Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 September >

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 keep per SK1. No valid reason has been given for deletion, Essentially you could've avoided wasting everyones time by adding the outdated template to it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College football playoff debate

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

The article no longer reflects college footballs post season and has not been updated. Information on this page can be found on other related wiki articles and are up to date. Most of its information relies on opinion editorials Quickone (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Needs cleanup and updating, not deletion. The debate was indeed quite notable, and that notability means that the article should exist. That said, the articles need better coordination and structure. Firstly, there's no reason to have a separate Plus-One system article (alluded to by the nom), as that is part of the debate and a separate article is undue weight; that should totally be merged with the debate article as it is just one of the many aspects of the debate. And the debate article does need better coordination with the main article at College Football Playoff, making clearer that the debate was essentially the background to the current system. In other words, the debate article should serve as the main article on the background, and the background section at the main article should be just a brief summary that links via section hatnote to the debate article. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was notable once, it's notable now. Argument that it's no longer notable doesn't really work. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Notability is not based on whether something is current. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're still talking about it,[1] if not as vociferously as before. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notability is not temporary, and anyway article is well referenced, showing that the subject meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Keep. Abraham Lincoln has been dead a long time but we won't delete his page either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. Definitely has historical value as part of the history of college football. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:48, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyuki Ichijō

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

Non-notable voice actor whose had mostly supporting roles in anime series. Most notable role was as Martha in Maria the Virgin Witch, and Jodie in Case Closed. Not enough to develop any reasonable article so as it is, the article is an unsourced credits dump. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Subject is not notable enough to warrant her own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:11, 27 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supercell (mobile network)

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

Non-notable local telecommunications company. SST flyer 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable stub. Promo piece that fails WP:Corp. Reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a press release, all sources are independent of the company. The source material is meager indeed. I can say that, after several very detailed internet search. The company operates in an area where for 20 years there is a civil war. In this context, it is quite relevant that there does not operate the remaining Congolese telephone companies, but one that is close to Rwanda. Without the economic relationships, particularly in the mobile phone sector, the First, second and Kivu conflict cannot been understood. These points should be added in the article, but I have not found any reliable sources yet. --Eruedin (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason to delete this stub. It is real company and it doesn't make any marketing claims. Why should it be deleted - no, it should be expanded. The problem for most African articles is that it is often difficult to source material. We should be patient. Comments about the First and Second Congo wars, as well as the Kivu conflict(s) are all relevant to emerging economies. This is an article which needs its context and should exist to provide information in a country in which truth is so often supressed and politicised. Keep, keep, keep! Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not quite sure how this could be mistaken for a press release, but is cited by a number of WP:RS. As a stub, it's perfectly average but also notable.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fracis Hannaway. If this was an article about a mobile network operating in one US state, there would be no doubt about its notability. And there are reliable sources, the newspaper articles cited in the article. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets notability guidelines. The area of the world may be remote, and the network relatively small, but it meets notability guidelines and supported by multiple WP:RS. Clearly it's a stub and needs a lot of work, but no reason to delete it - if it is kept it stands a chance of being further developed in time. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral point of view requires more coverage of things around the world. Not less. My local phone company has its own article separate from that of its (notable) parent company; likewise, this telephone company should have its own article. 71.191.205.5 (talk) 19:22, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lee-Davies

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

promo The Banner talk 12:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable at this point; nothing done or stated in the article rising to the level of GNG. More of a vanity/promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page of non-notable individual. Citobun (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist/filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 27 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shieldsquare

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

I find at most minimal coverage meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. Largoplazo (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable; not meeting WP:Corp; promo, company piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no evidence of significance DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company definitely exists but there is no claim of notability either within or outside of the article Spiderone 12:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, Meets WP:SPAM. Anup [Talk] 18:48, 26 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 Speedy delete by Jimfbleak under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YHOC

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

Scouting group, fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable at this point, even though I am sure this tiny band of 50 is worthwhile. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, I have been all over this with the user, explaining why this is not an encyclopedic topic, they insist on forcing it into Nepal Scouts and have now taken to cursing me (I do that from time to time, but wow). The sooner this is gone, the better.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, salt as per Kintetsubuffalo and WP:VANITY. Noting in the meantime that only the cursing was justified :p ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:47, 23 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 no consensus. Although the discussion is leaning towards "delete", opinion remains divided, in good faith, over whether the sources are of sufficient quality to sustain an article. This also applies if one only counts the views of established editors. It seems that the attempts at canvassing have had no apparent effect. Sandstein 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeek

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)

Company is not notable. Fails CorpDepth and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - note that the article used to be much longer, but it was all unsourced, so I cut it to RSes a few hours ago. This appears to have originally been created as a puffery-filled promotional piece (see also the recently-deleted Daniel Zelkind, which was part of the same cluster). I can see sources in GNews, but they're all funding rounds and ownership (which the article already covers) and promotional churnalism about what the company aspires to do - lots of trivia, but not much WP:CORPDEPTH. There may be articles actually about the company that don't originate with the company and aren't about funding rounds and ownership which I've missed, of course. Be careful not to confuse coverage of Zeek the journal. - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are trivial coverage of the subject; no substantial reliable coverage appears to exist. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources to where there is no possible content that would substantiate to justify an article. Notability is not established. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldenberg, Roy (2014-03-19). "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals.
  ...
  Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort.
  The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there.
  For the time being it only has a Hebrew website.
  The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze , who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor.
2. Shamah, David (2014-08-21). "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it. A new app helps Israelis reclaim hundreds of millions of shekels lost annually to unused credits". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year.
  The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage.
  While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”
3. Keach, Sean (2015-01-20). "Zeek app lets you buy and sell unwanted gift cards". TrustedReviews. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease.
  It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone.
  The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter.
  Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases.
4. Rabi, Idan (2016-07-27). "Israeli gift card marketplace co Zeek raises $9.5m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round.
5. Reback, Gedalyah (2016-07-27). "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". he:Geektime. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures.
  The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market.
6. Levy, Ruti; Appelberg, Shelly; Orpaz, Inbal (2016-07-28). "TechNation: Zeek Raises $9.5 Million for Store-voucher Marketplace". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
7. "Top 10 Israeli Undiscovered Startups". Jewish Business News. 2016-07-06. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me
8. O'Hear, Steve (2005-05-18). "Zeek Lets You Buy And Sell Unwanted Gift Vouchers". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say.
  Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion.
9. O'Hear, Steve (2016-07-27). "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth.
  The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount.
  In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast.
  With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation.
10. Chang, Lulu (2016-07-27). "Growing startup Zeek helps you sell those unwanted gift cards". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons.
11. Shapira, Ariel (2015-05-27). "Tech Talk: Israel is a Kickstarter superpower". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin.
  Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those look really really like paid product placements. Zero^talk 02:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post have accepted "paid product placements" from Zeek. Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim? Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the coverage has promotional undertones, such as:

Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year. (Comes from the company, obviously)
Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains ... (comes from the company about the state of the "talks")
The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets (discussion of company aspirations)
Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US (potentially unverifiable claims by the company, as the firm is private and does not release revenue numbers)
Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease. (more of company aspirations)
Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards (directly stating that the numbers come from Zeek's press release)
Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards (yet more of company aspirations)
Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round (routine funding news)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS to be uncritically republishing corporate statements put through the filter of newspapers and online sources. Media sources are at the bottom ladder as far as RS are concerns. In this particular case, these are secondary sources, but I would not call them reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good journalistic practice to seek information from the article's subject. That these journalists from reputable news organizations follow this practice does not render the sources unreliable. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above statement confuses investigative journalism with the practice of redressing press releases and / or taking briefings set up by PR firms. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I updated the article adding information which passes as"significant coverage in reliable sources exceeds far beyond just trivial coverage. Moreover, the company has won The UK and Israel business, was selected for Red Herring (magazine) 100 finalists. This is evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH Ymd2004 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Delete votes here are firm with stating what the exact concerns are and why we should delete this (the one Keep vote above me is simply restating what the user said above but not actually giving their own thoughts; I'll note that every single source offered above is PR, in that it only contains what the company says about itself, not the journalism itself, see: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that was actual journalism efforts but instead actually the company supplying its own information "coated" as news (none of that came close at all for significance, substance or of course "news"), once we accept that at any and all costs, we're an advertising website. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; even the sources listed above state: "Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear..." The second rationale for deletion is WP:PROMO, with content such as:

Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award^[1]. In 2015 the company was selected among, Red Herring Europe: Top 100 Finalists^[2]. In June 2016 Zeek won The UK and Israel business award for most promising start up of the year.^[3]

In 2015 Zeek secured $3 million funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm.^[4]^[5]

In December 2015, they were featured on Sky and CNBC^[6] and launched their #ZEEKFACE campaign, which ran until January 2016. In July 2016 the company manged to secure a $9.5 Million succesful round B funding led by Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm^[7]

References

^ "Felicidades a Swift File Transfer, Guudjob y zeek! Las mejores apps Android de la Connect & Enrich App Challenge 2014". AppCircus (in Spanish).
^ "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.
^ Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
^ "Blumberg Capital & Qualcomm Invest $3 Million in Israeli Startup Zeek Mobile". Blumberg Capital. 20 May 2015.
^ "Fintech Fundings: 25 Companies Raise $450 Million Week Ending May 22". Finovate. 21 May 2015.
^ "UK sees $1.4B in unused gift vouchers each year". CNBC. 24 December 2015.
^ "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". techcrunch. 27 July 2016.

