspaper, in passing, due to his business of philanthropic activities. He also published some articles, a book, is involved with several think tanks - enough to get few hundred Google/GNews hits, but I'll ask once again: which part of WP:BIO is he meeting? User:Drmies, see also WP:GHITS/WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I will also commend Zizzig - not only for thousands of articles, vast majority of which are clearly encyclopedic - but for being able to write consistent biography using so many in passing sources. Reading and synthesizing them requires skill. However, the fact that we one can create a biography does not mean one should. The subject needs to be notable and I think I will repeat myself that so far this has not been shown. PS. Playing devils' advocate against myself, I will of course acknowledge WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Thanks to Zigzig20s efforts, we do have plenty of multiple independent sources with no in-depth coverage. The gist is that the coverage has to be non-trivial: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial." The sources I see seem to be, however, in the vain of ("John Smith at Big Company said...") or do not seem independent (again, a biographical note related to his donation or work is almost certainly written by him or his staff). Can we find sources that are either in-depth, or at least non-trivial, semi-in-depth and independent? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as a prominent businessman and philanthropist. We live in a capitalist world. Money talks. His company was responsible for the security of 20 airports, had 17,000 employees on its payroll, merged with the largest security company in the US (of which he served as vice chairman). Perhaps you don't like the history of business, but that all makes him notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against businesspeople, except that they have to meet our policies. Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not contain any special provisions for businesspeople, and I as still waiting for someone to point out how he meets BIO. I did explain in detail why he has difficulty meeting that policy, and all I hear back is WP:HEISIMPORTANT, which is NOT a valid argument here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: This is not a comment that meets our WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies. I'll kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR it voluntarily. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Striking out a comment that is no longer relevant due to refactoring of the discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to play a boring game, he meets 1 and 2 of these. The award is the "Stanley C. Pace Leadership in Ethics Award from the Ethics Research Center". The historical record, taken from countless third-party sources, shows he's been at it for over four decades.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". More than 30 references. His 1975 book has been widely reviewed; I could add more reviews if you insist. But there's also a Washington Post article solely about him.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert: The third-party sources appear to disagree with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert: He also influenced a bill in Congress.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig, I appreciate the work you've done. But much of that coverage, even if I can't fully see it because it's behind a paywall, I can see that it's local, and local means minor. As for your comments above, about the items 1 and 2 of the notability guideline, that award appears not to be a notable award, and the depth and length of the record is precisely what we're arguing over. I agree with Piotrus that it's not enough for an independent biography, but the Washington Post article, for instance, which surely discusses him even if the article itself is really about the company, will help establish a decent if short biography in the Guardsmark article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an agreement with Newspapers.com and we are encouraged to use it for citations. You can ask for a free account. Your aversion towards local press sounds like snobbery. We may merge Guardsmark with his article actually, but we should definitely keep him, given not only the extent of media coverage, but also his role in the security industry, his influence on the bill in Congress, his role at the Council on Foreign Relations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies: He's been called a "pioneer" by The New York Times.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His work has also been cited by the United States Department of Justice's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the just recently posted commentary above, User:Zigzig20s has linked to Wikipedia articles and not articles or content from the New York Times, USDOJ, LEAA, and U.S. HJSCTHS. This gives the impression that he or she has just posted sources which he or she has not. He or she has merely posted links to other Wikipedia articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aversion to local papers is not "snobbery". It is born of impact analysis. One of the places I know where our guidelines 100% discourage local paper use is in the academic notability criteria "cited as an expert in the press." If the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post turns to a economist at Wayne State University to give key expert commentary in an article, it is probably a sign he is the top expert in the field. If the Detroit News turns to the same expert, it just shows that he is the most available expert to the reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you appear not to understand how our agreement with Newspapers.com works. They mostly have articles from local newspapers, which contain lots of useful information and good reliable third-party sources for us. The New York Times keeps most of their articles under a paywall, and we don't have an agreement with them. Anyway, I have added a couple of articles from the Times that I found on google. He's a "pioneer", cited in official documents by the government.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His role as "pioneer" meets "Additional criteria, 2"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The field is security.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. I think that the enormous amount of additional content that Zigzig20s has added since votes were originally cast shows that WP:GNG is easily met. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the account coordinator for the Wikipedia Library's partnership with Newspapers.com, which aggregates many of the sources cited in the article, I suggest that objectors visit the project page. The introduction states "It is particularly suited for Wikipedia content about the 18th, 19th and the first 3⁄4 of the 20th century in the United States and global topics affecting the United States. The collection includes some major newspapers for limited periods (i.e., 50 years of the New York Times), but mostly consists of regional papers from the 1700s onward. Very few titles go beyond the late 1980s." Far from being "behind a paywall" articles become freely available when clipped and added to citations. HazelAB (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't see how that is an argument for keeping the article. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Drmies - that is not a relevant argument for keep during an AfD - it is way off topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New York Daily News article is in-depth coverage of the person. Some of the remaining 37 (!) refs push him easily over the WP:GNG. On top of that he's important. He's not just a D-list reality-show actor or something. That matters, some. There are better ways to improve the Wikipedia than deleting articles with 38 refs. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every citation here supports the subject's notability, but enough sources do to establish the subject as a notable businessman and expert on security,and perhaps a notable philanthropist as well. The Washington Post article has extensive content about Lipman, not just his company. [4] Objections to the newspapers.com sources as "local" are misplaced, especially to the extent that we are talking about reprints of articles from national sources or syndicates such as the Associated Press [5], United Press International [6], The Christian Science Monitor[7], or Parade [8]: these are cited to papers that happen to be included in the free use licenses at newspapers.com, but they are by no means products of "local" reporting. (To reduce misunderstanding, it would be desirable to include the names of the original syndicator or other source in the footnotes for these articles.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links posted above by User:Arxiloxos are wiki links - they link to Wikipedia articles and not to newspaper sources. It may give the appearance of adding sources or references, but it is only appearance, not actual sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Not Wikilinks.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. User:Arxiloxos - I apologize. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 23 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 as I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OConnect

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. This article is even worse then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSell by the same creator I just AfD a minute ago - here, all sources seem self-published or are press releases. I don't see what makes this company pass the notability criteria. Considering that this type of an article is usually created by a paid-for editor, I'd also like to ask its creator User:Rzafar if s/he would like to update his/her statement at User:Rzafar#Volunteer.2Fhired_Content about not having done any paid for articles? That statement is from June 2016 and this article suggest this may no longer be true. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted under G11 Someone tagged it, I concur - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Booth Brewing Co.

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

I haven't been able to find evidence of notability, the BBC source has brief mention about a pub The Booth Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One passing mention in a BBC news report for the pub, "The Booth." Lacks the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP. Article is promotional in tone and the work of a single purpose account. At best, it's too early to know if this business will become notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I remember reading the original TE piece on this, but this microbrewery/bar, started by the journalist, sadly is not encyclopedic. WP:NOTADVERTISING, etc. I'd encourage the creator to instead consider writing an article about History of beer in Korea or such, where they could probably mention TE article, and maybe even this bar/microbrewery (in a sentence or two) if they can word it and source it well enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being courteous I'd say WP:TOOSOON. I found some blog-type post [9] and some Korean websites of some sort mentioning an album collaboration [10], [11] and [12]. However those websites don't seem to be that notable. All in all there doesn't seem to be enough coverage focusing on Booth Brewing, yet. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the company is unlikely to be notable at this time given the lack of sufficient sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 25 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 2016–17 Calcutta Premier Division. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Calcutta Football League Premier Division

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

The page is a duplicate entry for the page 2016-17 Calcutta Premier Division Ramit.mukherjee.1994 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per be bold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect 2016-17 Calcutta Premier Division to this page: The official name of the league is the Calcutta Football League Premier Division, not the Calcutta Premier Division. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect the other article here I think the editor above is right and the title should be "2016–17 Calcutta Football League Premier Division" instead of "2016–17 Calcutta Premier Division". However the article for 2016–17 Calcutta Premier Division is many tiers better and our article should be replaced (copypasted over) by its contents. So we should keep the current name, redirect the other article here and paste that article's source over our article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Redirect to 2016–17 Calcutta Premier Division. After a lot of research, I've discovered that they're popularly called just Calcutta Premier Division, as CFL is misunderstood to mean Canadian Football League and Calcutta FL probably wants to develop a unique brand. I also researched other premier leagues and discovered that it's indeed the standard to just be called the premier division of your city/country instead of having the "Football League" alongside in the title even if that were the full and proper name. One notable one I found to still carry the Football League in its title was Belize, but even that ended after a merger: Premier League of Belize. This means that as long as there is competition the singular "Premier Division of X" isn't used, but if there is no competition it's used. In Calcutta there doesn't seem to be competition. Here are some other examples: Kabul Premier League, Welsh Premier League, Lebanese Premier League, Maltese Premier League, Brunei Premier League, Bahraini Premier League, Kuwaiti Premier League, Scottish Premier Division, Antigua and Barbuda Premier Division, Indonesian Premier Division, Gibraltar Premier Division and Bermudian Premier Division because I got tired. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 18 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. This was a tough one to close, and I expect this will be a contentious decision.

Numerically, this is very close. But, I find the arguments on the delete side to be much stronger. The major proponent of keeping is the article's creator and main contributor. More to the point, the arguments seen to center around how much money he has and that he's got a school named after him. I don't find those arguments convincing as I reviewed our major policy statements (WP:N, WP:GNG, etc). The best arguments show good sources. In this case, that's an article in the LA Times (which certainly is a major, reliable, newspaper) but other participants rejected that article as a good source. There were a large number of other sources identified, but other discussants didn't agree on the quality.

As a somewhat administrative note, I should mention that this AfD was very hard to read, largely due to Zigzig20s's combative style. Just make your points and move on. It's not useful to respond to every single statement, and mostly it just makes life hard on whoever has to read it all when it comes time to close the discussion. Looking at your contribution history, I see that you make 100's of edits per day, and spend many hours editing. That's great (really, we need more people with your level of dedication to the project), but please understand that sheer volume of text isn't what counts in an AfD. And please don't confuse editorial review with harassment.

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Greif

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources are poor here - an article by the subject, a business listing, a press release for his donation to a university, a paragraph in a university alumni page (likely written by the subject or his staff member), and finally, the best source - an "article" in LA Times ([13]). I say article, because this is not really journalism, half of this are quotes from the subject, and the other half might as well be based on them or written by the subject's staff. This is no investigative or any serious journalism; this is no better then a non-critical interview, and as such IMHO fails to to be a reliable source - since we accept newspaper articles when we can trust that the journalists are doing some critical analysis. This article is nothing like this, and this entire bio seems to be a promotional piece. One that note, I'd ask the creator, User:Zigzig20s (who seems to be habitually writing such pieces [14]) if he has any WP:COI to disclose (particularly in light of WP:PAID). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I am gobsmacked. No, I don't have a COI. He is the namesake of a research center at a top business school and his investment bank has done billion dollar deals.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is an indicator of notability. He is rich, he bought himself a university department - but being rich or charitable does not feature at WP:BIO. His bank is big? Good for him. Notable? Wouldn't matter, because notability is not inherited, so all I hear is WP:ITSIMPORTANT and that's not a valid reason to keep this. Which criteria of WP:BIO does he meet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you please stop harassing me by tagging my recent contributions? It is creeping me out.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's not about wealth necessarily. It's about his impact on scholarship (philanthropy) and the economy (his investment bank).Zigzig20s (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overuse the word harassing. I am reviewing your contributions, yes, since we need to avoid WP:SPAM here, and as I said, many of your articles look like biographies of people who can afford a PR service, and who might not otherwise have an article. Through of course if you say you create them in good faith, that's good enough for me - as far as your motives. I asked you whether you were a PAID editor, you say no, case closed. However, one's motives don't really matter for AfD, what matters is whether one's articles pass WP:N and such, and this is a problem here (and I strongly encourage you think about it more when creating your future articles). Back on subject, i.e. this article. If his impact is significant, you should be able to show sources for that. Like articles or books about him. Now, how about we look at those? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going through my contributions and nominating perfectly well referenced articles for AFD, after you've accused me of getting paid for my editing (which I've never done). This is very disruptive behaviour. You are doing this to other editors as well. Please stop. The constructive thing to do would be to add more content to articles, not try to get them deleted.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus says he accepts that you are not a paid or COI editor. Can you, Zigzig20s, accept that WP:N has stricter requirements than you seem to think it does – that you at least should review it carefully, and perhaps review previous AfDs on articles in the same categories, to get a more solid handle on what is needed? Piotrus can you please refrain from making WP:PAID insinuations when raising potential WP:COI concerns is sufficient? It would come off as better assumptive of good faith. Piotrus's AfD nominations see to be following WP:BEFORE, and on the other hand Zigzig20s is not writing articles about blatant trivia like the manager of the local diner, so some minor adjustment is probably all that's needed. PS: It is often the case that someone probably "should" have an article because of the impact they really have, but cannot yet due to lack of really solid sourcing. This is just a waiting game. I have several draft articles like this "on ice" in my userspace, and pretty soon I'm going to nominate a mainspace bio for deletion because in several years it has not even slightly improved since it narrowly survived AfD as "no consensus". So it goes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - additional sources found: Lloyd Greif Elected As Los Angeles Police Foundation Chair, HuffPo, Rep-Am, Billboard. Tons of mentions in articles found on HighBeam.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That Highbeam link goes to a press release by the USC Marshall School of Business; that's not a secondary source, though it may help indicate notability. The Republican-American article (I can only see the first two paragraphs) appears to be somewhat substantial. The HuffPo link is nothing: it's a promotional piece of bio fluff placed there because the man contributed two articles to HuffPo. Finally, the Billboard article indicates that Greif is someone who was asked at least once for his opinion in a business deal he was involved with; it confirms he runs Greif & Co, but does not contain the kind of in-depth discussion that we like to see to prove notability. The Rep-Am and Billboard articles certainly strengthen the case, but not to the point where I think the GNG is met. And let's note that the original article only contained one single secondary source that adds to notability. In all, I'm inclined to delete. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies: I'm sure I could find more on Newspapers.com. I would hope that when I create articles, we work together to expand them, not delete them...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course but that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: Those are not very good sources, see my and Steve Quinn's analysis of them below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't mind seeing revisions to make this read less like a resume, but in the real world of investment banking, Greif actually is an important and well-known figure, and frequently cited for his own work or as an authority on others' big deals (a few examples: [15][16][17][18]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: He is cited, yes, but that's coverage in passing. He is a relatively rich and influential businessperson, who is clearly asked for comment by journalists or trade magazine writers in his area every now and then. Having been mentioned in passing in a number of sources does not make one automatically notable. I will repeat what I said at a related AfD: "Playing devils' advocate against myself, I will of course acknowledge WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Thanks to Zigzig20s efforts, we do have plenty of multiple independent sources with no in-depth coverage. The gist is that the coverage has to be non-trivial: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial." The sources I see seem to be, however, in the vain of ("John Smith at Big Company said...") or do not seem independent (again, a biographical note related to his donation or work is almost certainly written by him or his staff). Can we find sources that are either in-depth, or at least non-trivial, semi-in-depth and independent?". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is ridiculous. Almost no one has a 200-page biography written about them. If you were to apply this criteria to all Wikipedia articles, we'd have almost no article left. Greif is clearly notable as a businessmen (making billion dollar deals) and philanthropy (hundreds of thousands of people who come across the research center will want to look him up on Wikipedia). Being rich is more than OK in our capitalist world, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see "200 biographies"? I see 200 mentions in passing. Having been mentioned in a newspaper or a news website or a business directory, etc. is NOT a biography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: This is not a comment that meets our WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies. I'll kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR it voluntarily. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Striking out a comment that is no longer relevant due to refactoring of the discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being rich is more than OK in our capitalist world, by the way.

Why do you say that? I haven't seen anyone here make an assertion to the contrary. And the ethics of wealth or of capitalism hardly seems germane to this discussion. Graham (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piortus wrote earlier, "He is rich, he bought himself a university department", etc. Misplaced sarcasm. I think we can learn a lot from someone like Greif. The mergers are extremely interesting, on top of having a huge impact on the economy. It could be that you guys are not interested in Business history?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken Piotrus's comment out of context – include the full sentence.

He is rich, he bought himself a university department - but being rich or charitable does not feature at WP:BIO.

That had nothing to do with the ethics of wealth.

It could be that you guys are not interested in Business history?

While my level of interest in the field is irrelevant, I don't know what would give you that idea, especially as I haven't argued for the article's deletion (I'm still on the fence, to be honest). Graham (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent coverage in reliable sources is surely lacking and the analysis of the sources by the nominator is accurate, as far as I am concerned. The High Beam article is a press release, the Huntington Post biography piece is promotional probably written by PR staff or a firm, Rep-am is a copy of this same biography elsewhere - so, this is simply a press release that probably makes the rounds, and Billboard is trivial mention of his advice and is not significant coverage of this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Quinn: What about his billion-dollar deals and the fact that many people coming across USC will want to know who he is because of the research center? I feel we have a responsibility to let people know!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:BIO talks about an individual who has billion-dollar deals being notable? As for the rest, please see why WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking to you. I am well aware of your deletion frenzy. We may need to create notability guidelines for businesspeople, by the way. Our policies are only guidelines; we are not robots; we also use common sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional criteria, 1 (award) "commendation from the City of Los Angeles" in 1997 and 2002.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1, which you reference, is as follows:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

Would these commendations qualify as both well-known and significant? I've never heard of them, but I googled it, and it appears to be the kind of certificate an organization is given by the city for such things as this:

In recognition of generosity and public spiritedness which they have continually demonstrated by allowing The City of Los Angeles to use their excellent book, titled "How To Run A Car wash Fundraiser," in it's Public Outreach Program as part of the city's efforts to educate the citizenry on storm water Best Management Practices which can allow this popular activity to continue occurring without contributing to ocean pollution.

I'm skeptical that it could be either well-known or significant, never mind both. Do you have any further information about Greif (or his firm) receiving this award? Graham (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could find more references on Newspapers.com. The problem is I did this with the other article you nominated, and you're still not happy. I don't want to spend hours and hours doing the additional research if you keep finding other excuses to delete my work. You certainly are doing a good job of discouraging me from editing Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what you're referring. I haven't nominated any other article that you wrote (that I know of anyway, though I don't think I've sent any articles written by anyone to AfD recently). And I don't know what you mean by

I don't want to spend hours and hours doing the additional research if you keep finding other excuses to delete my work

either. I haven't made any broader arguments about the notability of this article yet. All I've done is suggested that your claim to meet criterion 1 seems weak at best. Do you have me confused with someone else? Graham (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, I thought you were Priotus. As I said, I feel harassed and discouraged by this whole thing. But the sentiment is the same, if I spend hours looking for more sources and my work gets deleted, there is no point. We might as well give up on Wikipedia. Why don't you try to be constructive by looking for more sources and improving the article? This is what gets me. This seems extremely counter-productive--a total waste of time and energy.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that, for the sake of comparison, I believe there's a precedent that being appointed as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire isn't significant enough to meet criterion 1. So I'm doubtful that this car wash award is more significant. Graham (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if it was the only thing he did. The bottom line is he's had a huge impact on the economy with his mergers.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely addressing criterion 1 (which you said this article met) and economic impact plays no role in assessing whether that criterion is met. I wasn't referring to whether an OBE could be notable, I was referring to whether an OBE was notable pursuant to criterion 1 on the basis of his or her appointment to the order. So I think that we're in agreement now that criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO has not been met. Graham (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not actually. I believe it is a significant award. Try getting a commendation from the City of LA. I don't have one. He has two.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I try to get myself a commendation from the City of Los Angeles (do they give them to Canadians? I guess we'll soon find out), can you tell me what a commendation from the City of Los Angeles is? If the award is indeed "well-known" and "significant" (as it is for, eg, an Oscar or a knighthood, two awards that have been deemed to meet criterion 1), I imagine that information would be easily accessible. Graham (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has the definition. You wanted an award. I gave you two.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. But we both know that I did not ask for (and have no desire to read) a definition of the word "commendation". What I am wanting to know is more things like: to whom do they give the award (and not specific examples like this guy and a random car wash, but rather what kind of people is the award intended for); what criteria are used in assessing potential awardees; who is making these assessments; etc.