The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play. The rest is about investments, and "being featured in the news" which is a hallmark of such promotional articles. The sources offered above are not convincing either, as they hue closely to the company messaging and are PR-like or routine announcements about funding rounds as would be expected of a VC-backed company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

"The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play"?- The awards the company has won are legit. You can basically argue that every award could potentially be fixed by payment. Are you suggesting that all 100 finalists on Red Herring have paid for their placement?
"The rest is about investments"- If theses investments about the company have gained such significant coverage than I would say that it is notable in the eyes of the media. These are not PR articles but actual reporting on the start-up company.
"*Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award"- What's wrong with this sentence? It is what the original article reports. The company won the award plain and simple. Is that not notable? Why is this advertisement?
the company supplying its own information "coated" as news? Are seriously suggesting that such a broad media coverage is all supplied by the company? I find that to be exaggerated since these are not one or two individual sources but instead a wide range of different media sources from three different languages.
"Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear- That article is from early 2014 when the company just started. This is evidence of neutral media coverage. Media coverage of the Zeek dated back almost three years which confirms my claim that these are a lot more than PR articles.
Regarding the awards Reporting about different awards the company won seems neutral news reporting as done the original article. If that is advertisement I'll remove it from the article.
"In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast":
- The article mentions the company business model. How is this a RP article?
The media coverage goes well beyond the ones referenced in the article. For example this article about 10 promising start-ups^[1]. Is this article considered as pure PR? Did all 10 company paid for article placement? I still struggle with SwisterTwister talk claim that all sources are not reliable as well as the claim that all media sources here are basically Sock Puppets at the hands of the company is far from accurate. Given more time I could improve the article. There are sufficient sources in order to so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unconvinced by the stuff added to the article, and my delete opinion stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources that show the company has had some staying power before voting to keep. That doesn't include articles about the seeking of funding. Also, I'd like to note that we're supposed to judge the notability of the subject, not the presentation of the article's content -- any lightweight promotional junk can be removed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Please tell me what you consider to be "lightweight promotional junk" and I'll remove it from the article ASAP
- To answer the claim:"I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources"
  The company was included in several different (beyond references in the original article) articles by main stream media sources such as Marketing Week and Forbes. The Marketing Week article might be just a passing mention but it is further proff that the company is well establish.^[2]^[3]
- There are enough notable mentions about the company from many different sources that pass as sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to qualify Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are sources in at least 4 languages about the company, and the claim that all news about the company is due to VC-backed funding is just not realistic
Ymd2004 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages, not to anything published under their editorial imprimatur. They explicitly disclaim it right there on the page. That you link to a blog page and claim it's an RS severely lowers my opinion of your skill in assessing sources, and leads me to distrust your assertions on source quality - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed with David Gerard, and compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability (see above), plus the idea that inclusion in a list is meaningful for our purposes. The WP:TOOSOON argument above is pretty compelling to me, which is why I ask for what I asked for. I think it's going to have to come from another editor for me even to take a look at it. If nothing like I've requested is supplied, consider my !vote a Delete (for now). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification
  - It is absoulotly true that "The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages". That is why I did not include it in the original article. Thank you for agreeing that the other two references pass as reliable sources.
- "compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability"- This should not be the issue here. Please focus on the subject at hand. If you feel you can improve the article formatting than by all means please do so.
- Marketing week :
  The article notes:
  UK consumers are estimated to waste around £1bn in unused voucher credits each year.
  When Itay Eral realised a voucher he received as a wedding present had expired before he had a chance to use it, he decided to do something about it. The result it Zeek, a mobile marketplace for unwanted gift vouchers and cards, where sellers are charged a fee of 7% of the card’s value and people can buy vouchers at a discounted rate. Eral founded the business in 2013 along with Daniel Zelkind and Ziv Isaiah from a headquarters in Tel Aviv. Zeek raised $3m (£2.07m) in funding in 2015.
  Zelkind told The Guardian last year: “The app solves a problem we have all experienced. We are allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.”
- Jones, Rupert (2015-11-14). "Overdraft or a 'money transfer'? How to ease the cost of Christmas". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-09-27.
  The article notes:
  Consumers given unwanted gift cards and vouchers as Christmas presents may want to try a new app which promises to sell them on for close to their original value.
  Available for Apple and Android devices, the free Zeek app aims to match people with unwanted gift cards with people who would be shopping in that particular store anyway. Zeek estimates that 47% of Brits are given an unwanted gift card each year – half of which never get redeemed.
  The app allows sellers to scan in their unwanted gift card and set the price they want for it. Buyers, some of whom might be in the store to make a purchase, can buy the unwanted credit for a discount of around 3%-10%. Electronic vouchers can be redeemed instantly; others have to bought as a physical card and sent in the post by the seller within seven business days.
  Co-founder of Zeek Daniel Zelkind says: “The app solves a problem we’ve all experienced. We’re allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.”
  He says 94% of vouchers sell within 24 hours, with Amazon vouchers holding the record time of just five seconds.
  Sellers of vouchers will be paid by PayPal or bank transfer. Be warned, however, that you have to wait up to 14 business days for the payment to be made. The Israeli company, which has been trading for more than a year, says the delay is for security reasons. It says the money raised by sales is held in a separate collateral account before a payment is made.
  Guardian Money took a look at the site and was slightly underwhelmed – many vouchers were being sold with just a 2% or 3% discount, making it hardly worth the hassle. However, voucher discounts may become much more attractive after Christmas as more of them appear on the market.
Ymd2004 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with any of your assertions of sourcing, based on your putting forward bad sources previously; please don't try to put words into my mouth. Also, please learn to use wiki formatting, instead of messed-up HTML that appears cut-and-pasted from elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of that is advertising and that alone, because the "articles" explicitly and largely state exactly what the company wants to say about itself, not what an encyclopedia says; all of that actually goes to excessive specifics about its services. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, it is established that the company has sufficient coverage in trusted sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post. These long-established newspapers are evidence of the notability of the subject. The claim that all of that is pure advertising is just absorbed.- Ymd2004 (talk) 8:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- Comment -- at this point, the article establishes that it exists solely to promote the business. It should be delete as WP:PROMO. Once Wikipedia starts accepting such promotional articles, it will lose its value as an encyclopedia. WP:ENN also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With content such as:
Awards: May 20, 2014, third place Tel Aviv Innovation Day Contest at Tel Aviv University.^[1]^{[unreliable source?]}

2015 Red Herring Europe: Top 100 Finalists.^[2] ^{[non-primary source needed]}

June 2016UK Israel Business award for most promising start up of the year.^[3]
References
1. ^ "TAU Innovation Day". Telecom News (in Hebrew).
2. ^ "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.
3. ^ Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
...this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT, which is a policy, not a guideline. The rest of the article is not much better. There are no indications of notability or significance, and the article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the company the founders previously worked at (Waze). Do the readers need to know that the company secured funding "in order to further expend (sic) the company's market presence in the UK market"?

There is no encyclopedic value to this article as it stands and sources presented do not amount to encyclopedia notability. Accepting such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO, as it would also mean that volunteer editors would waste their time trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I want to also add that the Keep votes themselves have not either challenged the analysis listed, which includes my own above, or substantiated themselves in any shape or form. Honesty is that not one single source actually came close to becoming both substantial and non-PR. One particular user has come to continue listing that "major news sources" are alone to accept, but it's the contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR, there is absolutely no compromising with that. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At this point at seems the editors above are just repeating their previous statements as they refuse to accept article sources. It seems The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post no longer pass as significant coverage. "contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR" Which contents exactly are you referring to? Or is it your subjective opinion.
- BTW the recently deleted content "Most vouchers are sold for around 3%-10% off the card's original value. transactions are paid through a PayPal or via Bank transfer. Sellers may be forced to wait for up to 14 days business days due to security reasons before they can receive payment. Meanwhile, the money made from the transactions is kept in a separate collateral account until the payment can be sent" This is media coverage provided by The Guardian. Why was it deleted in the claim that is was content provided by the company? How is this content promotional? it seems like an attempt to sabotage the article.
Ymd2004 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is repeating their concerns, it's to emphasize what and why they are. No one is making any other statements than that, so as for the deleted contents, this is because it went to such overspecifics about the company and its services, it's clear it only came from one place: the company itself, since that's the person who would know the company's own services best....therefore republished advertising, aka churnalism. My stated analyses and concerns are reaffirmed because, again, to state the above words, "they firmly and clearly state" the PR and concerns. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets notability guidelines, and multiple WP:RS supporting it. Appears the article has evolved substantially from it's first draft and I don't see any promotional puffery. The article states facts and is well sourced. There is lots of room on wikipedia -- and this article may be of interest to researchers/readers. Since when does an article about a company supported by sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post not clearly deserve a place on wikipedia? This is an open and shut KEEP case. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is not acceptable, is when there's enough to suggest we should otherwise not accept it, and in clear cases, it's because of PR intents and actions, which is the case here, the Delete votes including mine and then my analyses above have shown these exact news sources are in fact simply sugarcoated PR, and are not immune from company-supplied information, therefore the company can and is in fact saying whatever it wants, without having to pay or use another platform, because the news publisher is allowing them to use their in clear exchange for "publishing news". What is always by far important than accepting potentially acceptable articles, are not allowing, at any costs, advertisements, because that's exactly what we have worked to not accept for so long, so by allowing this article and other articles, it would cause a snowball and domino affect to then become excuses of "Well, that advertising article was Keep at AfD because people simply listed sources? I'll list my own sources and republished PR without any worries since no one will likely delete my own advertising". Stating that this may be of interest to viewers in fact not the case, because listing such blatant company information and PR sources, are only what their clients and investors want to see, because no one else aside from these intentions, would care to learn about the company's services, plans or interviewed thoughts by the businesspeople, that's why PR exists, for companies themselves to state what they want to say to their clients and investors, not people completely uninvolved. When we become a PR webhost, we're damned as an ad-free and PR-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. Some sources in the article and listed above provide coverage that is more on the routine side, while still providing some non-routine style coverage. However, other sources provide more comprehensive and thorough coverage, such as the examples provided below, which are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion (see the page's Revision history), and does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
- Shamah, David. "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it". The Times of Israel.
- Goldenbery, Roy. "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes.
- O'Hear, Steve. "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch.
- Tanenbaum, Gil. "Voucher Trading Startup Zeek Moves into UK Market". Jewish Business Times.
- Moules, Jonathan. "Uncashed vouchers hold key for MBA app". Financial Times.
- Comment and analysis' - The sources above are entirely still PR, because for one example the first article listed, is not only containing company-supplied information, the beginning itself states "the benefits that Zeek gives you!" No one says that unless they have financial gains and interests in the company itself, this article actually never actually focuses with the company as largely as it may first seem, because the large amounts of first paragraphs are about other things such as the political events happening, and the company is finally started to be mentioned in the fifth paragraph and even then, that's simply about ""Zeek aims to replace the hassle by transferring credits to someone who wants them, eliminating the inevitable squabbling over refunds", company puffery and that alone, until the focus goes to politics again, and then after a few other paragraphs, it starts talking about Zeek again but that's only because of the CEO and how it's stated how the company can be used, and the "benefits it causes!"....until it gets to puffery again "Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly", the information following this then goes to state “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.” The last sentence then goes to actually state information about the investing, that is by classic examples of past AfD Deletions, obvious company-supplied information and PR. Having such blatant company-supplied information therefore clearly affects actually calling it "journalism", especially if there are budget cuts involved, therefore there's not only leniency in what's published, there's then leniency about who places what. Now, as for the others, not only are they also beginning with such puffery company-supplied information, the worst cases are, one, the fact the company is not mentioned until the sixth thin paragraph, it also then simply focuses with other events, the actual information about this company in those sentences then simply goes into sales-pitch mode talking about how the company works and how it can be used, next, is how the buying and selling methods work. This then goes to state interviewed information from the businessman and then goes to other specifics about the company's current business plans and actually then goes to end with the same damn sentence about who the investing people are, so that shows the peculiar similarities in the past 2 articles I've examined, showing the essence of interviewed information also, the fact how carefully crafted the article is. Now, the next article is also as blatant in that it noticeably contains interviewed information, and of course focuses only largely with what the company's current status is about funding and finances, it goes to say "Meanwhile, Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind tells me the startup isn’t yet profitable but implies that it could be if it chose to", this is an obvious attempt at seeking to interest clients and investors by enticing them about available business opportunities. The next one then goes to state about ""To use Zeek you simply need to download the free app from the App Store or Google Play, upload an unwanted gift voucher, set the price wanted and wait for a buyer. Zeek will send cash directly to sellers and vouchers to buyers, so everyone can get on with the purchases they would prefer to make, with either the cash they wanted, or a bonus on their voucher, which this is entirely PR and something only the company would say about itself, certainly not some uninvolved journalist, and then the article goes to en with an interview, but not before going into specifics about the company's business and finances. Also, see how the company article has changed from this and this, all of the essence of PR has in fact stayed and has actually become worse now that the PR sources listed. There is no amount of copyediting that fixes an article when its core and basis is advertising and that alone, because we are essentially simply fashioning it into something either the same or worse. Now, the last article listed contains noticeable amounts of interviews, such as beginning paragraphs, "Mr Eral admits", "Mr Eral saw", "Mr Eral talks about..." and this continues as the interview continues itself, and the information about some other matters about business school and education, the article simply contains a few other paragraphs until it ends, so that was hardly journalism at all, if a large amount was simply an interview (the last sets of paragraphs, for example, are all either interviews or company-supplied information, nothing actually independent). What still says, as my analyses had shown before above, is that this is clearly a company intent with finding and establishing any platforms it can obtain and use as advertising and PR, and it shows when a large amount of "news" are simply either interviews or company-supplied information such as the background of company-involved fundings and finances. Also, it's quite unlikely that any other amount of news would actually help, especially given what I have clearly stated above which was the concerns of using whatever news, because of the severity of churnalism. Once we start compromising about accepting advertisements, we have become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post are publishing content that is "entirely still PR" from Zeek. I cannot agree that these reputable sources "have financial gains and interests in the company itself". Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim?
  Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are from my quotes above, showing the specific examples where the majority of one of the articles simply contained the man saying his own words itself, that was not journalism if the "news" article kept going back to the man himself, instead of the journalist actually making her own efforts, but that was clearly not the case since the man was advertising his own company, making the article churnalism, in that the news source was simply publishing what the man and company said, not what said news source own words were. "Reputation" means nothing because there has been notoriety as it is that any source can easily republish PR and-or have the person themselves, such as the CEO or businessperson author the "news column" itself, so it is never convincing to state that any news source is automatically acceptable simply because it's a "news source", because once we start accepting anything that comes from there, we're not the closely analyzing encyclopedia that hopes and is careful to not accept advertising. There has been consensus also as it is at AfD that these news sources will even state themselves "This information comes from the company", showing how it was not even the news publication's own efforts, they simply republished company information. The notability guidelines themselves state that any sources must be actual substantial coverage itself, and because I noted above that the listed quotes were not substantial or independent, it's not a convincing source. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the language in this article is puffed up to the point of being comical: "...the company managed to secure a $9.5 million successful round...". Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing I can think of to fix it is to delete this worthless advertisement.

In addition, your use of {{sofixit}} comes across as not just snide and dismissive, but disingenuously reductive - the poster has outlined many problems with the present article, making out that fixing a lesser one than its extremely dubious notability is the one fix constitutes you deliberately ignoring the previous discussion right here on this page. This is not a helpful mode of discussion; please do not do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing your part to quell freedom of speech on Wikipedia. My comment is pure and only positive in intention. Also, my comment was geared toward K.e.coffman; perhaps allow the user time to respond before scolding good faith comments here before the user even responds. Also, I'm not ignoring any aspects of the discussion here, although you seem to entirely ignore those in favor of retaining the article, as though if any !voters for retention are all in error. Sorry, but this seems a bit biased. It's all good though. No worries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- yes, I also find the templated suggestions to not be appropriate in deletion discussions, as they do come across as condescending (pls see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I've seen this done at least twice by the same editor, and I would echo DG's suggestion to please avoid this practice. On the substance of NA's comment, I've expressed here and in other AfDs that promotional articles on marginally notable subjects cannot be improved through copyediting alone. If all the fluff were to be removed, what would be left is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing admin I would ask that you come up with as clear a "keep" or "delete" as you can, and not be distracted by the chaff thrown up by a remarkably concerned advocate - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting suggestion, but any closer should also keep in mind that a no consensus close is allowed in AfD discussions, if such closure is warranted. Other potential closure options are also available. Discussions are not required to be closed exclusively as either keep or delete. Such either-or restrictions would over-simplify closure options on Wikipedia, essentially making discussion closures into a "yes" or "no" default, which is akin to a WP:SUPERVOTE, particularly when users have divergent opinions. See Wikipedia:Deletion process § Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions for more information. Also, per the above, it's unclear who the "concerned advocate" would be here; who would this be, the nominator advocating for deletion, another user advocating for deletion, one of whom has provided two gigantic walls of text, or one of the users who have advocated for retention? Which user? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: because article subject meets WP:GNG, and per WP:WORLDVIEW. An Israeli company is going to have different types of coverage than a US or UK company, but it still meets WP:SIGCOV based on Times of Israel, TechCrunch, and Globes. These are three examples of bylined articles offering significant coverage in publications with editorial oversight. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment - (1) The first 2 are ones that have been listed and counted as unconvincing (see analysis carefully above so mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable and (2) the last one is literally talking about gift cards and how the business is making money, and it goes to talk about its own plans about money....That's not news, that's PR. As consensus recently has shown, simply iterating that there are news sources meaning nothing if the analysis and Delete votes above have explicitly shown it is the contents the matter, because, hell, the source could even be listing a press release and "Say: Press release by [company]" and that would be, nothing, literally nothing, except that they hired a PR agent for advertising. There is no substantial coverage if a source is simply repeating what the company's own information about their own business plans, because when it's a specific as these, it's not only showing the news source submitted every word, but that the company supplied that exact information. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable...." I am allowed to have an opinion. I have one, and I shared it, and it is what it is. You may not agree with or like my opinion, but I have a right to have one. Please don't try to intimidate or bludgeon me into feeling that I am not allowed to share a legitimate and reasoned opinion here. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence meant that the links were unacceptable themselves, I'll note I never mentioned anything else in that comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all these weeks of discussion and work on the article, there's still literal press releases being used as sources. Just tagged another two. Are these really the best that any of the "keep" editors can find? If so, that condemns the article itself - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At his point, it looks like weak attempts are made from editors still asking for the deletion of the article. The fact that you are claiming that all major reporting done on the company is just PR is just astonishing. Moreover, I'd like to address the following quote:
  "Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-)
  The company's media coverage goes well beyond fundraising.^[1]^[2] Both CNBC and The Guardian articles are evidence that the company and its product do generate real interest in worldwide media, and has nothing to do with fundraising or PR. Please note that at this point the reason the article is incomplete in due to over moderation from editors seeking to delete the article. Ymd2004 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean, removing content and sources that aren't up to Wikipedia standards - I can't apologise for that - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/14/overdraft-money-transfer-christmas-banks-credit-cards
2. ^ http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000469149
- Comment – I have expanded the article. In the process, I have added several sources that are not included in my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer - Be aware that the history shows these supposed changes were actually simply to add specifications about the company's gift cards operations which of course is PR and this has been noted above with my analysis, the other ones are simply mere simple changes about it, particularly see also which shows the long history of concerns with this article and the noticeable actions of this only existing for PR and that alone. At the time of AfD starting, the article was this and it is now this, but let not the massive sources and information suggest otherwise, it's simply consisting of trivial and unconvincing information about the company, again an example is specifying information about company gift cards, which no one cares about aside from clients and investors and therefore only belongs at the company website instead. The article then actually cares to go to specifics about the numbers involving said clients and investors and of course the sources repeat this also, because it's unacceptable to simply state the fact it's a known news source automatically makes it acceptable, because as notorious as churnalism is becoming, we must take sources, especially ones heavily focused with company-supplied information, lest we become a PR webhost, which is clearly what the company and SPA users involved with this, considered it to be. There's particularly one user of concern, Eyaladam, which not only went to go as far as adding a massive amount of company PR, but then simply stated they were removing the advert templates themselves simply because they were the author, but that they certainly were not involved with the company....yet they never made any other contributions and they also focused quite heavily with this article alone, that's not something anyone would emphasize as boldly unless they had gains in this article itself. Note one sentence that was added "The company has the potential".... SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the article is still unconvincing, even with the recent changes. For example, it contains this material:
- The mobile app is open to both buyers and sellers, and provides a secure platform for voucher transaction. Zeek's operations also accommodates the purchase of gift cards by consumers at a discounted rate compared to their face value. In April 2015, over 80,000 people were using the mobile app, and in December 2015 it had over 100,000 users. Zeek's profits are realized via commissions that are charged to sellers for each transaction. In July 2016, Zeek had 35 employees.
As SwisterTwister mentioned, this material belongs solely on the company's web site. This is not encyclopedic content. The uncritical inclusion of 80,000 and 100,000 "users" is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This could only have come from the company, and is not independently verifiable since the company is private. With such editing, Wikipedia becomes a churnalism platform itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of users demonstrates the company's impact and provides a claim of significance, and has been reported in reliable sources. I'll throw in an oherstuffexists argument here: if figures pertaining to user information is going to be omitted from Wikipedia, then we better delete the second two paragraphs in the lead of the Facebook article right away, because it contains content about users, including numbers of users! Furthermore, in the Facebook lead, the number of users is verified using this primary source! Well, at least in this Zeek article, secondary sources are used to verify this information! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is not pertinent as Facebook is a billion dollar corporation which is WP:LISTED and a subject of great scrutiny. This is clearly not happening with Zeek. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So company-provided figures are okay for large companies, but figures provided by secondary sources for smaller companies are no good? You allude above that company-provided figures are problematic, yet also appear to state just above that it's also okay, depending on the size of the company. No offense is intended here, and I appreciate your points, (e.g. Facebook is much larger and under more scrutiny) but Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, whereas primary sources should be used sparingly and with discretion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's big difference between large WP:LISTED companies and private, venture-funded ones. The former are independently audited and under a great deal of scrutiny. The latter could be lying through their teeth, and the Wikipedia editors are taking this at face value, turning this promotional materials into something that is (ostensibly) authoritatively presented in Wikipedia's voice. For example, please see this uncritical editing in action: "according to the company" was conveniently left out. The editor had presented the number (that even the publication attributed to the company) as info independently verified by RS, as they claimed: "Appboy’s software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month between 420 million users.<ref name=fortune/>– this is verified by the Fortune article." (same diff as already linked). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This certainly cannot be compared to Facebook, an established company compared to this one which is still needing money and investors. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because nobody has effectively countered SwisterTwister's deep analysis of the sources, except to suggest that we can trust that journalism occurred in "reliable sources" even with no examples of such given. Simply saying "but it was covered by {laundry list}!" doesn't suffice -- how it's covered is critical. If it's covered in a passing or run-of-the-mill or PR-ish way, we cannot go by that, unless we wish to cheapen this encyclopedia. At best for this subject, it's WP:TOOSOON. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment restating the same repepetive content is by no means any sort of deep analysis. There is no need to counter SwisterTwister's "deep analysis" of the sources because it is simply not convincing. Ymd2004 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I have clearly and staunchly listed exactly the unacceptable parts from those listed sources above, and I have also been clear that we cannot compare this to other articles especially worldwide ones such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. because they are not the same subject, I repeat myself to make these concerns clear, not because it's "convincing", other comments have stated these same concerns, so it's not a matter of "affected analysis or statements" at all. The Delete votes have still continued in noting the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  There is absolutely a need to counter it, and how dare you talk down someone's good faith analysis. If you cannot counter the arguments made, you have no case for keeping, unless you can find other reliable sources demonstrating significant, non-promo coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Convincing arguments for deletion have been made; in particular it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources are blatantly WP:SPIP and using these for notability is a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Many of these sources quote the organisations employees and use it as a story source which is explicitly not allowed by WP:ORGIND. I am amazed that the Forbes/sites (not Forbes) has been considered a reliable source when it is very obvious that there is no journalistic oversight. In many of these sources presented, the amount coverage is so limited that the entirety of it has been pasted into this AfD. That's not indepth coverage. The rest of the "news" is essentially very brief pieces about funding which clearly show that they have been placed by the company. None of this is useful for notability. More importantly, I see this as a case of a COI editor pushing to "keep" the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Canvassing concerns Check out some of these attempts to influence the discussion: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I see a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am concerned by the heavy persistence of somehow attempting to think not acknowledging the actual concerns listed, by thinking others will say differently, is not actually what will happen. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note to closing admin: I am well aware of the concerns raised by opposing editors regarding the article. But I don't believe they are justified at this stage of the article. The subject here should be the actual content of the article as opposed to how the information as it is presented by the media, although I do think It can be said with great certainty that Financial Times, Haaretz, The Guardian, Globes, and CNN Money are trusted sources. In regards to the claims made by opposing editors regarding COI. I'm not the creator of the article, but I do think it meets WP:CORPDEPTH and worth preserving. I did seek help in improving the article and I see nothing wrong with that. Editors seek help every single day in Wikipedia and as a community, we should strive to help one another as much as possible under the proper guidelines. I can't apologize for doing by best to improve the article. I did not try to intimate Wiki editors like other editors that have participated in this discussion.Ymd2004 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2016
    - I don't mind you finding folks to improve this article (although it kind of looks like canvassing), but it is clear to me that you're not really considering the reasons behind the delete positions. I can see this because you're not effectively responding to any of the concerns that are based in policies/guidelines. Repeating that {laundry list of sources} are trusted sources isn't a serious response. You need to make a case why WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON don't apply. If you found any non-promo language (true journalism) in any reliable source and presented it, while also demonostrating that such is significant coverage, it will be considered. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to answer your concerns, I think we should examine the current state of the article independent of the article's history. In regards to the article sources; I'd like to point out that we should try to review the information itself, not how it is presented. In regards to WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON:
- WP:SPIP & WP:NOTPROMO- While I can understand the concerns raised about the promotional language of some of the sources, I 'd like to point out that currently there are 16 different sources stated in the article. Some sources openly criticize the company's product[8]. That is while the article is heavily moderated i.e those sources do comply with WP:SPIP.
- WP:ORGIND- None of the sources referenced in the article have been written by the organization or any of its members and disclosure of collaboration was not used in the articles. This leads me to believe that the media coverage provided is independent by nature. Every time a journalist interview's a company's point person information is exchanged. Although I can understand how some of it can pass as self-promotion, I think the extent of the coverage exceeds well beyond standard media coverage by far. Furthermore, there is a wide range of information provided by the article's sources that details much more than just fundraising or the investors behind Zeek such as the company's business model, services rendered and current activity.
- WP:TOOSOON- This is probably the weakest argument of all. Perhaps could be true if the article was published in early 2015. At this point the company has a clear business model with and has made a notable impact in worldwide mainstream media
Ymd2004 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016
- Keep It passes WP:GNG. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is rather thin here because, as shown by the analysis the sources themselves are PR and so is the article and this also shows by the fact this article's history suggests it was only started by PR in and of itself, and that's something we take quite seriously, lest we become a damned website because of PR webhosting. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would question the contribution from Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1; this is a brand new account and already voting at AfDs. How would an editor with a 2-day old account know what "salt" is in deletion discussions? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on October 2, in the middle of this AfD. Many of the article edits were without merit and I reverted them. If this is a sockpuppet, then it's one that is seemingly trying to appear independent (behavior-wise) of a participant in this AfD, as the article edits were kind of silly (e.g., unlinking red links and poor grammar changes) and the articles and AfDs chosen for editing/participation seem scattershot. But telling in the AfD !votes is a sensitivity to whether an article is promotional (delete) and if the subject appears in a sufficient number of sources per Google search (keep). I wish I had more to go on for a sockpuppet report. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom This is the height of misusing sources to create Wikipedia entry. Merely citing sources does not make anything notable. And the above case of using fake accounts to Keep vote is highly questionable. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this point, it seems the account does more harm than good for this discussion. The weak keep argument made by this user seems like an attempt to harm the article's credibility more than anything else.Ymd2004 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016
- Comment, (warning, totally off-topic!) wow! is this some sort of record, an article of around 300 words (excluding references) generating an afd of about 12,000 words, does wiki have an article on "List of really, really, really, really long afds"? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is precise what is explored in WP:BOGOF. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the responses to my request above to be unsubstantial. Continuing with the crutch of a multiplicity of sources, and simply the opinion that the sources check out as significant non-promo coverage, isn't enough to counter SwisterTwister's analysis. Also, WP:TOOSOON isn't necessarily as time-restrictive as suggested -- it's about whether a subject has yet proven itself notable. There's no timetable set for that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:19, 7 October 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) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina-Desiree Berg