You wanted an award. I gave you two.

I wanted no such thing. Again, all that has happened is that you asserted that the subject met criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO and I challenged that assertion. Graham (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you figured out what a commendation from the City of Los Angeles is yet? Graham (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comments like

I was not talking to you. I am well aware of your deletion frenzy.

really aren't appropriate. It shouldn't matter to whom you addressed your remarks as this is supposed to be a collaborative process. Demanding that some people not take part in this discussion because you don't like what they have to say is ridiculous. Graham (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC) cc: Piotrus[reply]

No because he can talk to me in the thread above. I was trying to respond to User:Steve Quinn here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that discussions here must be bilateral. Piotrus can reply in any thread that he so chooses because, again, this is supposed to be a collaborative process. Graham (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But everything he says is extremely negative. There is no attempt on his part to improve the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you'd stop with those personal attacks. I already had to ask you to refactor your comments on me once, and you are still making negative statements about me. Please check out WP:TEA and focus not on editors but on the merits of their arguments. You have yet to reply to my arguments about him not meeting WP:BIO. Once again, perceived usefulness of an article is not relevant to Wikipedia (WP:ITSUSEFUL). If you wan to amend notability policy to make articles like the ones you are writing in line with WP:BIO, then you should start a discussion there. And lastly, no, I don't have to improve an article, there is no requirement for one to do so. I improve the project in other ways, and one of them is to ensure that notability is respected, and articles that do not meet it are deleted. And whether this or some other of yours articles meet notability or not is a civil discussion to be had, not an attack on your person. Sorry if deletion of them - if it happens - will waste hours of your work, it is a shame, but you have only yourself to blame (if that happens) for not respecting this projects policies of WP:BIO. For the n-th time, please understand this is an encyclopedia, and we have to draw a line at some point with regard whom to include. And numerous mentions in passing with no-in depth coverage, as well as having won some minor honors and awards make a person borderline and his inclusion here merits civil discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly we need to add some notability guidelines for businesspeople to stop editors like you. Dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars makes one notable--imagine if a merger went wrong--it would have sweeping ramifications. AFD has its place; for example she is not notable (no reference, no namesake at a top university, etc.), but people like Grief are a different matter. The other Jewish businessman you nominated for AFD by the way is called a "pioneer" by The New York Times, cited in government documents, on top of his established track record of business and financial success. Businesspeople can be notable. They're not your local salesmen.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Greif (grief). Easily passes WP:GNG, particularly with the additional content that Zigzig20s has added. Edwardx (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, what additional "content" has ZigZig20s added that shows this passes GNG? I don't see it. Thanks in advance Steve Quinn (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

He has a long-form detailed biographical article in the Los Angeles Times, one of the biggest newspapers on planet Earth.
And the rest -- bits and pieces of mentions here and there or full bios in non-notable venues, etc. -- is plenty enough to put him on the borderline, at the very least.
And he's important. He has a real effect on the world. Per human common sense, that matters (file it under WP:IAR if you want). If we had the same refs (one big article in the LA Times, bits and pieces elsewhere) for a D-list reality-show contestant, then maybe no article. But for this guy, yes.

And after all, when he dies we'll have to have an article -- he'll get a long obit in the LA Times (at the least). So why deprive the Wikipedia of this useful and informative article about an important person, in the meantime? Herostratus (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Have you read what I wrote about that LAT article in my OP? Or the piece itself? If this is the typical quality of LAT, it may be big, but it is also very trashy. Seriously, please look at that piece - it is borderline reliable at best. Shoddy hackwork, not journalism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't read it. I can't read everything. The LA Times and New York Times, with maybe a couple of others, are the main papers of record for the United States, a large and important country. If their work is of insufficient quality for you, maybe your standards are too high. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC):::::[reply]

We do not accept as reliable everything published by even the highest quality newspapers and magazines. Each source has to be reviewed on its own merits, particularly when there are problems with it. And LAT, clearly, can publish low quality articles that we cannot accept. Before you reply, I'd encourage you to look at the said source yourself and make your own call, keeping in mind that an article that is half an interview should be looked at through the guidelines at WP:INTERVIEW, and anyway, as the source is half-written by the subject, it should be see as a self-authored in this context, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be self-published if it was an opinion piece. It's an interview, so it's not. Besides, that's not the only reference. Beyond the references, you also need to look at the content to see his impact on the economy through mergers.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, what I see here is that the local consensus seems to favor overturning WP:BIO for some kind of WP:ITSIMPORTANT for businesspeople. Well, policies are all well and good, but it does seem we see here that they are not supported. Hence, my deletion proposal, which is based on them, seems to be not endorsed. I therefore encourage you to try to write up a notability criteria for businesspeople. You seem to have more expertise in this type of articles, and it will do us all good to update policies so neither you or me will have to waste more time on similar AfDs of articles about businesspeople which I'll repeat do not seem to meet our current policies, yet whose deletion does not seem acceptable neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have begun to discuss this to stop editors like you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you considered only nominating for AFD articles about which you have some expertise? For example, I could be tempted to nominate Tlen.pl, but you seem to think it is notable--and since I am not an expert on Polish instant messaging services, I wouldn't nominate it.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a person is on the borderline, then certainly importance comes into play. We are thinking human beings and encyclopediasts, here, so why would it not come into play.

Notability as strictly measured by references has the very great advantage of being objective. And the existence of the references allows us to check the veracity of the material. It is for this reason that we go by notability and not importance. We do not want articles to be defended on the basis of "Well, there are just absolutely no references on this guy, but he runs an important charity, and you can take my word for the facts of the case".

But if a guy has some references and is on the borderline -- maybe he passes WP:GNG, maybe not -- then yes of course we consider the difference between somebody who is actually an important decision maker in a major industry or something and somebody who cut a couple of bad and poorly-selling comedy albums in the 1980's. Why would we not be able to consider that difference. Are we supposed to willfully be idiots, or something? The rules are made for us not we for the rules, and we are not rule-bound here, and we are not required to check or intelligence and discrimination at the door, which is why have WP:IAR. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references from The Los Angeles Times, including more deals and an article about his life.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is anyone actually noticing this would basically amount to PR since it only focuses with his investing and financing of companies, none of that inherits notability, regardless of who the companies or people are. 06:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

User:SwisterTwister: It's not PR. I have zero COI with this person. But the third-party sources show us he is notable for his mergers and philanthropy. If you don't like the investment banking industry, that's not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s that is quite a straw man you erected. SisterTwister said nothing about liking or disliking investment banking. I think you've had discussions above about this kind of editing behavior. It is not appropriate - and it seems designed to start an argument.

Moving on: I beg to differ with Zigzig20s. This is all PR and this is stuff that is useful for investors and B2B customers. The coverage in available sources is not journalism. For a comparison, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs caused paradigm shifts in our society worldwide, as did IBM. Apple and Google are still producing technology that impacts how we interact. I am not seeing anything like that here. I agree that Mr. Grief is a very capable entrepreneur and he has done very well. But the coverage on him does not indicate notability per WP:N, BIO, or ANYBIO, or even as a creative professional. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (Change from delete, as Mr Greif is certainly an accomplished individual, but the sources provided do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability). Original comment: the article reads like a vanity page and a pseudo biography. Sources are insufficient to establish individual notability. Being cited in the press is not an indication of notability, such as here:

"They now have an out-and-out war going on with their former CEO and by far largest shareholder," said Lloyd Greif, chief executive of investment banking firm Greif & Co. "If he is at 43%, he is within spitting distance of actual control."

There are a lot of trivial mentions like this which do not amount to sufficient coverage to meet GNG and BIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:K.e.coffman: I'm sorry, but that's not how I cited the sources. I used the sources for content relevant to Grief's impact on the economy and philanthropy. There are many more articles in The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times where he is mentioned in the way you suggest, but I've left those ones out.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this LA Times article, which is not cited in his Wikipedia article. That seems disingenuous?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: LA Times article is a puff piece based on the interview with the subject. These are not generally considered RS for the purposes of an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I disagree but even if you were right, that is not the only article about him. Or about his impact on the economy.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the LA times is a puff piece and does not qualify as a reliable source. This is much like an announcement, it is not journalism. This is designed to toot Grief's horn, nothing more. And the other "articles about him" are press releases, annoucements, passing mentions, and either not independent of the subject or trivial (not significant) coverage. Please see my analysis and the nom's analysis above. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's so prominent that when he left Sutro & Co., the Los Angeles Times published two articles about it. As for so-called puff pieces, there is no indication that the Times has any incentive whatsoever to promote Greif. He's just prominent thanks to his impact on the economy, and he should have a Wikipedia article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text is nevertheless is lacking in analysis of Greif's actual impact, this is not journalistic reporting. It is canned PR that is repeated in various sources. No sources indicate that has had a significant impact either in LA or nationally. Nor do they indicate any historical significance this person or his works might have. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source shows that the topic is legitimate. A look at the first reference shows the topic in the title of an article from the LA Times. Just a Google search on "Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies" shows enough sources to define WP:GNG notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintllating - I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate" as in "shows that topic is legitimate". I think in this context that word is vague and does not really indicate if you are saying this indicates notability. If that is what you are saying, I would like to know how this indicates notability, per BIO or GNG. Also, simply seeing the title of the first reference or any reference in an article is not helpful, and also does not indicate notability. "Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies" is a bought and paid for department of USC. Here is a reference for that [19]. Here is a quote from that "Lloyd Greif, president and CEO of the Los Angeles investment banking firm Greif & Co., has pledged $5 million to USC’s Marshall School of Business to establish the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies". This is not remarkable; people who are well off and who want to be remembered or honor their Alma Mater or engage in philanthropy or whatever reason do this. Also, the reference I supplied is not a reliable source because it is merely an announcement. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you just don't like rich people, which is not a good reason to delete this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you lay off on the unsubstantiated personal attacks and ad hominem arguments? (Given your recent comments at WT:RFC, this seems to be becoming a habit of yours.) Nothing Steve said would indicate that he doesn't "like rich people". Graham (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote, "This is not remarkable; people who are well off and who want to be remembered or honor their Alma Mater or engage in philanthropy or whatever reason do this.".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. Graham (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mean I don't like rich people. Nothing in there says I don't like rich people. It is not up Zigzig20s to speak for me. And, I should not have to defend myself at an AfD from the perspective of being personally attacked and the ad hominem arguments in this thread. This is ~~besides~~ includes the discussions with the nom and Zigzig20s comment after Sister Twister's Ivote. I will be glad to take this up at another venue if I see one more misrepresentation of my comments or Ivote. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. That's what it sounded like to me. It looks like this will be closed as non-consensus anyway, and we'll work on specific notability guidelines for businesspeople as GNG is not sufficient apparently. Thank you and have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, very gracious of you. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, here is another example of Unscintillating using what is basically a directory (Bloomberg's index of CEOs) to argue for notability. Steve Quinn, the editor is fond of citing this as evidence of notability but, as Cullen explained elsewhere, it's nothing more than a listing and using it to establish notability simply means every CEO deserves an article.
To the closing admin: you probably know this already, but these Bloomberg entries are not somehow articles written by a cadre of journalists and overseen by an editorial board; they are a directory-style list of profiles, no more reliable than the IMDB and no more objective than LinkedIn. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I have never cited a business directory as evidence of notability anywhere, including this AfD. I am going to AGF and assume User:Drmies meant someone else, and hopefully this misattribution will be changed. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no misattribution, I wasn't talking about you. Please read more carefully. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The difficulty with articles of this sort is that generally most of the references are relatively small incidental notices of various events in the business or social world, and none of these actually discuss the person in depth. The only ones that do are likely to be press releases,though sometimes disguised as articles--the example here is the LA Times [20], a self-congratulatory pseudo-interview.vI note the NYTimes article does not even mention him,. Having$t5 million to establish a university chair means having $5 millionand nothing more--this no longer represents any particularly high level of wealth that might be worthy of notice. I leave open the possibility that perhaps in terms of his work he might actually be notable , but the way we look at notability using the GNG does not show it. (If it weren't for that pesky problem ,I could robably reduce this to an accceptable article, but not under our present rules.) DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be incorrect about the article from The New York TImes; it does mention him, otherwise I wouldn't have cited it: "Los Angeles has become an anomaly, said Lloyd Greif, a native Angeleno whose specialty investment bank, Greif & Company, caters to smaller local companies. It has always had an entrepreneurial undercurrent to it, a Wild West kind of atmosphere.". By the way, we are thinking of starting new notability guidelines for businesspeople as some of us think GNG is sufficient as per RS, but other editors clearly do not. I maintain that the articles in The Los Angeles TImes are not press releases; the Times would have zero incentive to write about him if he were not prominent. And the other mentions show he is notable, too. I suggest a close with No Consensus until we come up with better notability guidelines for businesspeople perhaps.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we are thinking of starting new notability guidelines for businesspeople as some of us think GNG is sufficient as per RS, but other editors clearly do not.

When you say "we are thinking", do you mean that there are other people who have expressed interest in this? Because while you've mentioned this venture several times on this page, no one seems to have supported it (which isn't to say that anyone has opposed it either). Graham (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[…] the Times would have zero incentive to write about him if he were not prominent.

This is not remotely true. Newspapers such as The New York Times include one- or two-sentence quotations by people who are not at all "prominent" all the time. Sometimes it can almost be a print media equivalent of a vox populi. Graham (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not in favor of an SNG for business people. I believe such articles should be judged against WP:GNG.

PS -- being cited in the press does not equate to being notable. Such quotes are also not suitable content for articles since they don't tell us anything about the subject (Greif, in this case). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles specifically about him in The Los Angeles Times, the fourth most read newspaper in the United States. And some editors think this already meets GNG, but you reject that. Since I don't think you want to delete articles about businesspeople for the sake of deleting them, I suggest we come up with SNGs, which other editors seem willing and eager to do to accommodate editors who are unsure about GNG, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of the sentence was about The Los Angeles Times, when I said The Times in the second clause, I meant The Los Angeles Times. They have zero incentive to publish several articles specifically about him. Only that he is prominent as per RS, and thus meets GNG, as User:Edwardx suggested. Yes, at least User:SMcCandlish and User:Herostratus think we could have specific GNG guidelines for businesspeople. Once again, I am not alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per David (DGG) and Drmies. Fails WP:GNG as topic lacks "significance coverage" that "address […] the topic directly and in detail". Graham (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Revised 05:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I'm reading, and I see straws being grasped, like one-liner quotations. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ What Stanton (SMcCandlish) said. And just in case my question slipped under the radar: do let me know, Zigzig20s, whether you know what this "well-known and significant" "commendation" is or whether there really is no claim to criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO after all. Graham (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or userspace~~ Userspace (pending examination of company-related source trove) for lack of significant coverage (yet) as a notable individual (but no prejudice against keeping if a bit more quality sourcing is found). The notability of the company he founded and of the university he gave money to does not "rub off" on him, having money to give away or buy some art with isn't notable, and being quoted and mentioned here and there does not translate to notability, either. The "additional sources found" trumpeted above are, in order: a press release (WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDY); a "Who's Who" type profile, obviously parroting an official bio (thus PRIMARY and INDY problems again); a 404 error that cannot be recovered through Archive.org (but identified as a near-identical parroting bio by others, above, before it went offline); and an off-the-cuff quotation. I also agree with the above examinations of the LA Times piece; it's just another rote who's-who profile cribbed from PR materials. Not everything between the covers of a newspaper is news, secondary, independent, reliable, or in-depth. The rest of the LA Times coverage in the order it appears in the article: News about the company's change of leadership; ditto; brief mention; brief mention; one-liner quote as a company spokesperson; brief mention. Checking all non-LAT sources in article in order of citation: a who's-who entry; brief quote; brief quote; subscription required, but preview suggests a one-liner mention; brief quote; brief paraphrases; primary source that just confirms he's on a chamber of commerce board; primary confirming university endowment; ditto; brief quote. That's all there is, and most of these are Greif quoted as the official rep of a business entity like Tower or his own firm, an organizational not individual role. Re: SNG-related what-ifs above – I do support the general idea of a SNG for businesspeople (to rule out more trivial pseudo-notable bios, but perhaps permit some on industry "heavies" who get less press coverage than they should, often by design), but we don't have one, and I wouldn't expect a party like this to be notable under one, either. That said, I think the inclusion of trivial "celeb" bios (actors with a handful of bit-part roles, individual members of barely-notable bands, pro-gamers covered only in the gaming 'zines, "reality" TV show "stars" getting their 15 minutes, etc.) is a greater problem facing WP, a more serious problem with "GNG is one-size-fits-all", than pages like this one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Revised with more source review: 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Changed !vote after finding older sources (on company, mostly). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His company should be redirected to him, since it was founded by him, it is run by him, and it bears his name. Do we really want Wikipedia to ignore someone who makes hundred million dollar mergers and has a research center named after him? I don't get it.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you just said relates to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Graham (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Herostratus said earlier, we have WP:IAR. And we could/should make these SNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR, as you know, is intended for exceptional circumstances. I have read no argument that this is an exceptional case; rather, you just don't like the guidelines as they currently stand. The reality is that, per WP:CONLEVEL, your dislike of the guidelines does not mean that you can override a community-wide consensus for an entirely unexceptional situation. Graham (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x4... Zigzig20s, it just doesn't work that way if the company is more notable than the individual. [I agree in this case; if this survives AfD, then Greif & Co. should redir to it.] It has nothing to do with "want", or subjective "importance", or with money (including the money he spent to have university buildings bear his name), only to do with objectively confirmable level of sourcing. Lots of trivial coverage is insufficient. Two articles in the Wall Street Journal or the like, that are actual journalism not PR copy, analyzing Greif's actual impact, would be sufficient. Or even something else that's not canned text or passing mention; if his dabblings in art collecting turned into huge news, whether positive or scandalous, etc., etc.; he could potentially become notable for something outside his profession. He's just not there yet, in the encyclopedic sense, no matter how respected he is as an L.A. businessman. I agree that you don't get it yet (it takes a while), which is why I gently suggested, up near the top, a careful review of WP:Notability in detail (absorb what says not what you think it ought to say), and of previous WP:AFDs involving similar bio articles. We do want you writing articles, and we do want articles on important people, there are just some ground rules, and we have to have them so that people don't write about their co-workers, neighbors, professors, and garage bands. It's nothing personal against you or against Greif or against businesspeople. PS: IAR doesn't work that way either; consensus would have to agree we should ignore a rule like GNG in a special case (see Graham11, above on whether this is special), and AfD is that consensus discussion, so there's no IAR around AfD; AfD is a process, not a rule. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why shouldn't this be closed as no consensus? I am not the only editor who disagrees with you regarding GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closer of the AfD will consider that option. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of the AfD will certainly consider all the options at their disposal. Per WP:CONSENSUS, they will also be weighing "the quality of the arguments", giving "the highest weight" to "explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Graham (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this has already had a chilling effect on my editing. I do read a lot about business, and I think SNG for businesspeople would limit the chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum for that discussion. Graham (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to User:SMcCandlish.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, Zigzig20s, discussions here do not have to be bilateral. Graham (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to User:SMcCandlish. I don't have time to talk to you endlessly. I will not have time to reply if you ask me again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you anything here. I was merely informing you. Graham (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need. Please don't reply to every discussion I am having with other editors on every page. I don't have time to talk to you endlessly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My response would have matched Graham11's, basically. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. It's not helpful for you, either, to respond and re-re-respond to every single comment in such discussions. We know that WP deletion processes have a chilling effect on newer editors, and it's unfortunate. So we just try to be encouraging along the lines of "not quite, but please try again, within these particular rules". Not because we delight in trying to get people to learn and follow rules, but because the place would be useless without the rules, filled with articles on high-school teachers and neighborhood restaurants and self-published novels and crackpot notions about psychic alien crystal magic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade, and I am one of the 400 most active Wikipedians. Greif is not exactly employee of the month either. If making hundred million dollar deals and having a research center at a top university named after you, with articles in The Los Angeles Times, makes one non-notable, I am discouraged.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Surprised our paths don't cross more, then. Look, I agree its frustrating. I just re-went through page after page of G Books, News, and Scholar looking for something we missed. It's not our fault that people are just quoting him as an off-the-cuff financial and business analyst; he's made himself a nice "I'll give a sound-byte to whoever calls from the papers" niche (I used to have one myself; I know how that works in detail). One consequence of this is that a name can become very familiar in certain circles this way, and the person may have done "important" things, but still no one is writing original pieces all about this person and their impact (yet). Just give it time. I did all the source examination I did, and suggested userspacing, because I'm certain Greif is "notable-waiting-to-happen". One thing you could try doing, since he's not some 20-something, is actually e-mailing his company's press contact and asking them if they have copies of any articles about Greif, or even a list of coverage he's received (and perhaps that the company has, if we want to redir the company to him and have an section on the company). It's more than likely that some print publications, not in databases like GNews, have already done significant coverage at some point. We are not limited to teh interwebs. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a rich seam to mine here: [21] (click "News articles"). Not volunteering to do that work though; I'm swamped. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it to userspace, but some editors (not just me) think this should be kept, so why not close it as No Consensus? Finally, I don't know if it's worth investing my time looking for more sources. That is what I mean by discouragement. Quit Wikipedia and play tennis instead? Maybe. Greif is certainly a big deal, and has been for decades re: LA Times. (In contrast, I am an absolute nobody and no one has ever an article about me in the LA Times...)Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it to userspace, but some editors (not just me) think this should be kept, so why not close it as No Consensus?