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

Fails to meet the notability standards of WP:NACTOR and WP:LAWYERS due to insufficient reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)This artocle has more citations than most and all are 100% reliable.[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My sweeps didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) You did a current news sweeps for a scream queenn that was popular in the 90s? That makes logical sense to you?[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as the only services this article currently has is what it shows, and that's advertising what there is to say about her career and, in that, with unconvincing sources. There's absolutely nothing suggesting otherwise against these 2 listed concerns, especially if examining her career has found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 29 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. Only keep !votes are from socks or don't address notability concerns at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Khattar

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

non notable entertainment executive. The refs for no part of his career are convincing; Considering the refs;

Is a extravagantly written overcoverage in an Indian magazine, if it'd not straight pr,its an advertorial
is a short pR blurb in an unestablished local NY magazine,
is a noncritical but enthusiastic review from a NYC magazine, whose reviews lack that stature of those in the nYT and the NewYorker.
is a promotional article in a magazine for executives
is in in a throughly unreliable source, used widely to place press relases
is an advertisement for a buddy,
Unreliable NYC source for restaurant reviews, as discussed above
The Indian EconomicTimes article is a advertorial , as customary for that source.
Habitat world is a house organ for a commerical centre.

 DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. Khattar knows how to promote himself but that doesn't make him notable. Yintan 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ This page should not be deleted. All the references mentioned on the page are from established and credible media houses. If there are concerns regarding some references, they can be removed, however the page should not be deleted. Anc2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: user:Anc2017 ⋅is a now blocked sock. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yintan. The self-promotional garbage stinks. So many of these otherwise reliable sources are compromised by pay-for-play coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Analysis above is thorough for those refs that I can see (some are blocked by my ad-blocker). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Responding to DGG's points on references, removing references of Alister & Paine & Village Voice. Wall Street Journal is a noteworthy publication, hence should stay. Habitat World refers to hospitality, cultural and entertainment facilities at India Habitat Centre, a non-profit centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfipf (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: user:pfipf ⋅is a now blocked sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references were revised several times. At present:

The first Indian Express articles is a short article about one of his company's films. It just mentions his name as founder. not substantial
The firstIndian Standard article ditto. not substantial
The second Indian Express article ditto. not substantial
The second Business Standard article ditto. not substantial
The first Economic Times elaborate PR job on his new restaurant that never skips an opportunity for a laudatory phrase. not reliable for anything. because its pure PR .
The first Financial Express article. ditto. not reliable except possibly for the restaurant<
The third Business Standard article.ditto. not reliable, except possibly for the restaurant
The WSJ article. Another restaurant review. not substantially about him, just about the restaurant

So we have 4 brief mentions of him in articles about his films, and restaurant reviewswhich might possibly justify an article on the restaurant. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. No mercy for paid sock farmers trying every trick in the book and scraping the barrel for sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, blatantly promotional (and that's before mentioning the sockpuppetry) - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with source analysis. Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page has been edited. Please review the page again.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Less blatantly promotional, but still nothing at all that passes WP:GNG or a relevant subsidiary notability guideline - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 28 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. Salting may be done at an admin's discretion - I am not sure if a previous PRODded version does justify a salting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Marx (University of Pretoria)

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

Prod removed by page creator without reason. Non notable businessman. Written like a resume Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted under PROD with concern "Does not meet WP:GNG. Article does not have reliable sources (one of which is a LinkedIn profile)" and recreated by the original creator, and still with a LinkedIn page as a reference. Delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ubertaccio

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

Does not meet WP:PROF as an leader in his field, because of the almost nonexistent publications, Does not meet it because of administrative work, for the level of the work is not high enough,..Does not meet it as an innovator in education, for the same reason. Any notability would be as a political operative, and would need to be show by GHN. "Often quoted by.." is not enough of a specification in that field, nor in being an analyst on a few television programs. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If we had sources showing he was cited as the leading expert on Massachusetts politics that might work, but the sources we have are not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skilljar

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

small company creating training courses, The articles are jist notices about funding anad a self serving interview with the proprietor DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Seattle Times article is a good start[9], but needs at least 1 more significant writeup in a non-trade magazine, which I'm not finding in my searches yet. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is WP:TOOSOON; virtually every source is just about them raising money to do things that might make them notable later. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly promotional. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 3 October 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Of note is that content-wise, this is not particularly a WP:G4 situation, based upon a comparison of article versions and content (example diff, example diff); the present version differs considerably. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht rock

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

WP:Neologism recreated in 2016 without discussion after 2006 deletion decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht rock (also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 5#Category:Yacht rock). Now has an unsourced claim that it existed earlier than the series Yacht Rock, contradicting the AfD where the series creator says he "came up with the term". Closeapple (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Submitter failed to cite any specific reason for how exactly "yacht rock" is non-notable (WP:GNG). There are plenty of reliable sources discussing the "yacht rock" genre within the article. Does that 10-year-old AfD really matter at this point? The term has obviously caught on since then.
- "From Haim to Chromeo: The new wave of Yacht-rockers" (The Independent)
- "Sail Away: The Oral History of 'Yacht Rock'" (Rolling Stone)
- "Can You Sail to It? Then It Must Be ‘Yacht Rock’" (The Wall Street Journal)
- "Popsmacked: Yacht Rock drifts on the currents of uncool" (The Record)

And so on.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because it's sort of a WP:CSD#G4 that might no longer meet the criteria for G4. A bit of history on this article/title: The article was born rotten each time it was created in the past, a blatant attempt by people attached to the series to get a fictional element (the phrase itself) into Wikipedia, written in real-world terms as if it was in real use, when it wasn't. Admittedly, the phrase has gotten some traction in real life now. But since this phrase was pushed by people with WP:COI, and has a history of editing and AfD input by single-purpose accounts, and was deleted per discussion anyway, and seems to have whatever creation story is most likely to make it sound legitimate from time to time (including that claim that just disappeared after this AfD started), the whole thing surrounding this phrase still seems like it's being artificially propped up. (I don't think User:Ilovetopaint is part of the artificial push, though.) I think it at least needs an AfD to get consensus about whether the phrase itself is now separately notable, or still just a backreference to the series Yacht Rock that isn't separately notable. --Closeapple (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it might have started as a neologism (don't they all?) but honestly, I do think the term is now widely used across the media and general public. The sources cited above by Ilovetopaint are all very reliable, and even in the UK (hardly classic "yacht rock" territory) it's being used now in mainstream media: the BBC have broadcast a radio show on it, and the phrase is being used in newspaper articles from the left-wing The Guardian to the right-wing Daily Telegraph. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yacht rock has been the subject of various in-depth sources as pointed by Ilovetopaint and Richard3120. These sources discuss, in-depth, the genre itself and the reception it has received. The term was probably non-notable some 10 years ago, but that's not really relevant, as this is 2016, not 2006. Certainly meets WP:GNG. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources meet gng. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources listed above are compelling. To add to them, Sirius XM even gave the genre a (temporary) channel of its own, which [itself got citable coverage from the Wall Street Journal. There's plenty out there even from unimpeachable sources. At this point, I'm far from troubled if, ten years ago, this article had a dubious genesis. The content and sourcing now are surely not what they were then. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why, but it looks to have received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Sources are sufficient to make this a notable topic. ABF99 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep Sources definitely established this topic....also see post by Mythadon. While not extensively detailed as an article on Wikipedia, it's received a lot of coverage by music journalists, and this page at least is a cohesive topic that details Yacht rock. Aleccat (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question (or maybe Merge to Soft rock): Is this a separate subject from Soft rock, or does the phrase "yacht rock" just sounds more clever/marketable right now? Soft rock's list of examples is 80% of what "yacht rock" claims, and cites P. Buckley, The Rough Guide to Rock (Rough Guides, 3rd edn., 2003), p. 378.), which predates the Yacht Rock series by 2 years. --Closeapple (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, they refer to different styles/eras of music. "Soft rock" is a generic, catch-all term while "yacht rock" is more specific.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DEVINITELY KEEP: The topic is notable and therefore the article should be retained. I do feel, however, that the article could use some changes in focus. Right now it reads more as a dictionary expanation--i.e. defining the topic as a linguistic term rather than as an actual musical sub-genre. So, it could be reworded to define the topic as a subgenre of soft rock (rather than as a term). It could also use some expansion, but those are just some constructive pointers. Keep the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:14, 27 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 Dirge (band). Don't usually close on 2 however as noted below most if not all albums get redirected to the singers article if there's no notability (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Lead Over Dormant Seas

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

The topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own as it fails the criteria for WP:NALBUM.

If contributors can provide French sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Dirge (band), as is common practice where the individual albums lack notability. Separately, that assumes the band itself is notable, but I'm willing to AGF regarding some of those European magazine sources and call it a day on this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Dirge (band) Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Hammond

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

Not automatically entitled to an article just because of primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:JOURNALIST Marvellous Spider-Man 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of the afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no secondary sources going into detail about Hammond, just primary database listings, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview and one DreadCentral article which only mentions him briefly and in passing. --McGeddon (talk) 18:49, 25 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. The only "keep" opinion is "GAA clubs are notable entities and deserve a page on Wikipedia", which is not an argument based in our inclusion rules or practices. Sandstein 07:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clonbony GAA

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

This hurling club does not meet ~~WP:SPORTCRIT~~ WP:GNG. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~Sources used in the article appear to be all primary~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- What is your definition of "primary sources", as both sources are independent and not related to the club at all. The Banner talk 09:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator accused me in the past of not doing WP:BEFORE. Seeing what he has nominated, I get the impression that he did not read the sources at all as he is wild of the mark. The Banner talk 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting to the proposed deletion of this article. The Gaelic Athletic Association consists of hundreds of small clubs such as this. Each plays a valid part of the organization. You will Wikipedia articles of many such clubs. It does need more information, but this will be added over time. Pmunited (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Pmunited: Can you provide any sources to establish the topic's notability as per WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG? Just because a club exists does not make it automatically notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Struck part of my nomination above. Thus far, here's a source summary:

[10] – 2 short paragraphs consisting of one sentence each, (addendum: and 2 single name mentions)
[11] – single passing mention
[12] – ~~no mention~~ single passing mention
[13] – one single name mention

Where is the significant coverage? "Wild off the mark"? Hardly. Several searches have provided no significant coverage. For example, GNews provides no coverage, and not even any page results ("No results found for "Clonbony GAA"), and Gbooks provides no coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, first you have to chance your nomination because you failed to read the sources and now you start nitpicking. But again you fail to read the sources properly, as source three, where you find no mention, clearly states "Clonbony". To my opinion, this is a WP:POINT-nomination. The Banner talk 19:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources were read prior to nomination, and I also read the sources that were later added. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and focus on content. Below is the text of this source I stated that has no mention, because there is indeed, no mention at all.

LADIES FOOTBALL COUNTY FINAL DAY IN COORACLARE
It's County final day in Cooraclare where the Senior and Junior A Shield finals are down for decision. First up at 3:30 is the Junior A Shield final.
West Clare neighbours Kilrush and West Clare Gaels B go head to head there.
That's followed by the Senior final clash of The Banner Ladies and Liscannor.
The Banner go into the game as favorites and are targeting a three in a row with victory today, but their North West Clare opponents know a win is not out of touch having beaten today’s finalists in the group stages of the championship.
Throw in for that game is at 5:45.
Meanwhile, as the Ladies Gaelic football association celebrates it's 40th Anniversary this year, todays final marks the 30th anniversary of the Clare Ladies Football senior championship.
LGFA President Pat Quill is in Cooraclare today as members of the winning 1983 -85 Clonboney teams are honored by the Clare Ladies Football Board in a presentation between today’s two finals.
Last night, the Mary Kenny Cup was won by Fergus Rovers in the Intermediate B championship final.
They beat Crusheen on a 1-09 to 1-05 scoreline.

You state that the source "clearly states "Clonbony"", but you are in error here. Where is it? Perhaps you confused this with another source? If you're going to cast aspersions, LOL and attempt to correct and scold people, stating that a user "fail to read the sources properly", at least get it right. Your criticism regarding reading sources only confers to yourself in this instance. Your ad hominem arguments have thus far provided nothing to counter the topic's lack of notability. From the sources presented and several searches, the topic has received no significant coverage at all. Also, the Hoganstand source came across as a bit primary in nature, but I struck this in my nomination in attempts to assume good faith. Perhaps you should also consider assuming good faith toward other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that you know how to throw accusations, but still fail to read properly.

You claim that source 4 ("Ladies Football County Final Day In Cooraclare") has no mention at all. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The article starts with Clonbony GAA (also spelled as Clonboney GAA) (...). The source reads: LGFA President Pat Quill is in Cooraclare today as members of the winning 1983 -85 Clonboney teams are honored by the Clare Ladies Football Board in a presentation between today’s two finals. (highlighted by me.
As argument for removal you use [[WP:SPORTCRIT]. When you read that, you see that SPORTCRIT is about players, not clubs.
When you persist in using rules and regulation about players to judge a club, at least use WP:NGAELIC, what is about Gaelic Sport players, including hurlers (and camogie players, the female variant)
When using WP:NGAELIC against a club, please note that the Clonbony GAA Ladies were county champions in the period 1983-1985. The means qualifying for the national All-Ireland competition.