Again, I'm sure the closer will consider that option. But that's anything but a sure thing as the closer is obliged to weigh "the quality of the arguments", giving "the highest weight" to "explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines". And why you insist on raising that again I do not know because debating how the discussion should be closed is not our place to begin with. Graham (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per Stanton (SMcCandlish), I would not object to userfication. Graham (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a tricky one in that he does seem to be regarded well enough in his profession to be used as a dial-a-quote by media in the field. Despite this, there's not that much that's about him, beyond PR fluff that must be discounted as not independent, and brief directory-style entries. The LA Times article is good, but the notability criteria requries multiple such sources. In particular, the sources provided by User:Isaidnoway and User:Unscintillating seem unconvincing to me as sources of notability. Potentially his company is notable, and I wouldn't object to userfication if someone wants to try and dig up some more substantial material. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for pinging me back here to this discussion @Lankiveil:, so since you did, I'll provide a little more detailed reasoning behind my keep vote. First, when I examine the notability of a person, I usually look to see how long they have been covered in RS, has it been for a number of years, has it been consistent and continuing - yeah it has, the earliest source I found was from Chicago-Sun Times 1994 and through the years to August 2016. Second, I look at the diversity and quality of the publications, this guy was all over the place, including (but certainly not limited to): Knight Ridder - Chicago Sun-Times - Los Angeles Daily News - The Boston Globe - The Cincinnati Post - Associated Press - Rocky Mountain News - Oakland Tribune - Los Angeles Sentinel - International New York Times - Newsweek - Refrigerated & Frozen Foods - Entrepreneur Magazine - Investment Dealers' Digest - Journal of Engineering - Chief Executive - Food Processing - Journal of Technology - Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmaker's Journal - Health & Medicine Week - American Banker - Defense & Aerospace Week - Ascribe Higher Education News Service - Entertainment Close-up - Wireless News - and then I combine these sources with those already in the article, those I listed above, and I think the guy easily passes our GNG. And when I say he is mentioned, this is a typical example (from the Chicago 1994 source above: In 1993, they retained Lloyd Greif, a veteran investment banker whose mission was to find just the right buyer. Greif, president of Greif & Co. in Los Angeles, said that although Aerosol Services was a solid company, it had several strikes against it: It had two owners over 50 who wanted to keep their jobs, sales were relatively flat between 1989 and 1992 and the business itself was fairly mundane. Before Greif brought in any potential buyers, he spent hours with the Lims, determining exactly what they wanted in terms of dollars and future employment. He worked with the company's accountants at Coopers & Lybrand to make sure the books and records were in order....(2 more paragraphs). Some of the sources listed above have less para. Anyway, there's my 2 cents.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article creator, Zigzig20s, has asked me how to notify wikiproject finance editors of this afd, i have left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRACE MODE

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

Non notable product that doesn't quite meet CSD. Killer Moff (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam fails WP:NSOFT, this should not waste AfD's time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant independent coverage in reliable sources is available. I agree that this is Speedy delete material per WP:SPAM "Advertisement masquerading as an article".Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mofia Tonjo Akobo

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing credible about the subject. Just a few passing mentions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "bio-spam". No indications of notability and my sources do not turn up anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I quite frankly see this as A7 and G11. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Saxton

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

No reliable source discuss about her in detail. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one does look like a corporate puff piece. Montanabw^(talk) 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable business person. My searches do not turn up anything substantial to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of sources used within the article do not make any mention of her. Within the article there is one online source that is registered with ABC (UK) which offers a Q&A with her, but this is not enough on its own to demonstrate notability when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:45, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of graphical user interface builders and rapid application development tools

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

Unencyclopedic list and spam magnet. The overall scope of this list is so broad as to be irrecoverably broken.

The two concepts here are each something like 30 years old. They have no fundamental overlap: GUI and RAD are different tasks, although many tools will support both. 30 years is an impossibly long time in computing and for which to describe dev tools as a single listable concept.

As it is, this is an unencyclopedic spam magnet. Non-notable tools are dumped here, with inlined ELs to their vendor sites, for promotion rather than explanation. There is no encyclopedic scope to this list: there is no narrative of conceptual explanation or of historical development.

30 years history is too long to present as a single coherent list. Why should tools from the 4GL punchcard era be presented alongside Windows desktop app toolsets, JavaScript Web UI widgets and Android gadgets?

I see no way in which this list article can be made suitable for inclusion here. At most, it should be a category of existing articles on notable products. Probably a set of sub-categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We also have a list of GUI builders at Graphical user interface builder#List of GUI builders that has entries not as well-developed as those in this article, but has a better introduction. --Mark viking (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- indiscriminate collection of information and spam magnet. No clear criteria for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a lengthy list of the former category at Graphical user interface builder and we don't seem to have a list of "RAD tools," but we could. However even that category sounds entirely too broad thus it doesn't exist. That solution is still miles better than this "indiscriminate" list — as already mentioned. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this indiscriminate list, which incidentally got spammed by a COI editor just before I posted this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 18 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. There does not seem to be enough support for deletion. Mergers were proposed but with little support, they should probably be discussed further on the talk pages as a merger does not require an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies

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

Low importance, No indication of importance, Transfer to wikiquote, not notable subject to have an independent article, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. we can merge it on Saddam Husein or on Iran-Iraq relations and Israel-iraq relations or merge it on Racism in the Arab world , some article like this merged before, for example: Israel will not exist in 25 years (Merged and Redirected to Ali Khamenei) or We should kill everyone in China (deleted) The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly Merge) it on Racism in the Arab world, (as suggester of the deletion) The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:09, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This was not an off-the-cuff remark by one individual, but a considered propaganda statement promulgated by the Ba'thist regime in Iraq. We have articles on "Who remembers the Armenians?", The Turner Diaries etc, so not too sure why this article is in need of deletion. It will probably never be a lengthy article, but it has notability, and it would be blurred together with a bunch of other only loosely-related stuff if merged... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Merge seems appropriate, as we have multiple RS mentions, but without really good detail on the content of the pamphlet itself. I don't think the proposed merge target title is appropriate, because both 'Jew' and 'Persian' ethic or national identities, and arguably in the case of the former also a religious identity, but none are racism. The world is getting sloppy about calling ethic prejudice and the like racism when it is not based on race; Wikipedia should not follow that trend. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: isnt racism ? religious?? Please see Persian people isnt a religion and its second demonym for Iranian people and its a major ethnic in Iran and Jew means both Jewish race and religion also saddam wasnt a clergyman he was a dictator. please keep your informations up to dated cuz its absolutely racism and Saddam Hussein killed a lot of Iranian people in Iraq-Iran war and made a lot of genocides against them and he threatened Israel for numerous times. he recognized as a genocide maker and executed in Iraq for his criminals .The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is not ethnic conflict/hatred, nor is it religious conflict/hatred. The most appropriate part of the quote that could properly be termed racism is the anti-dog sentiment, but I would tend to call that species-ism. Racism is utterly and truly reprehensible... but not every reason one man unjustly hates another is racism. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: thank you so much for your response, im so glad when i can see you are contributing with me here. your response is so clear. yes you are right, but saddam killed Iraqi kurdish people and made genocide against them in Iraqi kurdistan and Bathism is kinda pan-arabisim and its a soft racism ideology cuz do not respect to other people instead of Arabs and their right such as Kurdish (an Iranian tribe) but when saddam said Persian it means Persian race such as Persian empire , language and culture , im not speciallist but i think its maybe Fascism. for example Hitler made holocaust based on Fascism and Saddam also killed Iraqi Kurdish based on that either. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem perhaps unfair to merge it to the more general Racism in the Arab world when it was clearly a propaganda tool of the Hussein regime, specifically. So I'd somewhat prefer a merge target that ties it more squarely to the Ba'thist regime? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: How about we merge to Ba'athist Iraq? We could then put it under sections "Early years, Iran-Iraq War and aftermath (1979–1990)" (going by chronology) or "State ideology". Alternately, we could even create a separate "State propaganda" section and then add this in. GAB^gab 18:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think that would probably be more accurate and fair given that, well, generalizations are bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Then it would be blurred together with a bunch of other only loosely-related stuff (as I said above). I don't see how that would be an improvement... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is covered in numerous books and has historical importance. Article needs improvement though. Instaurare (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or possibly Merge~~ it on Racism in the Arab world and/or Saddam Husein or other related topics. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate vote. @TheStrayDog: you voted at the top of the discussion and you are the nominator. Technically, your nomination was your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: yes, thanks for mentioning my faults. happy editing. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 20:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great article, but references in books make this an independently notable subject, in my opinion. Keep. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources present in the article seem to establish the notability of the topic. I would assume there are even more out there, in other languages, to help with improving the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 23 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrestaShop

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

Nothing at all actually convincing and my PROD was removed with the basis of "clearly notable", searches and examinations have not found sufficient sources to actually suggest this can be better and convincingly improved, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fairly clearcut. 4th-most popular software as per Comparison of shopping cart software, meets "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." as per WP:NSOFTWARE as there are 12 books on the first page of https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Prestashop alone. Nominator clearly did not put any effort into the nomination and I am concerned that they are nominating numerous articles for deletion. Many lesser-visited articles can quickly be deleted by this kind of deletionist behaviour - 10 seconds of thoughtlessness and an entire article and its archives gone if no-one contests. I suggest the nominator reconsider what they are doing. Greenman (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX and WP:NPA There's no need to criticize anything here if the article itself is still not substantiated with actually convincing sources, the listed ones are not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't see this as a personal attack. I am simply pointing out that you have not been careful in this case, and expressed concern that this may be the case elsewhere. I see spurious deletion of people's voluntary efforts as the one of the most harmful activities for Wikipedia - it demotivates and chases away volunteers. I experience this all the time with African content, when well-meaning editors spend 5 seconds on their US default Google, for example, and nominate content for deletion. The volunteer editors return to find something obviously notable has been removed, and all their work thrown away. This is just a software article, but clearly you didn't search for publications before nominating it. I agree, that the article is not well-sourced, and it should be tagged for improvement. Greenman (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources and reviews: Simposia The eCommerce Magazine, Expansion, Abondance, Gazette Review, CMS Critic, Economy, Finances Online, Merchant Maverick, HTML Goodies, CPC Strategy-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of the sources listed above (not all of them) look convincing.—J. M. (talk) 19:52, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandla Mlangeni

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

Article created from talk page wp:cleanup Not credible references wp:v Cotton2 (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: I saw this page after tagging an identical Mandla Mlangeni (University of Pretoria) for speedy-deletion A7. The given references are to the subject's own firm and to a professional association front page where the subject is not mentioned. There is a brief Q&A piece at [22] but I see no substantial reliable 3rd party coverage to suggest this is more than someone going about his business. Fails to establish biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable surveyor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. 220 of ^Borg 10:07, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Luv

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

Single does appear on Bilboard, but that alone, of course, does not substantiate a notability case. I could find no non-trivial discussion of it in reliable, independent, secondary sources, so am nominating it for deletion (failing the appearance of same). KDS4444 (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like written by nominator, appearing on Billboard doesn't constitute as notability alone. I couldn't find any coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:22, 18 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 deleted. by Jo-Jo Eumerus under G12. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Malayalam Dictionary

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

No substantial 3rd party references found. No reviews found. Not notable per WP:NSOFT Cotton2 (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:08, 18 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 nomination withdrawn in favour of a G4 speedy as a deleted prior version of this article has been found hiding at a different page title. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotts (DJ)

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single-market local radio DJ with no strong claim of notability and no reliable source coverage to support it. The sourcing here is primarily to the station's own primary source content about itself, with only other sources being a crowdfunding campaign, a set of photographs on a blog with very little text to contextualize them, and two news articles (one in a good newspaper and one in a pennysaver) that just namecheck this guy's existence in the process of failing to be about him. Plus all of the references are just contextlessly linkfarmed at the bottom, without actually footnoting any of the article's content...which is not a surprise, because none of them support any of the article's content beyond "Gotts exists". This is not how a local radio DJ gets over the Wikipedia inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't make a strong case of notability, nor do the sources in the article. A Google search didn't turn up anything that would tilt this case towards justifying notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easy.--YHoshua (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local level radio DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, y'all. Just learned of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel "Gotts" chalkford, which pertained to a virtually identical article about the same person. Withdrawing and speedying. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 24 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 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Alan

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single-market local radio personality, whose strongest claim of notability ("helped to break U2 in the American market by playing them before they were popular") is sourced only to his own self-published content about himself and not to any independent reliable sources that would verify that he's actually "known" for that. And the RS coverage that is here is purely local to his own market, and there's not enough of it for a WP:GNG claim. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Carter Alan is certainly an important figure of decades' standing in Boston rock radio circles. That doesn't translate into a WP:BIO or GNG pass. Ravenswing 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A case could be made for him as a notable author/music critic/expert. The article already cites a Boston Globe review. [23] My initial, time-limited search also turned up coverage of his 2013 university press-published book Radio Free Boston in The New England Journal of Higher Education [24], PopMatters [25],Boston Herald [26], WAMC (audio interview) [27]. Here is a substantial article about his U2 book Outside is America from The Morning Call: [28] Newspapers.com produces a substantial article in the Louisville Courier Journal that appears to discuss Alan's book about (and co-written with) Dinky Dawson, but this is a "Publisher Extra" not available to ordinary Wikipedia users of Newspapers.com, so I can't read it. [29] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local disc jockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 20 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. Seems like the links provided appear to be unreliable (that other articles use them does not say anything about their reliability - see WP:OSE) and SoundCloud not suitable to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino Jorno

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

Tired of the COI editors adding WP:PRIMARY sources and removing templates. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a good faith Google search yields no evidence that this person is notable. Whether or not the nominator is tired or wide awake is irrelevant to the notability of the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete As i also didn't find any reliable sources on Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see the links in Discogs.com , thedjlist.com , beatport.com and more. 5.28.161.109 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs isn't a enough to be a reliable source. Nor are the others. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Walter Görlitz why such as those pages have no more than one source: Skazi , Absolum, Transwave, Talamasca (group),Deedrah,3D Vision Records, and many more (I can keep searching for similar pages on wiki), they exist without any problem, why they aren't deleted ? their only source is Discogs , those are only some examples of pages that exist for long time without any source except of Discogs, so you consider them notable ? while Valentino Jorno was created with many sources and will add more soon, simply I didn't pick up all google search results, will do that soon. Sharon2011 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If what you say about those other articles is true, Sharon2011, and if better sources cannot be found, then all of those articles should also be deleted. We do not keep bad articles just because other bad articles exist. We either improve or delete bad articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct Cullen328. There's an essay to that effect at WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few days ago, Sharon2011, the article's creator, blanked it. I restored the article, not realizing that Sharon2011 had created it. The act of blanking may qualify the article for speedy deletion under criterion G7; perhaps somebody ought to tag it with {{db-blanked}} and get an administrator's opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't delete it , saved it blank by mistake when I was editing it. hope this clarify the technical error that happened , thanks Malik Shabazz for fixing this. Sharon2011 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That clarifies why you blanked it. Now why, based on WP:MUSICBIO, should be kept? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me Mr.Walter Görlitz , that doesn't clarify anything, you can't talk instead of me , I said that it was a technical error, instead of click "Show Preview" I clicked "Save page" when it was blank , I wanted to make a test before I edit in order not to delete the template, simply am not familiar with the templates so I wanted to see their position, then to make edits. is that clear now ? or my english is complex ? Sharon2011 (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon2011 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote. All I was trying to say was that Malik Shabazz suggested that you blanked the page which constituted grounds for speed deletion. That means we could stop this discussion and move on with deleting the article. I didn't talk instead of you either, I tried to seek clarification on a what was being discussed. So now that we understand that you made an error when editing and did not intend to delete the article, could you please explain, based on the rules of MUSICBIO (linked above) or WP:GNG why this the subject of this article is notable? Several editors have stated that we can find nothing to support the subject's notability, at least not based on those two criteria and on the searches we conducted. If you can help point us in the direction of some reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the subject at length, we can close this discussion and keep the article on the English Wikipedia project. Failing that, an administrator will likely delete the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's ok :) , now you explained better. so, in addition to the sources that I've mentioned in the page , I will look deeper in google and bring links of articles,reviews/interviews related to artist that were published in some magazines of electronic music and night clubs journals/websites , I don't have personally the links since I have no connection with the artist , but I will do my best to bring them soon from google, will let you know when it's done. best regards Sharon2011 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Enlighten me please Walter Görlitz , does SoundCloud charts^[1] count in ? because there a lot of tracks of Valentino and his other stage names (PsyShark , VJorno , Valentino Jorno) he is already few months in row in Top1 position and additional positions in charts, and that's actually what made wonder why he doesn't have a page on wiki, so what do you think ?. Sharon2011 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No SoundCloud is not a chart because they are WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts. And drop the attitude. I linked you to MUSICBIO and GNG. That's the criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i couldn't find any non-primary reliable sources to indicate notability. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all comes close to both the needed independent notability and substance for both convincing improvements and then solidity. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 31 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 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Lowell Liebermann

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

No significance for own article. Tried redirecting to the artist page, but page creator reverted the edits. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is entirely unreferenced and the vast majority of these compositions are not notable and have not been discussed in independent sources. The few compositions that may be notable can be included in Lowell Liebermann. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 05:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- directory of non-notable pieces and indiscriminate collection of informaion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DPDO Kannur

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

Non Notable defence accounts organisation. Main contributor has a major CoI Uncletomwood (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to kindly please club this afd with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pay_accounts_office_DSC @DGG: Uncletomwood (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a single office of a larger organization, I'm not seeing how it is notable in its own right. Potentially the larger organization would be, though, IMO. Of course, ultimately it comes down to sourcing and as it currently stands the sources do not seem to indicate independent notability. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to cover the regional office of a government agency, and so is highly unlikely to meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 20 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. Been relisted a couple of times so not relisting further. The claim of notability is not overly strong but has not been contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. Surendran (politician)

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

promotional bio for non notable politician. We have consistently held that being the head of a state political party (as distinct from the national head) is not intrinsically notable. Some of the articles used as references do not even mention him ( ref.7 ) --the others are his press releases or minor local politics. "he made public many contemporary political issues in Kerala, which earned him respect from his political opponents." is not encyclopedic writing. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is not even head of a state party, and has never been elected, so is not intrinsically notable. But he is named in a lot of news items. None discuss him as a person in any great depth, but cumulatively they show that he is a fairly visible public figure. His statements and actions have been reported widely enough to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the excellent rewrite by Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 18 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 Jat people. Also consider boldly redirecting before coming to AfD. czar 03:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsinwar

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

Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Persistent issues with many of these clan articles which were created at the start of WP. I took to AfD rather than prod in case I was missing anything because sources may be in Indian languages which I wouldn't be able to read. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I don't think WP:ORG applies to ethnic groups. Uanfala (talk) 18:49, 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 02:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly Merge to Jat~~ I couldn't find anything but this page [30]. There seem to be some sources but they would need to be verified. Overall it seems to be a subgroup of Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~*Make and Redirect to a general Jat clans list~~ There was a suggestion like this and I really liked the sound of it. There exist some vague sources for these clans in the above Wiki I found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescinding my vote: it was pointed out the Jat Wiki's sources are unusable. It might be best to delete and then redirect to Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:49, 26 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 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glittering generality

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

News search found some 83 results, but per WP:NEO, they seem to be sources using the term, and not sources about the term. Overall, seems to be a misplaced dictionary entry.

I already removed a 400 word blockquote that didn't even use the term as likely WP:COPYVIO, being far too long to claim fair use at about half the length of the article, and not really relevant besides. As it did not use the term in the quote, there was no obvious way to shorten to a pertinent section.

So the article as it stands is:

A dictionary definition
A seemingly random assortment of times the term was used
An unsourced claim regarding the Institute for Propaganda Analysis
An unsourced paragraph that is probably 100% WP:OR

There is already a Wiktionary entry, and the article here doesn't seem to go significantly beyond this in any encyclopedic sense, but only in content that could probably all be removed under relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is "glittering and sound generalities" even the same as "Glittering generality?" For to add "sound" to the phrase, as the more notable use does, rather changes the meaning, it seems to me. Delete per nom. This is a dictionary entry -- at best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 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) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. IMO, keeping would require multiple scholarly sources discussing the use of this phrase in political discourse, not of it's origin, of it's power an use in political discourse. Written by political scientists, political analysts, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The Wiktionary article does not list glittering generalities, does not call them vague, nor does it adequately explain how they are vague. The page for propaganda techniques has links for many or all of the techniques listed, which I suspect is for good reason. The article is not a mere dictionary entry. Even if the article could use a lot of improvement, that's not a reason to delete it entirely. 110.55.2.46 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Wiktionary entry? TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet but leaning keep - This is a tough one. On on hand it shares a lot in common with platitude and some other terms for which we have articles, and the article is not terribly well sourced. On the other, this is a very well known term in propaganda literature (in the sense of not just use but part of analysis). Brief mentions are everywhere, meh/weak sources abound (About.com [more useful for the sources it points to] and propagandacritic.com, for example), but I'm yet to find anything really great. Perhaps because enthusiasm for the study of propaganda quieted down before the Internet. It's one of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis's "seven common propaganda devices", which itself (the list) could probably sustain an article. Covered here, at least in part via the IPA: Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. There are also sources from that same era as the IPA, like How to Detect Propaganda in the Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1938). It's part of this analysis of Animal Farm, looks to come up in a lot of educational materials (i.e. used in classrooms) that I'm coming across via Google, comes up in this article on First Monday, returns more than 2000 hits on Google Scholar (remember to search for the plural "glittering generalities", which returns far more hits than the singular version), and I haven't been through even a small fraction of hits (most, but not all, it seems, are one-off uses rather than viable sources for encyclopedic treatment). I'm sort of cobbling together bits and pieces here, I know, but I'm here to fight for freedom and knowledge for everybody, and I believe we must be strong and steadfast in our determination to find sources! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The problem with the article is that is covers a definition and a single instance of it. If the article were expanded to give more examples, it might be worth having, but if there really is only one, do we really need this? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found 22 hits from HighBeam with the term being used, one definition here - ETC: A Review of General Semantics, and the most notable examples of it being used were: What it's like to debate Sarah Palin and Stevens used it in his dissent in Citizens United v. FEC - He said the majority's "glittering generality" that corporate speech, like individual speech, is protected under the First Amendment was a "conceit" that is "not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the court's disposition of this case."-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:48, 18 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Sinha

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

Autobiography with negligible evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Upcoming Director at best a case of WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article originator/subject placed a plea for retention on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Aashish Sinha rather than here. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An autobiographical article, created the same day as one on the subject's forthcoming debut directorial film. The given sources are passing mentions and an Indian newspaper search is not finding better. At most, the subject is verified as working in the film industry. This falls far short of WP:FILMMAKER and wider biographical criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC with only small passing mentions in celebrity magazine and web sources. There has been no significant coverage of his work or his biography by the media, his peers, or the Bollywood or Hollywood industries and hence fails WP:FILMMAKER as well. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 19 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 Anasol. Sandstein 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amantes Invisibles

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Simply a promotional single with no official release. References merely tell us which album it can be found on and the producer's name – hardly evidence of notability. I would suggest redirecting to Astros (album), but I'm thinking of putting that up for AfD as well... Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Anasol. Quis separabit? 20:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 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 01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass killers with US military education

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

I honestly fail to see the importance or relevance of this topic. Do we really need a list of multiple murderers in the U.S. who have military training or education? What purpose is that knowledge supposed to serve? Parsley Man (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that reliable sources discussing mass murderers analyze whether or not they had US military education. Is that something more than basic training? Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed two people, is on the list. I thought that the FBI definition of "mass murderer" was five or more. One entry has three poorly formatted references and the rest have none. The list seems intended to push the POV that those who have US military training are somehow more likely to become mass murderers than those who don't. We would need the highest quality reliable sources to make such an assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 19 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) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the "list" is a stretch as to relevancy and relationship to the act and "military education". Kierzek (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To make things even harder to figure out, is this limited to those educated at the official military academis, like West Point and Anapolis, or do we include those educated at VMI. If we include the later, do we include those who went through the ROTC program. What reasons exist for any of these three possible definitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 20 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 (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by Bbb23

CSI Church Kaliakkavilai

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

Non-notable organization. A church in India of no particular distinction. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:CSD#A7 as an article about an organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is yet another example of @Adam9007: wasting the community's time with his hyper-aggressive speedy deletion declines. (related ANI discussion) Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure this is an organisation; I checked, and this definitely comes under a category called "Buildings and Structures". Adam9007 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churches can refer to both buildings and organizations but a church as an organization does not need a building. Organizations are founded, buildings are built. This article says it was both founded and built. Information in the article asserts absolutely no importance about either the building or the organization and the article has no place on wikipedia. This whole discussion is downright pedantic. WP:SNOWBALL and move on. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned on Adam9007's talk page, if the article were about the building, we'd have a different point (although the AFD would still be valid, as the building does not appear at all significant), but in this case, the article is about the church as an organization. It is an organization that happens to be housed in a building (as almost all are), but the article (talking as it does mostly about the founding of the church and its various leaders) is about the organization, not about the building. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:21, 18 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. Lone keep !vote is unfortunately not based in any policy or guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lawson

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

Not a notable actress. Only has three roles, two of which are just tours, and the other is replacement. JDDJS (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:Notability. KalamCStone (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not quite notable, at least by my reading of WP:ENT. Ibadibam (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not yet notable, she might be at some point, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete – If deleted, she will be the single principal member of the Broadway cast of Hamilton who does not have a Wikipedia page. Being in Hamilton in 2016 connotes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonhamilton (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article needs more referencing with citations of notability. She may be notable at some point, but for now fails WP:NACTOR. Tjeffersonkk (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in the Hamilton cast a year after it opened is not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 25 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olcenic

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Contested prod. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talkjbensous) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Do Not Delete. This page should not be deleted. It is a combination of dietary components whose properties are directly related to scientific studies and will be used on its own as a referential term to the specific combination in scientific papers, studies and dietary supplements. It is no different than your inclusion of such terms as Aspartame (which itself breaks down into various components - but you allow this as a "term" used to describe the combination of properties). I will work on getting more information about it to add to the page.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article makes medical claims and has only a single source, an article published in Food and Nutritional Sciences, which is not a reliable source for medical claims. This journal is published by a very dubious company, Scientific Research Publishing. Any comparison to Aspartame is absurd, since that substance has been widely studied by scientists for decades, and of the 88 sources in that article, a large percentage are to high quality scientific sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The single source for this article about a trademarked supplement is a primary one, where researchers report some biomarkers in 20 individuals who took a supplement, comparing these results against other findings reported in the literature. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:05, 20 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. Technically, redirect was preferred but since there is no agreement on whether Harry D. Belock or Everest Records are the better redirect target, I am going for delete - I believe this is the normal solution for disagreeing redirect opinions, if this isn't true please contest on my talk page. Anyone may create the redirect afterwards as a normal editorial action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the Everest Records article which is incomplete and inaccurate and include my Belock Recording Studio in it with all the citations that I have on file at a later stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlingDavid (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belock Recording Studio

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

Undocumented essay. Unless sources can be produced, this should be pared back and merged with Everest Records, which already has a history section. ubiquity (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: creator took great offense at tags which asserted (correctly) that the article had no references. See the talk page for details. ubiquity (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Belock. There's a few hits on the studio, but as an aside in an article in Billboard here: [31] or as a comment where an album was created. This may be better served as a redirect to Harry Belock himself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Belock is a good solution. While the studio existed and had music recorded there, I could not locate any 3rd party sources on it, except for this Billboard mention. Everest Records is another redirect option. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to HB is fine with me (nom). ubiquity (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, Everest Records may be a better target, as I was able find this snippet: "Everest records are the product of Belock Recording, a division of the Belock Instrument Corporation. If the two discs considered here are an accurate indication of the sound quality to be had from Everest stereo discs in general, a new name..." (from The New Records, 1959). The two entities are connected, and Belock is mentioned in the Everest article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 18 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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metapainting

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly explained artistic term, unclear whether it differs from the 2007 AfD of the same term, or what it is even describing. Fails WP:NEO with no secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the above criticism, as the article was in draft when the McGeddon review was undertaken. The 2007 term was not supported and promotional, while this expanded use of the term is defined in the article. The article *is* a neologism in the sense that the idea itself is not new, but the term is late to be capture. It is not a single new term, but rather a framework for a sputtering but active movement in art. Further, the multiple movements of collaborative painting (such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_collaborative_painting) restate the need for a broader cultural understanding of enhanced and directed collaborative painting efforts that engender the term. I suggest you reread the article and respect the development of wikipedia's role in invigorating framework ideas for helping define existing movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeticize (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticize—do you feel that the subject of the article or any of the assertions in the article are sourced? Where are your sources? Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO so succinctly puts it: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Poeticize's request to "respect the development of wikipedia's role in invigorating framework ideas for helping define existing movements" is International Art English for "support my attempt to use Wikipedia to increase the usage of the term". No, no and no. Mduvekot (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do seem to be some academic sources for metapainting, such as the book The Self-aware Image: An Insight Into Early Modern Metapainting, but as far as I can tell, the current article refers to a different sort of metapainting, almost like an interactive theatre approach for painting. For the current article, I have not found sources. I am happy to be proven wrong, but without independent, in-depth, reliable sources, we cannot build such an article. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced neologism. The term may be used elsewhere, but not in the sense that it is being used here, as indicated by Mark viking. freshacconci talk to me 20:34, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most watched Disney Channel series premieres

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

Delete. List, containing 19 entirely unsourced entries and just one with an actual citation for it, of programs ranked by the ratings for their series premieres. This is ephemeral WP:TRIVIA, not an important or noteworthy characteristic of the shows in its own right -- a show's audience can grow or shrink over time, with one episode attracting half or twice or one-tenth or five hundred times as many viewers as another, so the ratings for one episode in isolation aren't that interesting or encyclopedic. And again, the biggest problem here is that the data is 95 per cent unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy the past few weeks. I will work on getting sources for the other 19 very soon. Editor49 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sources, why would it be a thing that belonged in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to List of Disney Channel series~~ Delete – this information, if sourced, might be valuable at List of Disney Channel series (see, for example, this). But it's not worthy of a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it should be deleted if it is not sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not Disney Channel's promotional department. No point in a redirect as nobody outside crufters cares about the ratings of kid's shows (and the only ones who do reside on TV by the Numbers and cruft up the kid's show articles with needless ratings data sourced from comments sections), and these premieres aren't even close to the biggest cable audiences of all time. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merging nor redirect). Unsourced non-encyclopedic article and list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I said merge if it was sourced. Again, I consider it worthy encyclopedic info (as part of a larger article, not as a standalone article), but only if it is sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 19 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. Wow. When you plow through the mountains of rambling here, this boils down to a clear consensus to not keep this in its present form. There were some reasonable suggestions to merge this to Analysis of Alternatives, but that didn't gain traction with other participants in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RiskAoA

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

The article fails general notability guidelines: I cannot find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject (a software package used internally by the United States Department of Defense).

The article was created by a user, User:GESICC who has a declared connection (conflict of interest) and whose username is the same as a for-profit corporation registered in the State of Ohio by a person reportedly involved in creating and documenting the software package.

User:GESICC has also made grand claims about the importance of the software package that do not appear to be supported by reliable independent sources, such as: "The RiskAoA approach is also noted for being the first predictive decision-making tool" and "These capabilities of RiskAoA are unprecedented; making it the most advanced alternatives management technology employed institutionally, and the first demonstrating the predictive character of the risk management discipline".

Links from other articles to this one were created by User:GESICC. Nominated for deletion by Biogeographist (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally marked this page as patrolled, trying to discover what "patrolled" was.GESICC (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article author)

1. The article was entered into the without regard for wiki deletion policy or wikiediquette, it was entered for deletion immediately after repairs had begun.
2. Most errors in the article were fixed prior to deletion recommendation. They were were repeated in the recommendation, despite the repair.
3. If "GESICC" remains a problem, this is addressable.
4. There is this claim that DoD sources cannot be independent, and don't have valid news sources independent from themselves, either. This is a preposterous claim, if it is maintained, needs to be demonstrated. Here are the relevant references, in line with wiki-guidance. It must be noted, that this program, is NOT for the general public, and like any other distribution-limited or classified product, notability must be considered in this light. A secret program may or may not be notable, but it will have constraints put on it by limited ability to be discussed. RiskAoA is Distribution B, it's audience is the entire US Government, and has been made notable to it via independent sources. Indeed, it is notable because it is novel technology that requires protection.

Source	Type	Notability	Verifiable	Independent
AFRL Techmilestones^[2]	??	Definitional	Yes	See below
TRANSCOM New Service^[3]	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
Defense Acquisition University^[4]	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
Defense AT&L^[5]	Secondary	Yes	Yes	No
Global University Alliance^[6]	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
AFRL Systems Engineering Initiative^[7]	Validation Test	Yes	Yes	No*
Defense Acquisition University (AFMC)	Program Office	Yes	Yes	No
Skywriter (Newspaper).^[8]	Third-party	Yes	Difficult/Yes	Yes

AFRL Techmilestones is a annual report by AFRL leadership stating its accomplishments for the year. It is obviously biased, but it is also a definitional document. In other words, what it states is now history, it is not disputable. The independence of the document is hierarchical, in other words, it is not the report of the programs it represents, but of the organization at large. It is DoD, and therefore non-profit motivated, etc.. What this means to Wikistandards is beyond me. It does say that it is the only Cybertechnology produced that year, the Cyber mission being one of its six primary missions.
AFRL System Engineering Initiative was the "independent," that is to say, non-affiliated panel that verified that RiskAoA was a valid working program. It should be noted that, this panel specifically validated that it worked, without endorsing the product.
Yes, the TRANSCOM News Article was created from the AT&L journal article.
The Defense AT&L established that the Undersecretary for Defense allowed it to be used US Government wide.
Defense Acquisition University: Says it is a good tool to do what it is supposed to do, and AFMC (same link) states that there is still a supporting program office.

Article Conflicts of Interest are removed. Indeed, ironically, I was never paid to develop the program. I don't think there remain any issues to resolve, that can't be done by further editing the page itself.

What can be verified about RiskAoA makes it notable. Both within wikiguidance and within the parameters of what those guides are intended to accomplish.

It must be considered that many military systems are notable despite a paucity of references. Examples Global Combat Support System, and Global Command and Control System, and many notable systems have no wikiarticle at all, and cannot if one holds rigidly to wikiguides, which are not meant to be held to rigidly.
GESICC (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://soundcloud.com/charts/top?genre=trance
^ "Air Force Research Laboratory's 2006 Technology Milestones" (PDF). February 2007. p. 49. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
^ Masquelier, Barbra (6 October 2006). "U.S. Transportation Command News Service (Oct. 6, 2006): Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense". St. Clair County, Illinois. Retrieved 1 Jan 2007.
^ Conley, Harry. "RiskAoA (Predictive Risk Analysis for the AoA process)". Defense Acquisition Portal. Defense Acquisition University July 2012.
^ Tyler, Gregory; Masquelier, Barbra (January 2007). "Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense" (PDF). Defense AT&L. 36 (1): 60–61.
^ von Rosing, Mark. "Risk Research & Analysis". Global University Alliance.
^ Anderson, Norman (Oct 2005). "AFRL Systems Engineering Initiative" (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center.
^ "AFRL Alternatives Planning Technology Aids Decision Makers". The Skywrighter. Brown Publishing Company. 12 December 2006.

Comment: The preceding comment by User:GESICC is chronologically out of order and is a repetition of arguments that have already been made and responded to in the discussion below. The first two points are false, and have already been rebutted. The fourth point, on the independence of US military sources, is disputed. The references have been discussed below, and I have dismissed the PowerPoint presentation as particularly irrelevant to notability and as failing to support the claim that it is supposed to support in the article. The reference to the USTRANSCOM News Service erroneously links to a copy of the article in Defense AT&L magazine. Biogeographist (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GESICC, inc. no longer exists except as a artifact. GESICC was unable to use the program in business, as it is distribution limited.
There are a handful of vetted sources, most notably, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, which lists it as AFRL only Cyber-technology for that year, Cyber technology being a key mission area. Several other notable features.
Citations cover claims first predictive tool... https://dap.dau.mil/aphome/das/Lists/Software%20Tools/DispForm.aspx?ID=57 (not by creator)
Others are listed here: http://www.dau.mil/publications/DefenseATL/DATLArchivecompletepdf/jan-feb07.pdf
Peer review (prototype): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005systems/wednesday/nolte.pdf
Documentation, administrative data was created by user.
The user is no longer associated with, or able to influence the program.
This article is not biographical.
Finally, peer review process is robust and hierarchical within DoD, leading to fewer press releases.
The (talk) has already begun removing references to the article, pre-decision, also modifying RiskAoA content.
Conflict of interest criteria have been removed.
GESICC (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC) The (talk) was aware of these when the nomination was createdGESICC (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The documents that User:GESICC cites above are U.S. military sources that do not establish notability; they are the only information publicly available on the subject; and one of those sources was written by Gregory Tyler, who registered the corporation GESICC, the company that User:GESICC adopted as a username: Tyler, Gregory; Masquelier, Barbra (January 2007). "Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense" (PDF). Defense AT&L. 36 (1): 60–61. (This is essentially self-citation in an AfD discussion.)