Thank you for your attention. The Banner talk 22:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed part of the nomination to "does not meet WP:GNG" made a change to the source analysis above. WP:NGAELIC refers to players only, not clubs. The spelling of "Clonboney GAA" was added after my nomination for deletion (diff). I do admit that I did not see this minor addition to the article after the nomination. However, ad hom statements of not being able to read properly are unnecessary and hostile in nature, and provide nothing to qualify notability for the club, which is the basis of this nomination. No evidence of the club having received significant coverage has been presented, nor does any appear to exist, based upon source searches. This topic does not meet WP:GNG. As such, the article qualifies for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again you change your nomination rationale... Please, stop playing games (unless you start playing hurling). The Banner talk 10:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No game playing, just being accurate. I could have changed it to the simpler Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which states, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.", but eh. Anyway, so where's any significant coverage? None appears to exist at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a newspaper that is not yet scanned by Google (non-United States, surprisingly). But I guess that you dismiss those sources to suit your wishes. You have by now repeatedly changed your arguments when I proved them wrong. What guarantee do I have that you do that again when I have put in an extra effort and provide those sources? There are already reliable, independent sources available in the article, so what do you want more? (And no, I do not play hurling or are in anyway related to the club. I even have never seen them play.) The Banner talk 13:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some honours to the article, all based on articles published in the newspaper "Clare Champion". This newspaper is, as far as I know, not (yet) digitized but the paper version can be checked at the Clare County Library, Local History Centre, in Ennis. The Banner talk 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And where is your content-related edit? The Banner talk 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GAA clubs are notable entities and deserve a page on Wikipedia. This AFD would have catastrophic consequences for GAA related article if this deleted a terrible precedent would have been set. Finnegas (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I appreciate that you personally consider all GAA clubs to be notable, but this notion is not present in any Wikipedia guidelines. Could you provide any evidence that this club is notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-notable club in the GAA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization doesn't appear notable. I'm fine with having whatever details are necessary about GAA clubs provided that they get substantive reliable source coverage. Here, we just have slight mentions and what appears to be run-of-the-mill reporting. It all doesn't really pass our encyclopedic guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From the Clare GAA Clubs template, Clonbony seems to be a part of the "Junior Hurling Championship" - is that a league? Most articles in the various GAA hurling templates under "Junior Hurling Championship" do not have articles. With some clarity, I could see changing my !vote, but for now I don't see anything that clearly establishes notability for this club. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:42, 17 October 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) 05:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Awujoola

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:BLP, due to lack of substantial coverage by reliable Nigerian media. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are of poor quality and there is a lot of namedropping. A designer who says they sent a gift to a celebrity does not somehow gain notability from that celebrity. I see no evidence that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Results bring up blog posts thereby failing notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:35, 22 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 Feminine Capital. And merge from history as needed. Sandstein 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine capital

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

Content fork of information that would be better served in the main Feminism article, where 'feminine capital' is not mentioned once. Readers are unlikely to find this information here, and it does not seem to be a neologism that needs a standalone article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine capital is a new term, coined in the last year and half. This is apparent in the book "Feminine Capital" http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22349 . Maybe it should also be refered to in "Feminism" but I do believe it can also stand on its own as its own term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- I suspect it may be a way to promote the book Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs by Barbara Orser, Catherine Elliott, so WP:PROMO applies. I did not find similar references in other works, so it seems to be a term to promote this concept / book on the concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Perhaps, but as I said here and in the AfD for Entrepreneurial feminism, I think the major problem with these articles is that they are content forks where the information contained within would simply be better served elsewhere. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Feminine Capital. Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs as this is the name of the book Oster has authored; the useful content can be pulled from the editing history. I don't think that the term "feminine capital" has entered the mainstream yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge with 'entrepreneurial feminism. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Entrepreneurial feminism, a sufficiently similar concept, but then Redirect to Feminine Capital, which is both closely connected to the subject and, of course, has the same name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 27 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Hobson

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

None of the sources cited demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find anything that does. I understand that there was a previous AFD a few years ago, but I think we should revisit the issue. Simply counting up the number of cites doesn't seem quite right (especially considering that lots are multi-author works), and combined with the dearth of secondary sources to support the article, I'm concerned. agtx 03:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of around 39 (try GS with W S Hobson) is more than enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in a well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- This was your justification last time as well, but I'm not sure I understand it. WP:PROF doesn't say anything about h-indicies--it seems to require a more nuanced look at things. When I look at the GS links, I see papers with 6-8 authors, and when I click on the "cited by" links, all of those papers have been cited similar numbers of times to the ones where Mr. Hobson is listed as an author. To me, that doesn't show individual notability. agtx 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - H-index is one of many proxies for the "impact" of a person's intellectual work and has routinely been used in STEM-related bio AfDs for years. As to the "individual" nature, except for a handful of journals that has started requiring authors to explicitly their contributions, there is no conclusive way to resolve this. It might be an issue for e.g. papers in biology or medicine (having say ~100 authors), but with a half-dozen-ish authors, it's safe to conclude that his contributions to these papers (some of which he's 1st author) were important. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS tells a substantially similar story. A search crossing his name with the places of employment listed in the article shows an h-index of 32 and at least a half-dozen papers having >100 citations. This certainly satisfies PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 22 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. This is a topic for and by specialists. At first glance no consensus emerges here. But I'm inclined to defer to the unanimous "delete" view of established editors with a track record of constructive contributions in the topic area. And I give less weight to a "keep" side represented entirely by IPs and low-editcount accounts, because with these contributors, canvassing, sockpuppetry or COI is a frequent concern. Sandstein 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free-fall atomic model

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

This is, I think, a very obscure theory, and as far as I can tell, one that never really made an impact. All citations are from Gryziński, who proposed this, and AFAICT aren't cited by much anyone except Gryziński himself. I'm open to be convinced that the article should be kept, but as of now I just don't see how this meets WP:N. I don't have access to a lot of those articles however, so I don't have access their full citation record. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are 20+ papers from the best journals, some have huge amount of citations - according to Google Schoolar: "Classical Theory of Electronic and Ionic Inelastic Collisions" - 446 citations, "Two-particle collisions. I. General relations for collisions in the laboratory system" - 559 citations, "Two-particle collisions. II. Coulomb collisions in the laboratory system of coordinates" - 324 citations, "Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions. I. Theory of Inelastic Collisions" - 1308 citations 91.198.177.113 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those aren't about the free fall model, just collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are respected results from purely classical considerations - including electrons, leading to surprisingly good agreement. And so the author has later also seen atoms in a classical way - with electrons falling to nucleus, then returning to the initial distance, like zero angular momentum degeneration of Bohr-Sommerfeld. This falling and drifting away makes atom effectively a pulsating multipole - such picture was used in his later classical scattering models. Anyway, shouldn't Wikipedia notice that trials of classical treatment of atom has not ended with Bohr-Sommerfeld? Gryzinski is definitely the most notable among such approaches. Classical approximation is useful for semi-classical ones. His main coauthor is professor Joseph Kunc ( https://gapp.usc.edu/about/faculty/joseph-kunc ) 83.12.37.198 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gryzinski has worked in group of hot plasma for nearly half a century (article in Polish: http://web.archive.org/web/20121031093355/http://www.paa.gov.pl/dokumenty/ptj/sadowski10.pdf ), they have stated approach to fusion which is now called Dense plasma focus, he was the head of this group for 18 years. In this energy region classical approximations were sufficient. Now semi-classical approximations are popular, Rydberg atoms are often seen nearly classical. There should be some article about modern classical approximations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.128.48 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I am uncomfortable with all references being a single author who produced a seemingly large body of work on this subject, doesn't' the fact that these are all published in peer reviewed journals carry some weight toward notablity? Also, these are top tier physics journals and the journal Nature. I don't see how anyone can do better than that - other than garner citations from other physicists. Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly, but I am tending toward "Keep". Headbomb, what is your opinion on what I just wrote? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those citations are not related to the FFAM, but are rather general articles about the physics of particle collisions and the like. Yes they are good articles, but they don't support the material, so my opinion is unchanged because the citation that ARE related to the FFAM are very low impact, and very few people other than Gryziński ever bothered with his model. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these papers are about classical considerations, including treatment of electron, which is usually a part of an atom there. The topics of classical scattering and FFAM are integrally connected/interleaved: 1) scattering was used to infer and experimentally test these models (often personally by the author), 2) electron in FFAM performs successive scatterings from the nucleus, 3) atoms in FFAM picture are effectively pulsating electric multipoles (dipole, quadrupole) what is the base of his later scattering papers (since 1975). These impressive 25+ papers nicely show 43 years of evolution of view of a person who was plasma experimentalist and theoretician: from corrections to scattering models, through including magnetic dipole moment of electron into classical considerations, introducing and testing classical atomic model with better agreement than Bohr's, up to a similar view on multielectron atoms and molecules. Sure these are just approximations, but their surprisingly good agreement with experiments may bring valuable intuitions, helpful e.g. for construction of semi-classical models. 188.146.69.8 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: thanks very much. I see what you are saying. This clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added (a sketch of?) History section (Free-fall_atomic_model#History) to emphasize integrity of this series of papers - if it helps, I could improve it. Otherwise, feel free to remove it. 188.146.69.234 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, It adds very little because that series of paper is by far an large not about the FFAM, but rather particle collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These collision/scattering models assume classical electron, and often a classical model of atom - tested by agreement with experimental scattering. For example "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions": assume a classical model of hydrogen (circular or radial), shoot it with a classical electron, and compare predictions of both with experiment. Or "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell" and "Classical theory of atomic collisions. II. Low energy scattering" see atom effectively as a pulsating multipole, as a consequence of assuming radial electron trajectories. Or "Systematics of spectral lines and classical atom": "It is shown that line intensities and main energy level shifts are directly related to the non-spherical and time-dependent electric field of the atomic core.". 188.146.37.99 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example alongside the 1965 paper with 1300 citations, he publishes Phys. Rev. Lett. paper.: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” explaining why assumptions made in the classical scattering paper exclude Bohr circular orbits - here are its first three paragraphs:

“In a series of papers on the classical theory of atomic collisions recently published by the author, it has proved necessary, both for the qualitative explanation of a number of experimental phenomena as well as for their appropriate quantitative description, to proceed with certain assumptions which are in contradiction with the prevailing classical notions regarding the structure of atom and, of course, in contradiction with the wave approach to the atom.