Also notice that User:GESICC created this article in March 2010 but did not declare a connection to the subject until yesterday after being questioned about having posted so much non-verifiable information (and only then did User:GESICC remove some of the more obviously promotional material from the article, including a prominent link to Gregory Tyler's website). Biogeographist (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One particularly strong reference for notability is that there is a Air Force Program Office (for government and affiliates) and Public Affairs office (for the general public) that questions may be directed to, perhaps that is why the link to these sources was removed. This, in many ways is better than a Journal article.GESICC (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the previous comment relates to notability, but I can clarify why the link was removed. If User:GESICC is referring to my removal of the URL http://www.afmc.af.mil/Units/Headquarters/ from the infobox in my last edit to this page, the reason I removed that URL is because it provides no information whatsoever about RiskAoA. It does not even mention RiskAoA or make clear who should be contacted for more information about RiskAoA, contra the claim of User:GESICC above. This highlights how little information is available about this product. A website link in an infobox about a product should provide information about that product, not require users to guess about who should be telephoned or emailed (and a telephone conversation is not "better than a journal article" given that Wikipedia requires reliable published sources). My edit also followed the removal of another URL from the same field in the infobox, namely http://www.psychomorphs.com/. Feel free to add another link in the infobox that provides information about the product. Biogeographist (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because there is an active government-run office for the product, whose job it is to be contacted and queried. The Department of Defense has contact protocols.GESICC (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there are many big, important organizations that have custom software solutions that they use internally. That doesn't make the software notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. Especially when the software is not even mentioned on the organization's website that is linked in an infobox. Biogeographist (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, the US Government is not Walmart, it is ubiquitous to every state and most industries, with ties to academia, the program is available to all the US government, and government contractors, whom are even larger, in accordance with Distribution B. Your presumption that it is only used by the DoD is somewhat understandable - I will update the site using this feedback. True, it is not listed on WPAFB, it IS listed on the Defense Acquisition University(DAU), which is appropriate, WPAFB mission is program management, DAU mission is education. GESICC (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "the program is available to all the US government, and government contractors" does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which require that the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable published secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The guidelines note: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." And: "'Independent of the subject' 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." Since one of the primary sources for the RiskAoA article is its entry at the Defense Acquisition Portal list of software tools, I reviewed the Defense Acquisition Portal list of all software tools and searched for them all on Wikipedia. Out of the more than 70 tools listed, only two others have Wikipedia articles: the Defense Acquisition Guide (which has also been tagged as having questionable notability, although it seems to be cited widely enough that it may pass the notability guidelines) and SEER-SEM (which is very widely discussed in secondary sources and easily passes the notability guidelines). RiskAoA, in contrast, fails the general notability guidelines. The fact that RiskAoA is mentioned in a couple of documents on the Defense Technical Information Center website and the Defense Acquisition University website (a corporate university of the United States Department of Defense) does not establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your doing such laborious work. I did some myself regarding notability, by reviewing random articles on Wiki. Ignoring biographies, of 74 entries, I discovered 3 notable despite no references, 2 without references, 52 had 2 or fewer references, and approximately 41% had references that did not meet notability GUIDELINES. Some were genus of animal, failing, yet notable, there was a hot sauce and a several obscure movies. This is why they are guides. There are other than academic ways to be notable. For example, RiskAoA passed through the Science policy of the United States Basic Research to Operational Use 6.1, 6.2, 6.3... etc., wickets in order for it to be "tech transitioned," by AFRL, as it's only cyber technology on 2006, this is notable. The DoD has different standards then academia, and wiki acknowledges not all notables come from academia. RiskAoA, to become a program, also had to pass through the DoD Acquisition Process, Milestone Decision Authorities, for example, (AFRL/SEI-as RiskHammer, was also it's transition from 6.2 to 6.3, for the final), to become a program. Are all successful DoD programs notable? I'd lean towards yes. The other tools you vigorously investigated did not involve new science or technology, they were also not DoD programs and did not require any novel theory to be proven, etc.. The theory behind RiskAoA had to be rigorously proven to work before the US Government can be allowed to use it. I should probably be clear, the theory had never been applied this way, and the algorithms were unproven.GESICC (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Acquisition Universities website is not affiliated with me, and is actually endorsed by two organizations, DAU and Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and required sponsorship. The Journal is by myself and another author, and a valid Journal. So we have five citations, of which I wrote one and a half. Of those, one was not primary research and peer reviewed, the other is the user's manual (documents administration, little citation value). The 2006 Tech Milestones (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) is a major citation, and dramatically notable. AFRL Systems Engineer Initiative demonstrated the unprecedented technology had been successfully applied, the Defense Acquisition University represents it may be used operationally, and the Journal of AT&L demonstrates it's validity as a US Government tool. With that, I think we can agree, RiskAoA now merits an entry. It has been corrected from self-promotion, cited, claims defended, and therefore not deleted.GESICC (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that there are a lot of very low-quality articles on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for inclusion or quality; that is why users have to be so cautious about using Wikipedia and must judge articles on a case-by-case basis. We do not agree that notability of this article is established. I think we are repeating ourselves and we need other experienced editors to step in and contribute to this conversation. (As a side note, I think the lack of publicly available information on RiskAoA/Supervene is an opportunity for you: You could write a book on the topic and get credit for your knowledge. I would like to read an accessible chapter about how this approach relates to other multiple-criteria decision-making methods and decision support in general.) Although I find the subject interesting, I am far from convinced that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this point in time and I would like to hear from other editors. Biogeographist (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, Technology Milestones (see above) is a definitive and historical work, it can not be objected to like something espoused in a journal or book. It is not what it says about RiskAoA as much as it is documenting. GESICC (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GESICC: I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last comment. The "Technology Milestones" document is an annual report of the Air Force Research Laboratory. It is a primary source, not a secondary source; it is not independent; and RiskAoA is only mentioned on one page buried in the middle of the document. It does not establish notability. But, again, I think we are repeating ourselves. Biogeographist (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article needs some sources that are independent of Tyler and/or the Air Force, but it has none. If it has had any impact on society at large surely there is something in the academic risk management literature, or at the very least some newspaper, that we could use as a secondary source. Willing to reverse my !vote if/when such sources are presented. As it is the article claims RiskAoA is 'one of the three prevalent risk management approaches' but does not back that up at all. If it somehow survives the AFD, it will need such claims to be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added USTRANSCOM news paper article. TRANSCOM is not the Air Force, and not affliated. I will see if I can find the article for the Skywriter. Neither is Defense Acquisition University, or Defense AT&L. 74.96.151.44 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So unaffiliated that they're located on an Air Force base and commanded by an Air Force General. We need something like the NY Times or the Washington Post, not more DoD sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That presumption is incorrect. You do not understand how the military is organized - and desire to lump the entire US Government, the AF or TRANSCOM, or DAU -ah, here* into one source is an improper stance. It is not one corporation, it is more like every building on every military base carries out a function, like a company, large or small. How about Marvel Comics? There are literally hundreds of comic book characters on Wikipedia who no one has ever heard of, whose only reference is one source, Marvel comics. Is there any reviewer from the DoD we can ask?

"*United States Transportation Command Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Air Force Material Command Air Force Research Laboratory Defense Acquisition University

These are all under the Department of Defense, but each organization has different processes, each, indeed many department within are independent. Each one of these likely has a budget and impact that far eclipses Marvel, and you could say RiskAoA is one of it's characters. You'd like the NY Times, the DoD wouldn't accept the NY Times, or Harvard without it's own validation process. You need to match the notability to it's origin, like you do, Piledriver (comics)GESICC (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to fall back on Wiki's notability parameter, since there is a cultural difference in possible sources: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Defense Acquisition University is the educator of the Department of Defense - something like ten million people are educated by this institution. The Undersecretary of Defense provides the policy for these same people. The news is notable to whom it is notable to, TRANSCOM posted it in there newspaper, etc., the program is Distribution limited, so this limits it's notabily, in much the same way as "Top Secret" would. GESICC (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Final-Please establish that these are not independent sources. There must be a criteria, which I will likely agree to. They are far more distinct than any two Universities, for example. GESICC (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added book reference related to the COSO Enterprise Risk Management. This brings the total to: Six (seven) references. One, Historical documentation of the accomplishments of AFRL. Two an inclusion by a major risk proponent, COSO, as a notable tool. Three (and possibly four), an endorsement in a hierarchy above AFRL, The Defense Acquisition University and Air Force Material Command. Four, the instruction manual, by the author. Five, certification of the basic principles of operation, an independent review. Six, a secondary source by the the inventor and a co-author, endorsed by a Journal.

One must note the difficulty and notoriety associated with a program that is Distribution B, it established that the Air Force recognizes the the technology. This propriety limits release to the United States government, which remains a notable audience. GESICC (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your 'book reference' is a collection of printed Wikipedia articles by a notorious content scraper - it has reprinted some old version of the Wikipedia article we are discussing here. Obviously not a source we can use to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that, and was just stopping in to fix it. Though he does not seem to be quoting Wiki, and if he is published, and directing work towards COSO ERM, I am unsure how even "skimming" prevents him from publishing a work on the subject, publishing is publishing, and time tells.
I would still like to know how the those referenced count as an unreliable source or a single source. It is like saying two companies are the same, or two universities are the same. News releases are of course germane to newspaper audiences. Only those with access to Distribution B are the audience, though, anyone interested in partnering for example, could access the technology for and reason consistent with Dist B.. The fact that it is Distribution B, should be sufficient to establish it's notability. It is a significant population and significant technology. GESICC (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep in mind that this software is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Clearly the Department of Defense considers it useful, but it is not clear that it is technologically significant for the general public. Regarding the claim that being "Distribution B, should be sufficient to establish its notability", I would like to know how many other things that are "Distribution B" have separate Wikipedia articles, and how many of them are considered notable simply because they are classified as "Distribution B". Biogeographist (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep in mind before MS Excel, grand technologies were kept track of on paper, so don't disparage, it is an excellent way to automate and improve the clunky Decision-making tools that rely on +/- and pros and cons. Indeed, it is an excellent way to apply appropriate algorithms to networked decisions, otherwise you can not perform adequate decision making except for the most simple and non-interacting of problems (this is easily proven by applying one of these tools to a scenario of networked computers, for example). For example, are two moderately and interacting problems more risky that a single difficult one? Current decision models can't explicitly tell you, RiskAoA can. The rest of your comment does not does not apply to notability. You should ask, how many things on Wikipedia are proprietary, and there because they are proprietary. Which would be just about every car, plane, etc., as Distribution B is a form of propriety. Is it notable because it is valuable enough to be protected? not definitive, but I'd lean toward yes.

The real problem is that, are things that have pieces of information that can't be written about, like classified programs, for example, notable? I'd lean towards, usually. Another question is, does a government program, still in existence and having the demonstrable characteristics (I have updated the references to secondary sources) of RiskAoA, notable? GESICC (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would be leaning wrong. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to make sure that we have enough independent sources to present a topic in the proper context and representation. If we don't (and can't) have independent sources because a program is classified, that tends to support the idea that it is not notable. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification about proprietary software vs. Distribution B: Proprietary software "is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person retains intellectual property rights—usually copyright of the source code, but sometimes patent rights." Proprietary software may be distributed very widely with an end-user license agreement. It is not equivalent to Distribution B, which according to DTIC's Distribution Limitations and Distribution Statements refers to the restriction of distribution to US Government agencies only, for any of various reasons. Proprietary software (for example, Microsoft Excel) can have a Wikipedia article when many reliable independent secondary sources (for example, sources independent of Microsoft) have written about how the software works, how to use it, why it is important, and so on. The fact that Microsoft Excel is proprietary software is not what establishes its notability on Wikipedia; it is the preponderance of independent secondary sources about the software that establish its notability. Biogeographist (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, you seem to agree that it is notable, for reasons out side Wikiguides, which are not expected to cover every possible aspect of what is notable, or be anything more than guides. Clearly academic standards are only guides when confronted by another similarly reputable institution, aka the DoD. But given that RiskAoA is coming from another culture, separate and capable of it's own notability, what could possibly change your mind? We have seem many of your arguments above, all end in "but..."

You've stated it's not notable because it's Excel (instead or written on 1970's paper), it now has a secondary independent source, you claim they aren't independant -without checking to see that they are indeed independent you have challenged that it is notable because what is in it's distribution statements, failing that, challenged the distribution statements, you ignore that even dependent sources can establish a notable baseline - and this is even is a definitive source, not one that can be disputed at all, you blanket state that the US Air Force produces low quality products, ignore the quality steps required by JCIDS and Science policy of the United States, on top of all this, the majority of your complaints were fixed before you suggested deletion, in accordance with Wikiguidlines, and you suggested deletion anyway, outside Wikilines. Just what is good enough? GESICC (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that I "stated it's not notable because it's Excel". Clearly the Wikipedia notability guidelines don't say anything about Excel. It's not true that I "blanket state that the US Air Force produces low quality products". I have never said anything about the quality of US Air Force products. These statements, like your statement that my edits to the RiskAoA article are "vandalism" are false and seem to display the same pattern of false inductive reasoning displayed when you incorrectly concluded that I am "attacking RiskAoA" (I am not). None of these statements are true, and you may be repeatedly jumping to conclusions due to your close connection to the subject. Biogeographist (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find my summary a kind of counter-attack, but this has nothing to do with the conversation, answering the objections, does. You still have not shown what a DoD notable could do to convince you it was notable, and avoided answering other questions. You make the unsustainable claim that DOD news agencies, and indeed other agencies aren't independent, when they are as independent as any other. But I can be convinced otherwise; show me how they are have the same mission or indeed opinions, or are biased towards one another. I am sure the leadership of the organizations would have a different opinion.

As I look at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, however, you must acknowledge, it far exceeds Wikinotability criteria. It is a definitive document, a historically defining document, one quite outside anticipatd wikiguidlines, and one Wikipedia should be glad to have. Can you tell me why this is not the case? The source is good, the notability is excellent, it is indisputable as a source, etc., etc.. Here is its introduction:

"AFRL Technology Milestones highlight significant scientific and technical accomplishments for visually-coupled acquisition and targeting systems for our warfighter to automatic spoken language translators for our international warriors. AFRL, headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio is the Air Force's largest employer of scientist and engineers, with partnerships in industry and academia, working to develop and transition affordable integrated technologies to support a broad range of future capabilities. This Technology Milestones book includes stories from the following categories: Support to the Warfighter; Sustainment; Emerging Technologies; Technology Transfer; and Awards Recognition." GESICC (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFRL Technology Milestones is an annual report of Air Force Research Laboratory, which produced RiskAoA; this publication is not an independent secondary source that could establish notability. Defense AT&L magazine is published by DAU Press, part of Defense Acquisition University, a corporate university of the United States Department of Defense, to which the Air Force Research Laboratory, part of Air Force Materiel Command, is subordinate, and the relevant article in that magazine was co-authored by Gregory Tyler, who reportedly participated in the creation and documentation of RiskAoA at Air Force Research Laboratory and therefore is not an independent source. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines require that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. The aforementioned sources do not establish notability for the purposes of this AfD discussion, but they are reliable sources that can be used to mention RiskAoA in other relevant articles such as the articles on Air Force Research Laboratory and Risk management tools, where you have also written about RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is far far better, it is a definitive document, what it says is beyond reproof, historic, definitional, period. It is not the subject of on going research, or someone's quack theory. But by all means keep claiming otherwise. But when you do, please demonstrate beyond some rule-set how it does not reflect reality, which Wikistandards are aiming at. You are misapplying those guidelines to the wrong kind of document. Tech Milestones is a report of significant technology of AFRL. By your rationale any of the creators of the magnificent technology AFRL produced contributed to this report. By your rationale, it is not a good reference. Your are claiming it is not a reliable source, this is not only wrong, but offensive. You are claiming it isn't notable, when the report selects what is notable, you are saying it isn't a reliable source which is just preposterous. You also fail to understand wiki's policy about authors is encouraging, not detrimental. Then you go off trying to say something incongruous about DAU, Defense AT&L which you also clearly will not research to understand.GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AFRL Technology Milestones is an annual report. Annual reports of any organization are expected to proclaim how great the organization is and how great their products are. That's fine, but it is a primary source and does not qualify as the significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources required to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Biogeographist (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although, continuing my previous sentence, even in other articles where you mention RiskAoA, you should declare your connection to RiskAoA on the talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all understand that, and that was fixed before you made this declaration. Wiki doesn't exist to punish, indeed you should read the guidelines, before you delete. You jumped the gun by a long shot.GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have not declared your connection to RiskAoA on the articles on Air Force Research Laboratory and Risk management tools, where you have also written about RiskAoA. I am saying that if the article on RiskAoA is deleted your declaration of a connection to the subject will be deleted as well, so you should declare your connection to RiskAoA on the talk pages of any other articles where you have added mentions of RiskAoA. I am familiar with the deletion guidelines, and my decision to nominate this article for deletion was not "to punish", but was a result of my due diligence in searching for sources that would establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and I did not find any. You are repeatedly attributing statements to me that I never made (for example, you claimed that I said that the AFRL Technology Milestones report "isn't a reliable source" but I never said that). Biogeographist (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could declare your connection to RiskAoA on your userpage. Biogeographist (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another news source is coming. The Skywrighter, so consider this another News source you can claim is not independent, just a question, though, how many non-independent news sources does one organization need?GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Skywrighter is the official newspaper at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where Air Force Research Laboratory, which produced RiskAoA, is located. As for "how many non-independent news sources does one organization need", it depends on how many locations that organization has. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if a fire occurs in a factory, and the local news reports it, it is not independent? GESICC (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not if an affiliate of the local news started the fire. Biogeographist (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, in that we agree. I have nothing to do with TRANSCOM, the Skywriter, or DAU, AFMC is the program office, and Defense AT&L are policy, notable for endorsing the product, the Skywriter is reporting locale news, to an acquisition community of 30,000, commanding trillions of dollars. So, now you may establish the entire Air Force and DoD can not be an independent source, notable or agree to wikiworthiness. To do that, you need to prove something that isn't true. Or you could look at the command descriptions, THEY ARE INDEPENDANT. I think the Skywriter is a subsidiary of the Cox Media. We're rapping up, I think. GESICC (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote an Air Force spokesman (via the Dayton Daily News) on the occasion of the outsourcing of the publication to Cox: 'The Air Force retains exclusive control over all contents'. So, not independent either. - MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired the page, in accordance with Wikiguidance. Unless you can show the impossible, that the TRANSOM newspapers, DAU, Defense AT&L, AFMC and AFRL are one organization, with one story and opinion, the article is repaired. GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of significant coverage of RiskAoA in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is not something you can repair by editing the article; it is a fact that is verifiable apart from the state of the article. The brief two-page article in Defense AT&L magazine was co-authored by Gregory Tyler, who was reportedly involved in the creation and documentation of RiskAoA, and therefore is not independent. Air Force Research Laboratory produced RiskAoA, so its Technology Milestones 2006 report is not independent. One of the sources is merely a PowerPoint presentation by Air Force Research Laboratory employees that briefly reviews risk management in general, but not RiskAoA in particular. These sources do not establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the aforementioned PowerPoint presentation is cited in the history section of the RiskAoA article as support for the claim that RiskAoA is "Validated, Verified and Accredited (VV&A) by AFRL" but the file does not support that claim. In fact, the file states the contrary: "The presence of a tool's name and description in this presentation does not constitute an endorsement by the US Air Force or any of its officers or personnel". The file also does not describe or discuss RiskAoA. This reference is neither relevant to the AfD discussion nor relevant to the claim in the article that it is supposed to support. Biogeographist (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable tools with DoD pedigree: Technology_readiness_level#TRL_assessment_tools. This was established on the same day and in the same panel. GESICC (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on technology readiness level is sourced with documents from the governments of Canada, Europe, and the United States, as well as other sources independent of those governments; thousands of other sources not cited can easily be found. Therefore the notability of technology readiness level is easily established. Comparing RiskAoA to technology readiness level again highlights the severe paucity of information available on RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it is not as popular, now you are saying it is a popularity contest, and again ignoring that the program is not allowed in Canada, Europe, etc., it it notable to the US Government. Since it is broader in application and approved in the same board, this argument is in RiskAoA's favor. GESICC (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is notability, not popularity. Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to the subject of separate articles and require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article on technology readiness level passes these guidelines; the article on RiskAoA does not. Biogeographist (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my friend, @Biogeographist, you did not even look at the references, did you? We are talking about the TRL Level Calculator, which is indeed a wonderful tool; it has two citations from DAU, One from NDIA (via DTIC), one from the Army. They are perfectly good and solid references, and we'll agree to that, finally, but RiskAoA has the more and better. The TLC Calc. itself is a marvel, but unlike RiskAoA, it did not require any new theory or S&T development. GESICC (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines apply to articles; there is not an article on the TRL Level Calculator (the subject of the article you cited is technology readiness level), so there is there is no need to determine notability of the TRL Level Calculator. It is fine to mention reliably sourced tools within other articles on notable subjects, such as technology readiness level. Biogeographist (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we agree, the TRL Calc. is reliably sourced. GESICC (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we agree on the reliability of the TRL Calculator references in particular. Some editors could consider the fact that they are not published to be a problem (they are grey literature). The reliability of the TRL Calculator references would require an inquiry that is more relevant for Talk:Technology readiness level. Biogeographist (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, I really would like you to read the notability, independence, and these other guides you keep using. Because the referenced material fits the bill. The sources are completely reliable sources, completely verifiable in content. Unless you are somehow saying DOD publications are not. You have news sources, Journal sources, and Historic sources, academic referrals, and so on. The most important thing in wiki is verifiable, according to wiki. These all have a independent human being whose job it is for you to contact and query. The organizations are quality organizations. You need not worry of the program office making a profit or benefiting in any way due to THEIR OWN references, it is a free product.

Most if not all are independent (see below) of the topic as well.

"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." None of the sources have any interest in the topic any longer. AFRL has no claim on the technology, DAU does not have any legal or financial interests, indeed, there is no way for the sources to profit off of the product. AFMC, perhaps, but there is no financial or legal interest. They don't get paid for maintaining it, or distributing it, and the only benefit of the office is distributing software that allows US taxdollars to be spent in a more effective way -- etc..

I will work on declaring my interest in the subjects. (I just saw the note, the topic is getting a little long to follow.)GESICC (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the same Wikipedia policies that I referred to in my nomination of this article for deletion: The article fails general notability guidelines: I cannot find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These policies state that "it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources." The extremely small quantity of sources available on RiskAoA do not qualify. This policy exists, among other reasons, in order to ensure that "articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure." Furthermore, "Wikipedia:Verifiability was created as an expansion of the neutral point of view policy, to allow information to be checked for any form of bias. It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct. Such articles tend to be vanity, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Not only is the RiskAoA article sourced (and, as I have shown above, in at least one place inaccurately sourced) with a tiny quantity of sources, it is also impossible to find the required significant coverage in multiple independent secondary, third-party sources that would establish the subject's notability and ensure the article's neutral point of view. The lack of neutral point of view, and possible vanity, is a problem given User:GESICC's close connection to the subject. The potential bias at work here was perhaps most obviously on display when, in the midst of this AfD discussion, User:GESICC edited the RiskAoA article in order to add an obviously unreliable circular reference published by the notorious Emereo Publishing, and then User:GESICC (wrongly) claimed in this discussion that this "book reference related to the COSO Enterprise Risk Management" established the notability of RiskAoA. The best explanation for this edit may be that a close connection to the subject is impeding User:GESICC's ability to evaluate accurately the independence and reliability of sources. The available sources on RiskAoA do not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent secondary, third-party sources that would establish the subject's notability and ensure the article's neutral point of view. Biogeographist (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the previously mentioned issues, there are financial conflict of interest issues. Presumably Gregory Tyler was paid to help develop and document RiskAoA: this qualifies as "a financial or legal relationship with the topic". Biogeographist (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you go presuming, again. As a matter of fact, "he" was not, nor was he rewarded for it. &That does not qualify as a legal of financial relationship with the topic, read what that means please. The article has had all COI information removed, before you nominated it for deletion.GESICC (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paid employment or other payment does qualify as "a financial or legal relationship with the topic", but if it is true that Gregory Tyler was acting in a purely unpaid voluntary relationship to the US Government at all times, then there is no financial COI. The other issues remain. Biogeographist (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another referenceGESICC (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cited web page explicitly states that the list in which RiskAoA is included "does not reflect importance of subject". The list only suggests that the researchers happened to encounter and consider RiskAoA but does not indicate that the researchers considered it important or that RiskAoA is part of their final risk ontology. The cited web page does not cite any sources on RiskAoA and has only been archived in the Internet Archive since May 2015, so it is possible that RiskAoA is mentioned in the list only because the researchers encountered RiskAoA on Wikipedia (since references to RiskAoA on Wikipedia predate this web page). The researchers' risk ontology is not publicly available and its content cannot be verified. For all these reasons, I don't think this web page is relevant to establishing the notability of RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference, citing its use as a 'product support planning' tool in the DoD (US government).GESICC (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found only one source from HighBeam - Defense AT & L, but it's already being used in the article. When I see sentences like this in the lead - Members of the general public interested in RiskAoA technology may contact the Wright Patterson Public Affairs Office. - it makes me think this article was written to advertise, instead of content that has encyclopedic value.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not even be being considered for deletion: It does not fit any of the 12 criteria, none of the references are original research, and are all verifiable (anyone can view the citation) from a reliable source. None of these are self-published, or from institutions that don't check facts, etc.. It has significant coverage under notability, as it is a DoD tool, and there are more than two references, with links, remember they don't have to be journals, and one citation is sufficient. As for neutral pint of view. Wiki policy is to fix, not delete.GESICC (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being considered for deletion, as stated in the first sentence above, because it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (number 8 on the list of 12 criteria that User:GESICC cited in the previous comment), also explained at length above. "Being a DoD tool" is not among Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Biogeographist (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah @biogeographist, you do know that the deletion criteria try to prevent deletion as much as possible, work out ways to ensure value is kept on Wiki.? Lets go over the notability guidelines, but first, let's rehash their foundations; verifiable, most of my citations are verifiable with a link or a phone call to excellent sources. They do not contain any original research. They are notable for three reasons, The Undersecretary of Defense magazine promoting policy endorsed the product to the DoD and the US Government. Two news sources also endorsed the product to to major organizations. Further, a academic institution took due diligence in contacting the DoD so that it could work with this restricted program. Significant coverage: Check. The sources are reliable, call them, find out. No DoD article publishes without a hierarchical review process. Remember the source does not depend on who cited it. Reliable: Check. Like it or not, I am not affiliated with any of the publishers, except AFRL, and there is NO vanity press: advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website. Independant and subjective: Check (or dispute it with the sources). Presumed means presumed. Finally, citing the fivr pillars of wiki, this leaves "Neutral Point of View" which you have control over, and "Wiki has no firm rules," and if wiki desires to get notable content from the DoD, and it does, it must relax the academic standard for a DoD one, which it also does.

So there is notability, look at the sources for being verifiable (DoD public relations EXISTS to help you), don't look up the sources, they aren't published on that circuit, look at the third party news and media. I think we'll finally agree. GESICC (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GESICC: Well, you certainly seem to be convincing yourself that the available information on RiskAoA constitutes significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject! I'm not convinced, but we'll see who else wants to join us in this conversation and evaluate the evidence. (By the way, that reference to World Heritage Encyclopedia that you added to the article yesterday is a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article of the same name, hence is another circular reference: see also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org.) Just a few points about terminology: "Wiki" as a proper name refers to the original wiki created by Ward Cunningham, not to Wikipedia: see also meta:Wikipedia is not Wiki and WP:NOTWIKI. The no original research policy applies to Wikipedia articles, not to sources. Keep in mind that a subject that is not notable now (for example, RiskAoA) could become notable in the future, so the article on RiskAoA could be re-created in the future if the DoD approves wider distribution and if independent journalists, scientists, and/or historians write about the software and describe its relative innovativeness and impact in relation to other decision support software for risk management. Deletion doesn't necessarily mean forever. External events can, over time, make a previously non-notable subject notable. Biogeographist (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>> more notable, than ~42% of Wiki artictles, by random sample of 72, somewhat objective. (PS) And just think, if someone just went through all those articles, said, "your article isn't sufficient," and marked it for deletion sans baseline dialog. GESICC (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm convinced, you have had me read Wikiguidence on all of this. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's right there, in electric ink, iaw all the wikirules you are using.GESICC (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note: I came here because the creator left me a note on my talk: nonetheless, I am arguing to delete. I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The sources in the article are almost all rather obscure, but only one of them strikes me as being reliable: the Defence AT&L source. I might add that merely being a "book" does not necessarily make something a reliable source: it is the author, and the publisher, and the content of the book that makes it a worthwhile source or otherwise. Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and the article isn't written in an encyclopedic tone: it reads like advocacy for this obscure software. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Analysis of Alternatives.

AoA is not only a principle, it is a principle and specific methodology used solely within US defence procurement. Western defence procurement (second perhaps to UK civil nuclear power procurement) is the most expensive, yet inept, management discipline known. This is a hugely important area, despite its obvious secrecy. Few people are aware that it exists as a business discipline, even those carrying out the same role in a commercial environment are largely unaware of its techniques within the military cloister (and the featherbed of protection from utterly failed decisionmaking, career reward despite and why the emblem of the comfortable clubs around Whitehall should sometimes be a pair of left-footed mule-shoes rampant. I do not work in this field. As you might guess, I have at times worked within its consequences. I remain unimpressed by the stellar decisionmaking therein.)

We have an article here which is hardly illuminating to the general reader. It is vague, unsourced and woffles platitudes. It fails to either explain the context of why this is needed, or how RiskAoA goes about it. Despite that, I would favour Keep. So far, the push to delete seems to be coming primarily from one editor. Oddly some of the best explanation we have seen so far is on that talk page:.

I'm happy to keep this article on the basis of sources. It's not ideal, I'd like to see more independent sourcing, but (given the secretive nature of how governments choose to spend our money), it's as much as we're likely to see: it would be unhelpful to the encyclopedia to fillet too closely because of who's saying things, if the alternative is for us to report nothing. I would particularly like to see the inner workings of RiskAoA set out (see the talk: page). That's the content which is of most interest to those working in similar fields for commercial decision making.

On the whole though, I don't see this article on RiskAoA as strong enough to stand independently of AoA itself. As such, it would be better merged there, almost wholesale. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that RiskAoA could be described in some other article(s), but the article on risk management tools seems as appropriate as Analysis of Alternatives. (Related to User:Andy Dingley's commentary on military acquisition in general, I also notice that there are sections in the article on risk management devoted to information technology, petroleum and natural gas, and the pharmaceutical sector, but not to the military sector. Instead "AoA/RiskAoA" is mentioned in the project management section of that article, perhaps giving the impression that "AoA/RiskAoA" is commonly used across all sectors. There should be a section in risk management on the military sector just like the other sectors mentioned.) I've found that an interesting source on risk management in the US military is the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (June 2015). This document is mentioned in the article on project risk management, but that article also does an extremely poor job of differentiating between different risk management approaches in different sectors, and again RiskAoA is mentioned in that article in a way that could give the impression that it is commonly used across all sectors. Biogeographist (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paradox: I wonder, what more is there to write or reference? Would someone write an article, "RiskAoA, still doing it's job."? What more would/could anyone say that isn't already in print? It was invented, verified and released to its audience. Can anyone suggest anything more that could be contributed to the state of the art? non-redundantly? Other Journals don't have access, and the audience is satisfied. GESICC (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening comment on Biogeographist's talk page suggests that RiskAoA has some "special sauce" of its own. As a practitioner in the field of decision support tools, I'd be interested to find out more. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fowl So we find out a COI on Biogeographist, on his talk page he says...

"I am also compiling a list of sources on other comparable decision support software, but I still need to read all the sources to determine which ones are relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)"

While on the RiskAoA talk page he says.

"I don't have any connection to the field of decision making; most of my edits on Wikipedia are in other areas...Biogeographist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)" This is just great. GESICC (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Reading sources on the Internet is not a "conflict of interest"—it's what Wikipedia editors do, especially when another editor says: "if you can show a project management tool that operated in that larger regime, that isn't simply accounting, I'd be very interested" as User:GESICC said to me earlier on my talk page. Reading sources about decision support software does not mean I have a connection to the field of decision making (I don't) any more than reading sources about Neal E. Miller (to mention the last page that I edited) means that I have a connection to the field of experimental psychology (I don't). User:GESICC has previously falsely accused me of "vandalism" and "attacking RiskAoA", when I have provided good reasons for my edits and I have no problem seeing RiskAoA mentioned in an appropriate way in the appropriate places; now User:GESICC is accusing me of having a "conflict of interest" because I am reading sources to answer a query that User:GESICC posed to me! Biogeographist (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. but rewrite for conciseness and readability. I'm not sure the specific details in the GNG have much applicability to government internal programs, b Considering the practical way we do source articles on government programs, this is sufficient.

Most of the above discussion is inapplicable to Wikipedia--there is not necessarily much in connection between significance in the real word and coverage in Wikipedia.(personally, I think this a fundamental error in our system, but it is nonetheless our system). There is never much point in comparing the article at AfD with other articles. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that do not really meet our requirements, many of which should be removed.

I think the real objection to the article is that it goes into too much technical detail and is ridden with bureaucratic language. The language and style can be partially fixed by rewriting, but some is inevitable in this subject (I notice that almost all our articles on government bureaucracy have the same defect: they copy the language used in the sources which is based on a formal system whose purpose is not readability. But the extent of the detail may be appropriate--we usually object only to the amount of detail in fields we are not interested in. To me the detail in many sports and popular entertainment articles is altogether absurd, but those interested there tend to think the detail in subjects of concern to me absurd, and the only pratical rule in a system like ours is to tolerate each other. (tolerating each other is the basis for the principle of consensus) DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established that the general notability guidelines do not apply to government internal software? If that's true, then I don't see any basis for deletion, but I also don't see where such software is exempted. I'm not opposed to detail about this subject; in fact, I would like to see more detail, especially detail that explains why the software is so important and, if it is so important, why the software is not mentioned in a larger quantity of government documents such as the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (June 2015), the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Handbook (June 2013), or the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (June 2013). Biogeographist (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can still see in the cached files where the OAS had RiskAoA, they removed it around 2009, for reasons I can tell you. The DoD will never (and should not) put a specific program into it's policy. The DoD largely follows "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." - George S. Patton. None of those guides will mandate any program, and if they did, it would be chaos; you would have people using the program they were mandated to use inappropriately. Also, things change, if they mandated one practice over another, they would be, indeed have been, stuck with obsolete practices and products.

@MrOllie, I updated RiskAoA to your requests. Dependant or Network risk and Universal risks are non-linear. I have added a citation or two since your objection. V/R GESICC (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GESICC: Please provide a link to "the cached files where the OAS had RiskAoA"; I don't see which files you are referring to. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lead doesn't even say what RiskAOA is, for Pete's sake. References 9 and 10 just mention RiskAOA as one of many tools. There are many one- or maybe two-sentence sections. Most of it is incomprehensible gobbledygook. There's nothing much here to recommend this as an article. Put it out of its misery. Lou Sander (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou Sander Fixed, says what it is.
RiskAoA is software developed by Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Headquarters to select between complicated or high value decisions when limited information is available.
RiskAoA selects the best possible alternative within a trade-space of cost, project merit and risk.GESICC (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GESICC (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So judging by the comments here, the article is poorly written, not in encyclopedia style, and was rushed to the deletion. There remains some discussion on notability. What I will do based on the recommendations of Lou Sander and @DGG and others, will re-write it in the style of the Wiki topic Paxata which has a similar function, and similar references, and has been noted as a good wiki-article. This should also greatly improve the neutrality of the subject. In the meantime, it may be other articles will be coming. Europe ISO and CEU have evidently done due diligence to acquire a copy, which is also likely to mean it will be deregulated. GESICC (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not "rushed" to deletion; we have been discussing it here every day for two weeks—not a rush job at all. WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD are the options to "rush" articles to deletion. This discussion has not been a unanimous consensus to keep, so you can't credibly claim that the nomination was without justification. Some articles get nominated for deletion multiple times (by different editors) over the years. If RiskAoA becomes more widely discussed by a wider range of sources, it may avoid that fate. Biogeographist (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in very much reduced form to Analysis of Alternatives, or failing that delete. My own work involves risk analysis and government procurement, and I feel relatively comfortable saying that what this software does according to the article is rather unremarkable, certainly not much more than many of a number of comparable software tools, and as such (combined with the necessarily very niche nature of this topic) it's no surprise that we don't have the independent sources needed to pass GNG. Combined with the COI problems associated with the article and its contents, which are the sort of fancrufty minutiae normally only found in anime character lists or sales catalogues, I think we better get rid of this ill-disguised advertisement. Sandstein 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable software package. The article reads like a product brochure and does not communicate why it is notable. Better sources do not appear to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 26 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. Noting that notability is not inherited, which is why an observation that he is the son of a prominent politician must be discounted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimal Ghani

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

Dlete a totally non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am restoring the following two !votes (from MSJapan and AKS.9955), which were deleted by IP 98.169.34.51. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a clear-cut vanity article. The same editor created one on his brother Sultan Ghani as well that falsely claims he's "president" of a global company (not true according to the company's website). MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The following person is the son of a tribal chieftain his position derives from his blood line. There are no formal elections. He will become the next Grand Council Chieftain of the Kuchis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.34.51 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging Habib787: I noticed that you removed your earlier "delete" !vote (see this diff), but an IP editor later restored the !vote (see this second diff). Was your intention to remove your vote? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i am pinging Notecardforfree: Yes. I removed my "delete" !vote Habib787 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep He's the son of Hashmat Ghani Ahmadzai, political who ran for president. ^[1] In Afghanistan Mr. Aimal Ghani makes a lot of speeches for women's rights and advocation on behalf of charities. This is why i changed my vote to keep. Habib787 (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=81&task=view&total=3352&start=172&Itemid=2

@Habib787: see WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A7. I could find no sources, reliable or otherwise, that discuss this individual. The sources cited in the article don't even discuss him; with the exception of the Afghan-Bios source, which includes a one-line mention, the sources talk about his relatives. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, or anything close to it. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 31 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markerstudy Group

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

This may be a large company, but notability proves elsuive. The refs that are here are either dead-links or passing mentions and nothing that establishes notability. Searches also yield very little. It seems to be a company that likes to keep quiet about itself, but that doesn't help at Wikipedia. A recent COI editor removing sources material is also a concern. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, thank you for your comments. We are keen to resolve this issue and understand there are guidelines in place. I work for Markerstudy and have been tasked with updating the Wiki page to provide an up to date profile of the business. I am keen to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Please can you advise the best way to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkerstudyUK (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means and I honestly consider this G11 entirely. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete What are the rules on CSDing something at AFD? Because I would delete this in a second under G11 - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure about this one. It's a £2.5bln company, which own Zenith Insurance Company for example. But I'm coming up short on sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thoughts, as my searches do not bring up anything convincing to pass CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 25 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. Firstly, thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion respectful and not letting it get too heated. I'm sympathetic to the idea that having her career primarily in the pre-Internet era, references about her are hard to track down with a mere Google search. However, I would expect to find at least something for an important and notable artist, even one from this era. That being said, I will restore this to the draft space upon request if anyone wants to commit the time to finding the references in offline sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Christian