First, in order to explain such phenomena as the asymptotic form of excitation and ionization formulas for high energies of the bombarding particles and the absence of a threshold for processes of inelastic collisions with heavy particles, it was necessary to assume a continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons. Second, in order to account the diffraction pattern associated with the crystalline structures, it was necessary to accept the existence of a strong anisotropy in the velocity distribution of atomic electrons.

Such assumptions are totally unacceptable from the point of view of electrons moving in circular or even elliptic orbits, since the range of variability of electron velocity is too narrow and the anisotropy too low. The assumption concerning the continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons may be accounted for on the basis of classical mechanics only by the fact that the moving electron exists both beyond and in the immediate vicinity of the attracting center represented by the nucleus” 188.146.72.198 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's about the well-known failures of the Bohr model, not about the FFAM. While it certainly may have been a motivation for it, it's still not a paper about the FFAM, and does not succeed in establishing its notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the title of this paper: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom”. Radially means along the radius, what is equivalent with free-fall, the third equivalent description used is zero angular momentum. Other close formulations used are just classical regarding electrons, and from first principles (just Newton+Coulomb+Lorentz, without assuming axioms of QM). Let us look at abstract of some later papers: "Collisional ionisation and the atomic model" 29 citations: "...The theoretical results appear to be sensitive to the atomic model used; in the case of the free-fall atomic model, they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental data. ", "“Free-fall” solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment" 27 citations, it's in title, "A concept of “free-fall” multi-electron atomic model" 24 citations, in title, "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions" (22 citations): "...The basic feature of the model atom employed in the present work is its zero angular momentum due to the assumption of the radial motion of the atomic electron ('free-fall' trajectory)...". Sure, maybe the list of articles is too long - please point the least connected one. 188.146.146.81 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is 25+ articles from top journals (Phys. Rev. class) with ~ 3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . The author was physicist (experimentalist and theoretician) working nearly half a century in Polish Academy of Sciences. The articles consistently cover classical treatment of atoms, including electrons, focusing on agreement with experimental data - much more citations have the classical scattering papers (~2500 total), but direct consequence of their assumptions was the FFAM (1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” article), later tested and used for classical scattering considerations (sensitive to assumed electron trajectory) and other phenomena like Ramsauer effect (1970 Phys. Ref. Lett. "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell"), diamagnetism (1987 Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials "Diamagnetism of matter and structure of the atom") or modeling molecular bond (1994 Chemical Physics Letters "Dynamical model of the molecular bond"). The later articles directly applying FFAM also have total of a few hundreds of citations. 188.146.3.91 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is written in the above Ivote pertains to off-topic material and also ignores the lack of impact this theory has had in mainstream physics. All of the above, and many article references are meant to artificially puff up the importance of this theory. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories (see Ivote below). Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These 25+ articles have been accepted in top journals - do you imply that editors and reviewers of these journals accept obscure theories? The article emphasizes "This model has never been part of mainstream physics.", but it has both coverage and was not ignored. I responded with concrete arguments from the materials in discussion, please also give concrete objective arguments, not just your subjective evaluation. If you find something "obscure" in these articles, please point it, explain your evaluation and we can discuss your arguments. 188.146.133.196 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This theory has never had a significant impact in the mainstream physics field as demonstrated by the lack of citations by other researchers. It seems to have been ignored. As noted above, most of the article references do not pertain to this particular topic. This theory has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG - including the mainstream press. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTFORUM. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant coverage? Lack of citations by other researchers? Here you have access to a list of ~3000 citations for 25+ articles from top journals: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . Here you have example of Wikipedia article for 1 paper with 13 citations: Statistical Lempel–Ziv. Where is the boundary? 188.146.64.200 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you stop with the misleading POV assertions. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before questioning someones objectivity, please finally start with a single objective argument - based on the given historical material. This deletion nomination and discussion currently looks like a witch hunt, far from being objective. The official reason is lack of notability, but if measured in papers and citations, it easily exceeds tenfold notability of many other Wikipedia articles. The only other given reason is being “a very obscure theory” without providing even a single argument for this very subjective evaluation. I have looked closer at some of these papers (I have PhD in physics) and they contain solid calculations (wouldn’t be accepted in these journals otherwise) using just basic classical physics, like Coulomb and Lorentz force, and compare their theoretical predictions with experimental values, getting surprisingly good agreement – please explain what is controversial or obscure here? If you have found some weaknesses of their analysis, missed by the reviewers, please share it. They obviously lack the perfection of quantum predictions, but it is definitely good to know the limits of classical considerations, especially that the discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics still continues. If your objection is lack of connections between these 25+ papers, there was a specific question above to point the least connected paper - still zero answers. Please respond to the evidence above, which refer to the actual text showing their connection - like the 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper explaining necessity of FFAM electron trajectory for the 1300 citations classical scattering paper. 188.146.144.42 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this short article might be interesting for the history of physics, but it seems to be relegated, no? Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice 2012 Grujic "Classical theory of atomic collisions – The ﬁrst hundred years" review, which discusses two schools: semi-classical "Stirling school" and classical "Warsaw school" (Gryzinski's), with nice comment to his classical atomic models: "(...) may be considered a historiographical alternative, which answers the possible question: what would have happened had the QM not been invented?". The number of citations itself suggests theses papers had a real influence on the history of physics. However, these had finally turned out to be an alternative history - very solid work to understand how far can we go with the classical approximation. Understanding its limitation - what is still missing, is one of a natural way to really deeply understand the quantum mechanics. 188.146.68.213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic in general looks relevant, but I'm not sure if the current article is sufficient to give an overview: what are the applications of the model, what are the limits? Is this purely of historical interest, or still relevant? As an example, if the model is unable to reproduce quantized energy levels, this should be mentioned (because it means the model is not useful for atoms at all). If it is, this is a remarkable achievement for a classical theory and should be mentioned. If the atom has a time-dependent dipole, why doesn't it radiate? --mfb (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applications started with various scattering scenarios, later he has also used it for different topics like Ramsauer effect (as higher state electrons screening the lower ones), calculating diamagnetic coefficient, Stark effect and a few others. Limits? These are pure classical (e.g. no interference) - Bohr plus magnetic dipole moment of electron, plus precession of this spin (also as gyroscope), he has used this precession to explain Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization (1987 "Spin-dynamical theory of the wave-corpuscular duality"). This quantization basically produces energy levels as Bohr. Regarding lack or bremsstrahlung, I don't know his explanation. Personally, I see it through Couder's quantization for walking droplets ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ): closed trajectories and Bohr-Sommerfeld condition lead to resonance with the surrounding field. 89.70.181.191 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The banner question for content like this is simple: is there independent reliable coverage? That is, did other people directly address them at nontrivial length? The IP editor supporting retention has provided a lot of links to scholarly discussions of particle collision physics in the general case, and a lot of citation counts for Gryziński's works. But neither of those approaches illuminate whether this model is itself notable. For example, a couple of Gryziński's flagship papers that directly address this theory are in Physics Letters A: "A concept of 'free-fall' multi-electron atomic model" and "'Free-fall' solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment", each with a couple dozen citations. However, the bulk of those are self-citations from Gryziński's other papers, and none of the independent citations seem to give significant coverage of the topic. Indeed, papers like this Physics Reports article look promising, but are primarily concerned with his 1959 work, which predates the free-fall model. Honestly, I think the best solution here would be to redirect this article (merging appropriately given due weight) to an article on Gryziński himself; he's done some fairly significant things and, overall, has been pretty well-cited, and I think there's a case that he's notable. But currently, Michał Gryziński redirects to this article. In the absence of a viable redirect target, and given the lack of independent reliable coverage of this model specifically, I can only support deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have been working on classical considerations in this scale even after QM, and Gryzinski's half century of tremendous work is definitely the most notable among them: based on agreement with many different experiments, published dozens of papers about it in top journals, got thousands of citations. An ultimate argument against Bohr's picture, which is taught in schools, is electron capture - which requires electrons to get to femtometer scale distance so nuclear force can start acting (as in FFAM). The FFAM has been the base of his papers since the PRL in 1965, which introduced it as requirement for his classical scattering papers with 2000+ citations. These later 20+ papers have about 500 total citations - if it is not sufficient for a separate Wikipedia article, change it to Michał Gryziński, modify the order (FFAM after History, I can help), and redirect from FFAM. Also, there should be a section about his classical scattering papers. 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.64.242 (talk)

Keep: This is an alternative theoretical formulation which is tested experimentally in scattering experiments. It is not the only alternative theoretical formulation present on Wikipedia, there are many others like , for instance, non-standard cosmology, so the argument re mainstream belonging does not really hold.--213.233.84.3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as work in progress towards a more comprehensive article on Gryziński's work or himself. Or possibly move to Draft space if that is ever done.-- pretty IittIe Iiar 04:30, 3 October 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 Margaret Thatcher. There seems to be a clear supermajority in favour of redirection, and Neve-selbert's policy-rooted arguments are persuasive and largely unrebutted. For the somewhat awkward tangle of pages associated with the AFD, I intend to do the following: The Iron Lady already exists and is a redirect to the Thatcher article; I'm going to make Iron Lady do just the same. There is already a link to Iron Lady (disambiguation) at the top of the Thatcher article, so I'm going to leave that be. I won't delete the article, so if anyone wants to delve into Iron Lady's history to do a selective merge, the data is there. A Train^talk 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents about the nickname's history have been abridged and merged into Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady nickname. Some notable female politicians have been listed at the dab page. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lady