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

Delete. Advertorially-toned biography of an artist who may have a valid claim to passing WP:CREATIVE -- but neither makes the case in a neutral way nor reliably sources it. The article is based almost entirely on primary sources like the web pages of art galleries and organizations she was directly involved in, while the few genuinely reliable sources here aren't actually about her -- for instance, one article in The Guardian entirely fails to mention her at all, but is cited only to support a subjective assertion about the style of another artist that this one has supposedly (but not sourcedly) been compared to. And a New York Sun article also fails to mention her at all, with the added bonus that I'm having a harder time figuring out why it's even there — all of the sources here are just contextlessly linkfarmed at the bottom of the article, with no indication whatsoever of what content is referenced to which source. The quality of the writing and sourcing here simply isn't acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am surprised this was accepted at AfC: the various claims made in the text are unreferenced, and the supposed references stacked at the end are generally to items which do not even mention the subject. I have marked those which I have checked and failed to find mention of this person. (I haven't checked others, but she is unlikely to be mentioned in the works of Dürer, Matisse or Kahlo.) This leaves the two genuine mentions, which I have expanded. Of these, the Artists in Canada page is merely an online listing page; the Art House one could be more relevant as it is a drawing in the Alberta Foundation for the Arts collection, so could if it is permanently exhibited contribute to WP:ARTIST criterion 4(d), though not be sufficient in itself. Nor are my own searches finding anything better in terms of critical coverage, so for me this fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The references given do not support the notability of the artist. ~~References to Matisse, Dürer, Hockney and Kahlo are not supported by secondary or tertiary sources.~~ The factual statements made in the article are unverifiable, not supported by citations and may constitute WP:OR. The subject fails WP:ARTIST in every way: Not regarded as an important figure, not widely cited (1). Not known for originating a new concept, theory or technique (2). She has not played a major role in creating a significant or well-known body of work(3). Her work has not become a significant monument (4a), has not been part of a significant exhibition (4b) has not won significant critical attention (4c) and is is not represented in the collection of several notable galleries or museums.(4d) Mduvekot (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Important to separate ton from content. There is enough here to pass GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not its content. There's nothing here to pass GNG as things stand right now, because there's not a single reliable source listed that contains any information about her. And this isn't the first time I've had to respond to you that an unsourced or poorly sourced article doesn't pass GNG just because it makes potentially impressive but unsourced or improperly sourced claims; it passes GNG only once a certain minimum depth and volume and quality of sourcing is there to support the claims. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken one of the refs and made it an inline ref to verify a factual claim. If anyone is able to do the same thing with the remaining ref and show that they can be used to verify anything at all, I might be amenable to changing my vote. As far as I can tell, they aren't really references or citations at at all. How, for example is a link to a picture of Matisse's The PInk Studio [32] a citation that supports claims like "She was especially inspired by Matisse…" and "“Bird for Matisse”. is a collage in which the body (or interior) of the bird is made from a watercolor reproduction made by Christian of Matisse’s famous studio interior (“The Pink Studio” from 1911). The counter-change that establishes the volume of the bird is achieved by cutting a negative space around the tail of the bird while modeling the feet and breast of the bird with positive shapes.", or how is "Parallels could be drawn to the work of David Hockney, whose work during this time period was similarly preoccupied with visual puzzles that manifest the dialectic between physical objects and pictoriality." supported by [33]. That's not citing, that's name-dropping. Mduvekot (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is clearly about an important if lesser-known Canadian artist, and although the article needs some work, a quick search of Canadian art auction records turns up many listings for the artist. I'll work on editing the piece to remove unattributed claims and add references to art-auction records etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Art auction records" do not confer notability for Wikipedia purposes; only reliable source coverage in media does that, and a person who cannot be sourced to any media coverage does not get a Wikipedia article just because of auction sales. As well, I'd note that you were the first non-IP contributor to this article, probably are the IP number who created it as well, and have never made an edit to Wikipedia on any other topic besides this one — all of which gives you the air of having a vested interest of some sort. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a "non-IP" contributor is. I'm not hiding from my vested interest in this subject. Indeed, the power of Wikipedia is that it taps into the vested interest that all of us feel for something--the power of wikipedia is to have this vested interest checked by a dispassionate community of curious and engaged people. Your comment made it seem as if you are somehow invested in divesting people of interest in wikepedia, which seems counterproductive to the broader enterprise. I am not hiding from the fact: I wrote the entry on Sharon Christian (I thought this fact was clear because I created an account in order to do so, and wrote the article while logged in to the account I created; I have never created a wikipedia article; and I hasten to add that this experience has not increased my appetite to do another). Christian was an amazing artist whose work I came to know because I am originally from West Vancouver, where she exhibited regularly at local galleries. She is not a family member or relative. I knew her simply because she was a famous artist, well known in Western Canada. I was stunned that there wasn't already a wiki page for her! I take it as the mission of Wikipedia to educate the public about people like her. I am not the gate-keeper of what constitutes fame or notability, and I appreciated the first round of feedback: wiki articles should not contain original content, and my original attempt had unattributed content (I have removed it, and will not put it back until I can source the attributions). But I would think that it is reasonable to expect that an artist whose work is in a major national collection, who had many solo exhibitions, is quoted in the press and whose work is described in a number of journals (and whose work comes up regularly for auction), surely meets the bar set by wikipedia--it is this kind of evidence through which many (if not most) artists eventually acquire fame (where would Van Gogh be?). Christian is in the Canadian Heritage Information database of Canadian artists. Her work is in the Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Much Music/Much West did an entire story broadcast on national television about her (see link to archived footage cited in the article). Moreover, there are dozens more publications that attest to her important contributions to the tradition of female artists in Western Canada which will be added to the wiki entry in time. The guidelines of "sourcing" on wikipedia state: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process". By those guidelines, I fail to see how Christian is not justified in having a wikipedia page. I'll end by saying that I think it is often the case that the discourse on art (and fame) has been dominated by men, and that the voices and contributions of female artists are all-to-often shut out from this discourse because of un-intended prejudice (unconscious I'm sure, but the consequence is nonetheless exclusion). It would be sad to see this happen to yet another great Canadian female artist. (p.s. I just figured out that using four tildas apparently signs an entry!) Icareaboutart (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What determines whether an artist qualifies for a Wikipedia article is the volume of reliable source media coverage that can or cannot be cited to support the claims. If everything you say about her is true, then there's no reason at all why she couldn't have a properly sourced article — but being included in directories or databases is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be sourceable to media coverage, and nothing else here is either. It's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article that determines whether it's in or out, not anything that you can simply say, but not properly source, about how notable she should be. And none of the "sourcing" here is cutting it according to our rules about what's valid sourcing and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icareaboutart, I think you may be misinterpreting our use of the term "vested interest". We mean a (financial) stake in a particular outcome. I don't think applies to you. But you may be trying to right great wrongs. I'd like to note that some of us (I'll speak for myself here) are very interested in improving the coverage of Canadian women artists, and try to help new editors become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that new editors sometimes find difficult to understand, seemingly contradictory and that may appear to disadvantage certain groups. Writing a new article as the first thing you do on Wikipedia is very challenging, and it often ends up being a frustrating and disappointing experience. We do want to help you find your way around though. We frequently organize edit-a-thons, like Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2016. If you want to learn more about the project, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll try to help you. Mduvekot (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the artist's website here - [34] lists a large number of exhibitions, issues are whether any are significant (point 4 of WP:ARTIST), and whether sources confirming them can be found especially when most of the exhibitions are pre-internet. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi everybody, I may be late to the discussion, but it seems that the author has updated the entry and added some links. I agree with the earlier comment that most of the sources predate internet availability, which makes documentation more difficult. The sourcing of this entry seems to comply pretty well with the WP:ARTIST requirements - as much as one can reasonably expect, I think, given the circumstances. Of course, the exact standards to which artists should be held are a matter of discussion (and this is a fiendishly difficult question in any such discussion, not just wikipedia.) There may well be a gray zone here, but my feeling is that there's enough "there" there to keep the article. I checked her personal website against the Water Colour Artist Society, as a spot check, her name is listed there - under "Sharon Holmes." geburtstagskind —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched six pages on Google and could not find one secondary source to support notability. Her work is listed at a number of auction houses, but little seems written about her. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist was most active before the emergence of the Internet. Article meets WP:ARTIST criteria - particularly #4 as previously noted by a few editors here. Article could use further cleanup and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's pretty easy to find pre-internet resources online (books, news articles). Sharon Christian is not found in those searches either. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: it is not "pretty easy" to find all sources to document notability pre-internet. For example, both the Masters and the Wallace Galleries have confirmed that they represented Christian about 20-25 years ago. But Wallace Galleries says "It has been probably close to 20 years since we represented her now…so no I don’t have any documentation that I know of that you could cite that I know of." and Master's Gallery says "Yes she was represented by Masters Gallery for a period going back 30-35 years but unfortunately we do not have records of her work going that far back therefore are unable to give you dates. Sorry that we could not have been more help." Christian's representation in these galleries was very important during the early 1980s, and there were a number of reviews of her work documenting its importance for Canadian art. see New Canadian Artists, A Preview of the Future, (including illustration of ‘Young Canadian’) by Carol Fleming, Arts West Magazine. Fleming writes "“Sharon Holmes is a watercolourist who began painting the people and buildings of the city's Chinese district as part of her interest in the study of time and change. In her works she both interprets and records the city's cycles with a detailed technique touching on realism. Her old people sunning on benches are as close to the end of their days as are the old buildings. With her fine handling of watercolour she imitates the effects of light and the texture of fabrics and wood. Holmes studied painting at the University of Calgary and the Alberta College of Art. Her works can be viewed at the Masters Gallery.”"

This article was only found after extensive digging, and through inter-library loans. There are no archives of this journal online, yet during its time, it was very influential.

In addition, footage of the influential Much West/Much Art's program with Terry Milligan is not available on-line. There is also no documentation readily available online about the programming (for this TV program or most other programming from that time period). Nonetheless, the program was deeply influential in its time, and it documents the important role that Christian played in art of that time. Fortunately, her official website has footage:

http://www.sharonchristian.ca/first-segment/

~~Keep~~: I maintain that there is ample documentation of her importance in Canadian Art, although much of it requires more research than simple internet searches; I would challenge wikipedia editors to strive for a less superficial notion of what constitutes notability than simple internet searches (if all research could be conducted with simple internet searches, we wouldn't need wikipedia); I'm grateful for the offers of some people to help edit and refine the article (although I live in Washington DC, so I'll have to explore options closer to me if I am to continue working with wikipedia). There is no doubt that Christian was an extremely important artist in Western Canada. There is ample documentation already in the article, and more will follow. It would be unfortunate to remove the wikipage on her, for it would preclude others from readily accessing the important documentation of her role in Canadian Art. Icareaboutart (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's really not that hard to track down old pre-Internet sourcing. I have access to numerous retrieval databases of newspaper coverage, some going back to about 1981 and others going back as far as the 19th century — if a person has ever gotten coverage in The Globe and Mail, its pre-merger predecessors or the Toronto Star as far back as any of those papers has ever existed at all, I can find it on a simple search. If a person has been covered in almost any other major-market newspaper in Canada since 1981, I can find it on a simple search. (And, just for the record, I did check all three of those databases for coverage of Sharon Holmes/Christian WP:BEFORE listing this — there were one or two glancing namechecks of her existence, but none that would be substantive enough to count toward WP:GNG and far more hits for unrelated people of the same name such as a government human resources training officer, an emigrant from New Zealand who was volunteering for the Red Cross while waiting for her work visa, and the widow of porn star John Holmes.) Books exist, and can be ordered interlibrary if your own local library doesn't have a copy — you may have to wait for a while, but it will eventually arrive. And on and so forth: it takes some patience, and/or signing up for access to databases, but it's not such a hard thing to do that we would need to let a Wikipedia article rest on unreliable sources just because it's "hard" to track down better ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not think I'm trying to "right great wrongs". I appreciate that this is sometimes what people try and use wikipedia to do. Rather I am trying to bring to light evidence for the notability of an important Western Canadian Artist. Icareaboutart (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not collected at museums or at WorldCat. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Curious what changed your opinion since your review and approval of the article? Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability requires verifiable evidence per WP:NRVE. While I sympathise with pre-internet era artists, I find it weird that there are hardly any mentions available, neither in newspapers nor in books. As it fails GNG, I tried to look at WP:CREATIVE. I unfortunately do not see any of the 4 criteria being satisfied either. The work doesn't seem to be in the permanent galleries of multiple notable museums (the museums have to be notable btw). Overall, this is a delete right now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is verifiable evidence in the Calgary Herald (a MAJOR newspaper), the Much Music/Much West national television broadcast (a MAJOR TV show from the 1980s and 1990s), the Arts West Journal (a MAJOR publication in its time), the Canadian Painters in Water Colour (the premier society for Water Colour artists in Canada), and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts (a MAJOR Foundation for arts). Unfortunately most of this documentation requires more than a trivial internet search, despite what some might think. You cannot find the full page spread in the Calgary Herald on the internet because the Calgary Herald does not have internet accessible archives; but when you do find it, you will see a large reproduction of the artists' work, which is clear evidence of notability per wiki definitions. And it's worth remembering that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Although her work did have on-going coverage. We all need to remember that research is not just about a quick romp through the internet, which itself was only invented recently and which documents a tiny fraction of the notable work pre-internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icareaboutart Nobody objects to citing the Calgary Herald. It does not matter that it is not online. I believe it can probably be searched through newspapers.com BTW, but that is immaterial. Sources must be verifiable, not easy to verify. That Christian has done most of her work pre-internet does not matter in the least, and it does not affect the requirement that all significant claims in the article be sourced and that she meets either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icareaboutart! I looked at it for more than 30 minutes (although you are assuming that I did a cursory 2 minute look). And my !vote was after looking at everything. GNG is clearly not satisfied here and neither WP:ARTIST. Being on a TV show is not an indication of notability (I have been on a TV show as well some years back). What is required is that multiple notable artists have looked at the artists work and it has won critical acclaim. This is something which seems missing here. The Alberta Foundation of Arts gives out grants, but it is not a major museum. If you can show me that the artworks have been kept in the permanent collections of a major museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. I would be glad to change by vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to Lemongirl1942, the comment she made that "The Alberta Foundation of [sic] the Arts gives out grants, but it is not a major museum" is patently wrong. The Foundation has one of the most important, dynamic, and accessible collections of art from Western Canada. http://www.affta.ab.ca/Art-Collection/Acquisitions-and-Programming Icareaboutart (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: In response to the sensible (and open-minded) comments by Lemongirl942 and User:Mduvekot, I contacted the estate of Sharon Christian to ask about some of the newspaper articles I recall seeing when I was a kid. Apparently Christian's executor has archived much of this, and has now put it on her website: http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/ (and no, I am not Christian's executor).

Contrary to some of the arguments presented by some editors, WP:ARTIST does not require that the work be in permanent collections or major museums.

WP:ARTIST can be fullfilled by evidence that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Christian's work was the main subject of a TV report, of multiple reviews in national newspapers and journals (evidence is provided for four), was honored by the Canadian Society for Water Colour painters through elected membership, was selected by the first lady of Canada to represent Canada, was selected by the Alberta Society for Artists to represent Canada on an international tour to Korea, was represented by two significant galleries in Calgary, was selected by Avon and used on their Nationally distributed Annual Christmas Card (twice), was used to illustrate a book (which was so popular it went on for a second edition), and can be found the permanent collection of the Alberta Art Foundation.

The evidence in the case of Christian clearly fulfills WP:GNG. GNG spell out the requirements, each of which I address below:

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Christian's work received significant coverage in Canada, at the national level, in multiple media formats including TV, newspapers, art journals, public exhibitions, and nationally distributed cards (such as the Avon annual Christmas card).

""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."

The evidence of Christian's notability is provided by reliable published sources.

""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

There are multiple secondary sources, and they are of high quality and provide deep coverage of the artist.

""The Sources [3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.""

Contrary to the assumptions made by a number of editors, the GNG guidelines clearly spell out that the "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Because Christian worked largely before the rise of the internet, much of the evidence for her notability is in secondary sources that were widely read at the time, but are not available in on-line archives (e.g. newspaper articles and TV shows). The GNG guidelines clearly spell out that "Sources do not have to be ... written in English". This admits additional evidence in the case of Christian, as there are secondary sources in Korean advertising Christian's work, representing Canada. The GNG guidelines state that notability is furthered by having different sources authored by different people. Christian clearly meets this bar as there is evidence that many reporters and art historians acknowledged Christian's critical acclaim: Carol Fleming (Arts West), Brooks Joyner (Calgary Herald), Patrick Tivy (Calgary Herald), Zena Cherry (Globe and Mail), and at least one other person (author of Landmark magazine article). Christian was also represented by two separate widely recognized galleries.

""Independent of the subject" 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."

All the evidence is independent of the subject; we are lucky in the case of Christian that her estate has made tracking down the non-primary sources easier than it would otherwise have been.

""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]"

With the "presumed" criterion, the GNG guidelines provide for editorial discretion; here I would caution editors who are keen to delete the article to remember that they themselves are subject to unconscious prejudice. The arguments for delete make this prejudice likely: For example, arguments such as a requirement that work be "a major museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" perpetuate the widespread notion that Eastern Canada is the center of Canadian life; one result of this prejudice is the gross under-representation of artists from Western Canada in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent notability of people without geographic prejudice (and in Christian's case, she was very widely known in Western Canada, in Calgary and Vancouver).

I invite dispassionate editors like Lemongirl942! and User:Mduvekot! to change their vote. Christian was a very important figure in Western Canadian art. I say this as someone who has absolutely no vested interest: she was a famous artist when I was growing up, a celebrity known mostly in Western Canada, but also recognized at the National level. As a woman artist, and an artist from Western Canada, we must be cautious that we do not undermine the case for her because of our own prejudices (most artists on wikipedia are men, and the few Canadian artists are from Eastern Canada, Ontario or Quebec). Icareaboutart (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Icareaboutart, please don't !vote "keep" multiple times. We only vote 1 keep and argue our case. I have struck out your multiple votes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icareaboutart. I'm from Singapore, so I'm not sure what "geographic prejudice" you are talking about and how it applies to me. We judge people on the basis of how noted they have been. I had a very good look at the website you mentioned and the coverage is sparse at best - we need "significant coverage" in reliable, independent and secondary sources. Many of the sources are trivial mentions. Sources by an art gallery which is exhibiting her works are not independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability. This is the reason why we have WP:ARTIST. The museums I quoted are significant museums. - the fact that it happens in to be in one part of Canada is something which I cannot help. I see that some companies have bought her art, but we requires museums to do that. Believe me, I'm not able to see the claims of notability. The critical acclaim you are talking about would probably exists online (in some form) if it was in a major art journal. But I find it strange that I can't find a single instance of these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of the sources are trivial mentions." this is simply not true. The artist is the *focus* of every article, with the exception of the Globe and Mail piece, which also includes other artists. You can't find these sources because research is hard and requires more than the internet. You actually have to go into archives and dig stuff up. Please read through my rebuttal carefully. Icareaboutart (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in terms of sources. My sweep of Canadian news and art news even with lastname = Holmes came up without fish wiggling in the net.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that research requires more than a "sweep" of the internet. If this is all that research took, we wouldn't need wikipedia (or careful scholars who are capable of going into the archives (and have the time to do so) to find the non-primary (but pre-internet) sources. The problem at this stage is that the bulk of editors have ideas that are shaped by the ready access of lots of information on the internet, yet just because the internet has a lot of information, does not mean that it is a complete record. Somehow this basic fact is very hard to get across. The evidence is clear: Christian was an important artist, and this fact is clear to some people and not clear to others. The people to whom it is not clear have invented their own interpretations of what constitutes "significance" for the purposes of notability, and I think their interpretation is at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines provided by wikipedia. I've laid out the case plainly above; simple refutation of the evidence because you can't find it on the internet is not sufficient refutation. Please consider the evidence presented. At this stage I cannot expect editors who have chimed in after their cursory review to change their minds because they have too much ego invested in their initial [but wrong] decision. Icareaboutart (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. Suppose she is a significant artist, but the sources are not readily available on the Internet. Then you have this problem: the current article looks seriously b-l-o-a-t-e-d with tons of supposed "references" that aren't real references (real => read this,) meaning established Wikipedians here such as myself have to wade through all the junk to find your nuggets. Please remove the junk. Trim the article down to five (5) sentences and list your supposedly good references to back up each sentence -- that's my two cents if you wish to save this article -- do that, then ping me or write on my talk page, and I'll take another look. It's okay to care about art, but here, we care about Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks to everyone for your comments on the wikipage about Sharon Christian. All the facts stated in the article are now supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Icareaboutart (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator, Icareaboutart, has just left a message on my talkpage, informing me of improvements to the article and that i vote keep on this afd, as a new editor they may not be aware of WP:CANVASSING, i will not be taking any more part in this discussion.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @Coolabahapple: I have no intention of canvassing; my comment was left on your talk page in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia, see WP:CANVASSING: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". I would like to (re)direct the focus of the discussion on the central issue (the notability of the artist and her claim to a wikipage). Thank you. Icareaboutart (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing editor - article has been substantially cleaned up and several new references added since many of the editors here posted their comments. Please have a look. Hmlarson (talk) 17:45, 2 September 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 United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin,_2016#District_1. Everybody agrees that he passes WP:GNG, but the majority also agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Whereas the discussion on merging is inconclusive because the target is not obvious, Craig's suggestion is excellent and solves most of the problems with the article. IMO the target already contains enough info, and there is nothing to merge, but the edit history stays intact, and whoever wants to transfer information can easily do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nehlen

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

Now that the primary is over and he's not nearly as successful as Dave Brat, we can say for certain he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also believe that he fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of sources that discuss his primary challenge, but that will fail the ten-year test. Other sources appear to barely mention him at all, so are not significant coverage. I see two references to his campaign website, and one to a list of his patents. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even a nominated candidate for US congress, but only election would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This campaign received significant national coverage, so could arguably meet GNG for now. ABC News, Washington Times, Conservative Review, Business Wire. Trump gave Nelhlen's candidacy an endorsement or something close to it, then snatched it away a couple days later. Nehlen could get recruited for a position in a future Trump administration, or could get groomed for more runs for office in the future. Ten-year test isn't policy -- it might be a good idea in some situations, but in this case I'd recommend we wait to apply that test for a few years down the road. If Nehlen fades back into private life, I agree we would delete the article, but it's too early to decide. JerryRussell (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Trump never endorsed Nehlen. He tweeted something positive to him, that's not an endorsement. The coverage Nehlen received was WP:ROUTINE regarding the election against Ryan, where he was more a bit player in the Trump-Ryan saga than a notable individual on his own. It's never too early to delete, but it can be WP:TOOSOON to create. I argue that it should be deleted now, and it could be recreated if he establishes notability beyond this primary challenge. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if there is another chapter to this saga in the future, how easy will it be for future editors to recover this information? If it's a simple process, I would change my vote to delete. JerryRussell (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator can restore a deleted article with one click on one button. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this site seems to collect all deleted articles for their repository. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News about Nehlen: He's started a pro-Trump 'super PAC', reported in three RS: [35][36][37]

Does this help? I'm staying with a weak 'keep' vote for now. JerryRussell (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A candidate in a party primary does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a party primary — even if he'd won the primary, he still wouldn't automatically get an article on that basis, but would remain not eligible for one unless and until he won the general election in November. We keep articles about the people who hold notable offices, not everybody who puts their name up as a candidate for one. And neither can a person claim to pass WP:GNG just because he happened to be running against a nationally known figure like Paul Ryan and therefore the race got increased coverage — that coverage attests to Ryan's notability, not Nehlen's, and just makes Nehlen a WP:BLP1E. And finally, the possibility that he might attain further notability in the future is not a reason to keep the article now. If he does attain further notability in the future, we can always recreate a new article about him when that time comes — but in the meantime, we do not keep articles based on predictions about what might happen, we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today. And nothing that's true today is enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. All the refs are either primary source from campaign website or secondary sources referring to him in routine coverage of a primary. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for politicians. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates don't meet WP:POLITICIAN; insufficient third-party RS coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is there insufficient third-party coverage? Plenty of major, reliable national/international news sources covered him and his campaign. Is that not enough to be sufficient? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely meets WP:GNG, and he received significant national coverage, as JerryRussell pointed out above. Trump publically thanked him for supporting him,[38] and spoke highly of him and almost endorsed him,[39] even though he endorsed Ryan, something which was also widely covered in national news. Also, Nehlen made a campaign video that received almost 300,000 YouTube views and a lot of coverage in national news in its own right [40]. Sure, Nehlen only received 16% of the vote in the end, but with all that publicity, one could have seriously wondered if Nehlen would pull a Cantor on Ryan. And not just that, but Nehlen is not finished -- he created a pro-Trump PAC [41]. This article clearly, clearly should be kept, and nothing less. It is clearly notable for inclusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and most sourcing was during the week before; minus the quick Trump boost (and again, not endorsed by him), most of the coverage was of the generic 'meet the candidate' profiles put in by newspapers the week before, followed by 'lost election terribly stories'; the Janesville Gazette struggled to get much comment from the candidate in the first place for their 'meet the candidate' profile, and then there's some digression involving a patent for something a layman doesn't care about. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nehlen received massive coverage despite loosing the election. The huge discussions in national media about him started when he posted a campaign ad that received almost 300,000 YouTube views (which I posted above). That video was posted in early May, and coverage over him continued through early August, when the primary occurred. And Trump almost endorsed him. Is he really not notable enough after all this? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in a market which is part of Ryan's congressional district. Nehlen was very rarely mentioned in the last couple months locally in newspapers and on TV/radio outside of being mentioned as the 'token opposition'. I saw more about him nationally in the last week of the election than I did much local coverage outside of a few 'Ryan could now win by only twenty points' stories. The Trump boost is pretty much it for coverage of the candidate nationally and only bumped the story up from the start of the B-block to the end of the A-block locally. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he still received a lot of national coverage. That fact remains either way. Also, read WP:NTEMP. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's really not notable enough after all of this. Even if he'd won the primary, none of this would have qualified him for an article on that basis alone; he still would have had to go on to win the general election in November to become notable enough. The number of hits garnered by a YouTube video does not support notability in and of itself, because social media hit counts can be artificially inflated by SEO techniques (meaning we have no way to properly verify whether that stat represents 300,000 people viewing it once or one person viewing it 300,000 times.) Being endorsed by a notable figure wouldn't boost the notability of a candidate in and of itself, let alone merely being "almost endorsed" (which in this instance really just means retweeted, which isn't notability either) by a notable figure who didn't endorse him when push came to shove. And on, and so forth — what you need to get Paul Nehlen over the bar is a strong and credible reason why he would be a topic that people are still going to be seeking out ten years from now, not just evidence of momentary current newsiness. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In and of itself, making a YouTube video or starting a PAC are not notable, but Nehlen has received much coverage for all of these things. Simply being endorsed by a notable figure is not notable in and of itself, but Trump's actions generated a lot of coverage from national media. That made it notable. All of this things in and of itself obviously don't make someone notable, but put all these things together and combine that with massive national media coverage, and the notability of this topic is debatable in the least. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, the national media is still talking about Nehlen [42][43]. He's not going away. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get Wikipedia articles for starting SuperPACs, or for just "not going away", either. If and when he accomplishes something that makes him a topic that people will still be seeking out in 2026, then there will be a case for "more notable than the norm for a failed primary candidate" — but you haven't shown anything that already gets him over that very high bar today. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While my !vote for "keep" still stands, if the decision is to delete this article, I recommend merging the content of this article that pertain to the 2016 Republican Primary to United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016#District 1. Even if it is decided that Nehlen is not notable enough for his own article, the events of the GOP primary are still too notable to simply delete outright. The events of Trump not endorsing Ryan and speaking highly of Nehlen (as well as his eventual endorsement of Ryan due to pressure from his party) should be documented in the election article (they are not right now). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- !Seconded. TimothyJosephWood 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can be okay with that as an alternative to deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no objection to that alternative either. Nobody has said at all that the event isn't notable enough to warrant mention anywhere in Wikipedia at all — it's just not enough to make him a suitable candidate for a standalone WP:BLP. But relevant and appropriate content, measured against WP:UNDUE, can absolutely be maintained in the main election article, and Ryan's obviously needs to touch on the primary race as well — we just don't need a link to a standalone article about him as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Merge as noted above is the best coarse of action as well since the person in question doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN.Dolotta (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was just getting ready to support the 'merge' option, but then I thought about the mechanics. Which article would this merge into? House Elections in Wisconsin is just a list, nobody would go there looking for this sort of information. Different aspects would be mentioned in the Trump article, the Ryan article, and the general November election article. All of these places, you would want to say just a few words, and link to more information. WP:BLP1E doesn't fit because there are now two important events, the primary and the PAC, both with national coverage. Still voting Keep. JerryRussell (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016 would be an appropriate article to merge this info with. There is nothing wrong with adding prose to this article, and even though it may be in the form of a list now, it doesn't have to be. That is an article about an election, so if the events of the election are notable, we can and should list them there. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally-known figure though he did not win an election. Coverage on him is extensive and national.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:1901:C0B2:4598:DD9A (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he will be more than entitled to a Wikipedia article once he wins an election. Quis separabit? 02:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to meet GNG, well referenced. There is no requirement to win an election ... just to have "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't meet WP:GNG if we ignore election-related coverage, which is what that policy tells us to do. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. The article has a vaguely promotional tone ("His goal is to raise over $1 million "and to spend it all on communications and ground operations in swing states where Trump could use a boost") so WP:PROMO applies, now that the subject is a private figure again. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur he's not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN if he never actually assumed the political position; "coverage" is not the same thing. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin,_2016#District_1. A pretty clear WP:BLP1E case, but also a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:47, 3 September 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. By a nose count it's 3-2, but even the keep arguments seem to acknowledge that the sourcing is shaky at best. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Whalen

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

Thorough Google searches yield nothing close to resembling a reliable source to establish notability; obvious open and shut case. —swpb^T 12:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Clearly a character actor with multiple credits, and typecasting does not preclude notability. I'm no fan of horror movies, and it appears this guy is usually cast as a villain, but it looks like has been a prolific genre actor as well as showing up a few mainstream efforts. Here is what I have found. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC):[reply]
Could someone else please re-review the above links to determine if even one of them is both a reliable source and offers significant coverage? A first look suggests none of them come close, but maybe someone will find some hint of reliability for one of the few sources that do give significant coverage. (The ones that say "passing mention" can clearly be disregarded.) Right now, no sources meeting the criteria have been specifically identified, and until they are, there is no basis for the establishment of notability. As we all know (generously assuming that we've read WP:GNG), no number of invalid sources, not ten, not a hundred, add up to a valid source for the purpose of establishing notability. —swpb^T 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of these standing alone, won't get to notability, I agree; but together they might, as in some cases, multiple sources can "stack" - We have multiple sources, and they are independent of the subject. Some are clearly reliable (NYT), some are of limited reliability (TMZ) and some we just don't know enough yet (the first 5 listed). The horror film genre is, most likely, not going to be covered in Variety, so there is room to discuss if some of these above sources are considered valid within that genre. I really can't answer that question and it would be worth pinging the appropriate wikiproject for input. TMZ is a tabloid source, so I wouldn't use it to discuss his personal life, but like all tabloids, it is generally reliable for the proposition that he was in a "Got Milk?" commercial and had a bit part in Men in Black. That said, the New York Times is not an "invalid" source; three passing mentions may not be enough, standing alone, but if the other sources are valid, I think it gets us there. I'll see if I can ping a couple appropriate wikiprojects for input. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Valid sources (ones that meet the explicit criteria) stack; invalid ones do not. Ping who you want, but remember: we need reliability and significant coverage in the same source, and it needs to be demonstrated--saying that some unspecified source might qualify carries no weight. Having some reliable sources (NYT) that trivially mention the subject, plus some significant discussion in unreliable sources, doesn't get the subject even the tiniest bit closer to passing GNG. "Independence" is necessary but not in any way sufficient for reliability, as you well know. —swpb^T 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - just got a post of his on my FB timeline, shared by a friend, and wondered who the heck he was. Checking here (my usual first point of call) I find this. I wonder if they are related. Is there a publicity push going on? He's a minor actor. That doesnt qualify him for a WP article.CalzGuy (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't recognize his name at first, but I knew who he was when I saw his credits. I did some searches, and I found a few hits beyond what Montanabw listed. He's certainly not famous, but he's had a few prominent supporting roles, such as Roach from The People Under the Stairs. Frogurt from Lost was also a somewhat popular character, as evidenced by [44] and [45] from Vulture.com. His career as a character actor also gets write-ups: [46] from KQED and [47] from KillerReview.com (which I would consider a reliable source). There's also [48] from Entertainment Weekly, which places him on a list of best performances in a Michael Bay production for his "Got Milk?" ad. I admit the sourcing is a bit light, but it's still enough for me to say that he satisfies WP:NACTOR. It's easy to source that he's been in more than 90 films and TV shows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The KQED source, and maybe the EW source, count for something; the others don't. The Vulture articles do not mention Whalen (the character != the actor). The KillerReview.com piece identifies itself as a blog (which apparently anyone can create on that site), and is attributed to a handle rather than an identifiable author; neither factor suggests reliability. The EW source is pretty minimal coverage. Although I'm not ready to change my "delete" position, I thank you for making an actual effort to find valid sources that meet the criteria. —swpb^T 12:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, like I said, the sourcing is a bit light. KillerReviews.com is not a source I use often, but I think the interviews (at least) are fine. "Bronxtko" is a staff writer there, and, I'm not 100% sure, but I think his real name is Matt Boiselle, per this. If so, I think that makes his work more usable, as Boiselle is a staff writer at several other, more obviously reliable sites, such as Dread Central, which is listed at WP:FILM/R. Some reviews of The People Under the Stairs discuss his acting: [49] from HorrorTalk.com and [50] from DVD Talk. Not exactly a write-up from Variety, I know, it shows there's some degree of interest in his career. If I hadn't recognized him, I probably wouldn't have spent so much time searching for sources, but I think prolific character actors satisfy WP:NACTOR even if there roles aren't as famous as the lead. He's not Harry Dean Stanton, but, really, who is? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can respect that position, and, moreover, the effort you've put into searching. To me, it doesn't add up to notability, but there is a valid case there. —swpb^T 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'll try to find time to look into this, but my knee-jerk reaction is that there's no way he's not a "keep". I'll see what I can find if I can get some free time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 20 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. As pointed out by delete !voters, being a candidate to an office is not generally enough by itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Eichenlaub

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

Delete. WP:BLP, written like a campaign brochure and poorly sourced as usual, of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat and thereby holds a notable office. No prejudice against recreation if he wins in November, but nothing here demonstrates or sources that he has the preexisting notability necessary to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an as yet unelected candidate. If he wins the election he will be notable, but he is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why I deem this politician notable is because of the fact that he is the official candidate for the Democratic Party and so he currently holds a position. He is the official representative for Pennsylvania's State Senate District 37 in the general election by way of an electoral process; he won his primary election on April 26th, 2016. Mattmccarry (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Mattmccarry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Candidate in a future election" is not a role that gets a person an encyclopedia article — and that remains the same regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, a Libertarian or an independent. Unless you can make a credible and properly sourced claim that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the general election in November — winning a primary election to become the "official" candidate is not enough, because "candidate" is not a "position" or an "office" or an encyclopedic claim of notability. We are not a venue for aspiring politicians to post their campaign brochures; we keep articles about people who hold seats in the legislature, not everybody who runs for one. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not bee NPOL being an unelected candidate. The subject is otherwise non notable; coverage is trivial and local at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 18 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Al Turk

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

PROD with absolutely no explanations at all, I still confirm it as there's still nothing for actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Page needs additional references for verification but subject is well-covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:MUSICBIO. Whether the subject has, to quote said policy, been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" is borderline; most of the sources I can find are from Al Bawaba, a Middle Eastern media website which, while independent and reliable enough on its own, seems to be the only mainstream source to cover Al Turk. As such, this coverage alone does not indicate notability. There is no evidence she passes any of the other criteria of this guideline (as far as I can tell, she hasn't charted, won a major award, etc.); thus, her notability hinges on the scope of coverage, which seems to be lacking. It may be possible, however, that reliable sources exist in Arabic; if this is the case, judging by the sources' quality (and taking into account that notability does not necessarily transmute across languages), she may still pass the first criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. As such, I've added a source bar for her Arabic name; I've searched in Arabic, but with what I've been able to comprehend through dumpy Google Translate and my limited knowledge of the reliability of the sources, I don't see enough to make a solid case for notability. (Meatsgains, it would be great if you could provide some links to the sources you've found.) ~~Taking all of this into account, and noting that the case for preservation as of yet is weak, I'd have to say "delete".~~ Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The National and Gulf News report she was nominated for Nickelodeon's 2016 Kids Choice Awards for favorite Arab act. There are multiple articles in Al Bawaba detailing the subject, as you noted. Below are a couple other sources I found:

I think there are enough RS out there covering the subject to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for digging these up; while her award nominations themselves are not enough to achieve notability, the coverage of them, along with the additional coverage outside of those nominations, is in my opinion enough to scrape by WP:GNG. This does seem to be quite borderline, but, with a total of about nine sources in the mainstream press, only two of which (the award noms) seem trivial, it's enough to sway me to weak keep. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I'd have to agree, this is definitely a close one! I'm curious to see what others have to say. Meatsgains (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Meatsgains. I have no problem voicing a keep for Bahrain's Selena Gomez, since she is covered by RS. Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Nice sourcing by others. To add to that, if you do a HighBeam Search, you'll she she's covered extensively over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:34, 23 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Fox Cabane

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

I removed extensive promotionalism from this, but I am not sure of notability . One moderately successful book' the references are either her own web site or her own PR or columns she has written. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cabane is not a notable writer. We do not have enough sources about her to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I concur, there's no actual substance, although WorldCat lists 720 total and the highest holdings for that are 520. Still questionable for better sourcing though. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vote by Olivia Fox Cabane Actually folks, I tried to delete EVERYTHING under “publications” because I truly couldn’t see the relevance. It was re-added within minutes. Go figure! Frankly, if the page is up at all, the only thing truly worth mentioning is the model of charisma proposed in The Charisma Myth: it’s the one piece of IP I can claim / have offered. I honestly don’t see the relevance of any of the rest of it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B20:D280:7D0B:B0A8:BD1F:C766 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, her book The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism almost meets WP:NBOOK with reviews found in New York Journal of Books - "Ms. Cabane’s style reflects the packaging of a collection of insights and techniques from multiple disciplines, rather than the treatise of a researcher who has created and pioneered the discipline herself. Charisma Myth is an easy read, effectively integrating stories and research, strategies and applications, techniques and practices."[51], and Psychology Today - "The Charisma Myth is a book that will be of value to professionals and practitioners who rely on effective communication in order to be successful in their work. Fox Cabane's distinct writing style has the ability to motivate the reader into believing it is possible to increase and create an individual charismatic style. She makes reading each chapter both informational and fun."[52], Fox-Cabane has been interviewed in/discussed by The Economist - "In a conversation with The Economist, Ms Cabane talks about quantifying charm, Oprah's magnetism and the reason why charisma has so long been ignored as a topic of scientific study (hint: it has to do with Hitler)."[53], Daily Mail(online) - "The £9.99 paperback (The Charisma Myth) is certainly more accessible than most aspects of Olivia’s work: the majority of her one-on-one coaching is with uber-successful businesspeople ... In person, she is confident, commanding, authoritative and polite, but, I must say, not brimming with what I would think of as traditional warmth or crackling with irresistibility – in fact, she seems slightly aloof. ‘I am, by nature, a socially inept, awkward introvert,’ she freely admits. ‘I hate hubbub; I can’t stand being on 5th Avenue.’"[54], The Telegraph - "Charisma: who has it, and how to get it .. But, as Fox Cabane points out in her new book The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism, it was also the difference between Marilyn Monroe and her alter-ego Norma Jean Baker. .. Dr Nicole Gehl, a psychotherapist, is cynical, suggesting that what Fox Cabane offers is little more than a gimmick."[55], The Wall Street Journal - How I ... Changed My Youthful Look .. Now 30 and established in her business, Ms. Fox Cabane isn't so concerned about her age. "Now I have the reputation and I have track record to prove my value," she says. "People don't care about how old I am." "[56], Daily News - "Getting paid for public speaking .. It's not just former Presidents and talkative celebs who cash in on the lecture circuit — everyday New Yorkers with specialized knowledge and a passion for sharing it are getting paid to talk, too. .. Your Money asked three New Yorkers who get paid to give speeches to share some secrets. ... Olivia Fox Cabane Six years after leaving Paris for New York, Olivia Fox Cabane, 29, pulls in speaking fees of $8,000 to $10,000 and coaches rising stars and senior executives. Her topic? Charisma. "[57]. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources brought her by User:Coolabahapple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources identified by the last poster such as the Telegraph, ny daily news and ny journal of books are convincing with the other identified sources of a pass of WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Coolabahapple for finding sources. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 18 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] "U.S. Futsal squad heads to Brazilian tournament". Archive: Associated Press Sports.

[2] "The Cavalier Daily". Google News Archive Search.

[3] "Dallas Sidekicks Player Register". Archive: ESPN.

[4] "Never Say Never, Small". Archive: ESPN.

[5] ttps://books.google.com/books/about/Nick_Efthimiou.html?id=hHiTtwAACAAJ

[6] ttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/nick-efthimiou-evander-luther/1108203604

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Star_Soccer_Alliance

[8] ttps://soundcloud.com/charts/top?genre=trance

[AFRL-2006-9] "Air Force Research Laboratory's 2006 Technology Milestones" (PDF). February 2007. p. 49. Retrieved 7 August 2016.

[10] Masquelier, Barbra (6 October 2006). "U.S. Transportation Command News Service (Oct. 6, 2006): Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense". St. Clair County, Illinois. Retrieved 1 Jan 2007.

[11] Conley, Harry. "RiskAoA (Predictive Risk Analysis for the AoA process)". Defense Acquisition Portal. Defense Acquisition University July 2012.

[Tyler-Masquelier-12] Tyler, Gregory; Masquelier, Barbra (January 2007). "Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense" (PDF). Defense AT&L. 36 (1): 60–61.

[13] von Rosing, Mark. "Risk Research & Analysis". Global University Alliance.

[14] Anderson, Norman (Oct 2005). "AFRL Systems Engineering Initiative" (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center.

[15] "AFRL Alternatives Planning Technology Aids Decision Makers". The Skywrighter. Brown Publishing Company. 12 December 2006.

[16] ttp://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=81&task=view&total=3352&start=172&Itemid=2

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]