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

This is a rather dispensable article. Considering the fact that Thatcher is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an "Iron Lady", having a section listing basically every single other female world leader (and other female diplomats) since her tenure is pretty trivial and unnecessary, and likely runs into WP:LC. I would propose a merge of half the article (i.e. parts of the lede, along with sections 1 and 2) to Margaret Thatcher in a new section (e.g. #The Iron Lady subsection, under a #Nicknames section), given that we already have #The Iron Duke (under #Nicknames) with Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. --Neve –selbert 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Changed vote, redirect to Margaret Thatcher as per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.--Nevé –selbert 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted or re-directed to the Margaret Thatcher article. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. The first two sections are a fork, in that they treat Thatcher and the origin of her nickname. The latter sections are, as Neve-selbert notes, just lists of women to whom the nickname, or similar nicknames may have been used. Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after "delete") to Margaret Thatcher as unnecessary content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree any redirect is necessary. If Iron Duke does not re-direct to Arthur Wellesley, how can one objectively argue that Thatcher is deserving? Has she somehow done more than him? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.117.77 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly? I should take that as a sarcastic understatement. Anyway, this Afd is not requesting per se that Iron Lady be instead redirected Margaret Thatcher; the article-in-question could indeed become a disambiguation page in its own right, comparable to Iron Duke (a WP:DISAMBIG page without "(disambiguation)" at the end). Also, if you were to bother to read my rationale for this request instead of automatically reverting the tag on the article-in-question, I suggested above that we merge the initial 1/2 of the article to Margaret Thatcher in a new section named "Nicknames" (based on the #Nicknames section of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). This seems really rather reasonable, and two other editors are in agreement that this article is a superfluous WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides, we don't have an article on the nickname "Iron Duke", in and of itself, do we?--Nevé –selbert 12:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is already a page for Iron Lady (disambiguation). If the first half of the page is merged to Margaret Thatcher, parts of the second half may be mergeable there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the newly-found Iron Lady (disambiguation) from above: I don't think disambiguation pages usually have a (disambiguation) added to them? They're just "Iron Lady", aren't they? ~~The disambiguation page should be deleted or redirected here and this made into a disambiguation page and the bits about Thatcher should be merged to her article in a section about the nickname.~~ I took a look and much of it isn't there. Gavrilov for example isn't mentioned at all. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Margaret Thatcher. I took a look into the (disambiguation) policy, and found out that it's used when one usage of the term far outranks others. The link to the disambiguation is then added as a hatnote. It seems like so in our case. However some bits about the nickname should be added to her article, likely in a subsection like the Iron Duke's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Iron Lady to Margaret Thatcher and Rename our current article as Iron Lady (nickname) or Iron Lady (term) (rename before redirecting if there isn't some other maneuver). Another alternative as pointed out below is a Wiktionary article for the term. Even if this article for the term is kept, it should probably be renamed Iron Lady (nickname/term) and be added as a hatnote to Thatcher's article with Iron Lady redirecting there. Sources indicate with vast majority that the term is majorly just used of Thatcher. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thatcher It's the only significant use of the term. There's nothign worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic garbage. This article drives a coach and horses through WP:NOR, WP:NOT and even WP:V (with its poorly sourced and unsourced material). It also has a strong stench of sexism to it; this is basically a list of almost all female world leaders, all of whom have been lazily compared by a male-dominated media with Margaret Thatcher, some, as the article says, retrospectively. Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Per DGG, there is definitely nothing worth merging there. --John (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The potentially valuable part of this article may be the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied. If it is ill-sourced, the need is to tag it for that not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems particularly useful for readers who see it applied to other women, as it now often is (as mentioned in the lead, at least until very recently, and now re-mentioned by me) and want to know more about it. In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged. This expression exists beyond Thatcher. The article probably needs improvement (sources, balancement) and other warnings but the redirect proposal is not the best option.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's just listing people the term's been used of. Perfect material for the disambiguation page. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page are string-based. They shouldn't contain content or act as de facto article. You loose all the sources for the use of the term, and they're crucial to avoid original research. And if you keep those sources you're not doing a disambiguation page, you're writing an article, in the end. So you're just stuffing material of an article in a disambiguation pages. A strategy I consider on the long-term confusing for both editors and readers. The most simple strategy IMHO is to keep the article about "iron lady" and let it grow over time like millions of other articles.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or Wiktionary is a perfect compromise, have a look at wikt:win one for the Gipper. The Gipper redirects to the George Gipp article, even though this is a pretty common nickname for Ronald Reagan. Other than Margaret Thatcher, who else is widely known as an "Iron Lady"? Golda Meir? First off, that nickname was used to describe her posthumously. And second, notice the "of Israeli politics" people add after when people use it to describe Meir. Pretty much nobody in general refers to Thatcher as "the Iron Lady of British politics", she is the "Iron Lady" full stop, period. Lastly I should note that this article has been around for a while. There is no indication this article has any realistic potential to improve in the future. What else is there to add, anyway? Wiktionary seems to be the best route forward, al a modus vivendi.--Nevé –selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section for Political Usage doesn't really have content, just similar listings of usage as in the disambig. page for Iron Duke. Sure, the disambig. pages seem to disallow sources, but the articles for the people mentioned should carry that burden. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the practical point of view. I mean a "list" of related articles/concepts exist even if the sources and content are in another article. The rationale is not the fact that you can have a disambiguation, but if a list has a use per se. First of all, a disambiguation should not list all the minor and similar titles. Even for the "simple" "iron lady" you can have enough sources to cite a woman in a brief ns0 list but not to put it in a disambiguation page as it is clearly not the main use, and distracting. And for sure you can't put things such as "titan lady" there. And as a reader this minor occurrences are in any case useful and it's what I (and many other people) open wikipedia for... Secondly, "ns0 lists" and disambiguation pages are two distinct concept. The first one is to have a theme-based overview, the second one to find articles based on a similar string. It should be avoided to mix them because it looks "simpler". It's not. I go to the disambiguation page to find a book or film or place titled "iron lady", I read a list in ns0 when I want to know something more about a concept. The nickname is a concept. As a reader, I need the list here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit clearer, please? ns0 list? As in not in main space? Most of the variants in our current article are nicknames which seemingly have no relation like Steel Butterfly, "the only man in" and Attila the Hen. The article for this term could be feasibly kept either here or at Wiktionary, but Iron Lady should nonetheless redirect to Thatcher due to overwhelming amount of coverage using it as a synonym for her. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must note that the three dissenting voices to this Afd make their cases pretty poorly. Firstly, I should like to turn to Peterkingiron's argument and his making the dubious case that the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied is "potentially valuable". This is faulty logic that has already been discredited hitherto. Cutting to the chase, Margaret Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, take Google Books for credence: there are around 40,600 results that "Iron Lady" garners, of which all the results of the first page save just one pertain to the British stateswoman. Searching "Iron Lady" AND "Thatcher" garners 25,600 results and only loses around 15,000. Yet searching for "Iron Lady" -"Thatcher" loses around 10,000 results (with a negligible 15,600 garnered in total instead), and even this may be a slight exaggeration given how Thatcher is self-evidently alluded to in at least two of the results received on the first page. Having read WP:EVERYTHING, this pretty much nails it. Secondly, Tlhslobus's arguments: stating that "it [Iron Lady] now often is" used to apply to other women. This statement pretty much flies in the face of WP:WEIGHT without shame. He then goes on to say that In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. This "large numbers of other people" claim is (as I gladly concur with John) simply media-driven drivel and borderline sexism. Both Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias have been widely described by various reputable sources also as "Iron Dukes", yet this does not in any way negate the fact that Wellington is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (If you want Google Books statistics for Iron Duke, I will be happy to present you the facts.) You then go on to say, Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. That is a woefully inadequate "Well, at least it's not as bad as that article" case-in-point, that does neither side any favours and fails WP:OTHERCONTENT. For Alexmar983 who stated that the paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged without reasoning, I cannot help but retort: "Why ever not?" Just why not? Although I admit I am warming to the option of just redirecting the article to Margaret Thatcher saving the trouble of us merging, I just cannot understand at all why a merge would be impractical. I urge you to re-read my rationale per the precedent with Wellington. You then go on to state that This expression exists beyond Thatcher. Yup, as does The Iron Duke and a great many other nicknames of which I feel free to state, but as Mr. Magoo and McBarker correctly alludes, "if it [a term] has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" a topic is primary for that term. Rather simple and clearly straightforward, I should think. In conclusion, I would like to note Caeciliusinhorto's very constructive comment. If this page gets redirected? We certainly have the option of either (a) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Margaret Thatcher, (b) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or (c) creating a new Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for this article's deletion. I would like to stress again that there is nothing unreasonable about this Afd proposal in terms of WP:NOHARM and WP:ADDSVALUE. In a nutshell, this request aims to be a wise housekeeping measure through removing indiscriminate and superfluous information that is already mostly included at Margaret Thatcher and elsewhere.--Nevé –selbert 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply:

Point partly conceded regarding Iron Duke. Although the cited couple of long-dead Dukes are not the same as about 20 (and counting) mostly living female political leaders, the Google Books stats are 26,700 for "Iron Duke" and Wellington, and 121,000 for "Iron Duke" without Wellington. I'm not clear how much weight is meant to be given to such stats.
I'm not clear how 15,000 out of 40,000, in other words 37.5%, is 'negligable' (for instance, David Cameron got 0.6% less than 37.5% of the vote when winning last year's general election, and about 12.9% less than 37.5% if you include those who didn't vote). (The figures I get for Google Books are 15,700 out of 40,500, which is actually slightly more than 37.5%.) And the 25,000 figure clearly includes items that briefly mention Thatcher but are actually about some other Iron Lady (and there are presumably far more of these than there are items about Thatcher that don't name her). And there are presumably plenty of foreign-language books mentioning Iron Ladies other than Thatcher in the language of those ladies, books which will not show up when googling Iron Lady in English, but which can reasonably be expected to omit Thatcher (or to mention her while actually being about some other Iron Lady) more often than books in English do. And so on.
I should perhaps have been less cautious in my expression of support for the unfairly criticized quality of the article's sourcing. Apart from one citation needed flag, I haven't noticed any statement that appears to lack a source, apart from one or two statements too self-evident to require sourcing per WP:V. Of course life is too short for me to check every single citation for things like reliability, but most of them are clearly reliable sources, and if one or two turn out not to be so upon closer inspection, those statements can either be tagged with a citation needed or removed, just as with every other Wikipedia article.
I should perhaps also have raised the matter of WP:BIAS, also known as WP:WORLDVIEW, as the proposal is arguably (in practice and presumably unintentionally) both anglocentric and sexist. This seems in effect a proposal to remove documented references to about 20 (and counting) leaders whose main characteristic seems to be that they are not British (hence anglocentrism) and female (hence sexism). Of course I'm male, and so presumably is John, who first brought up the issue of sexism here while arguing the opposite point of view to mine (see above), as seeminlgy also is the editor to whom I am replying (whose user page says he prefers to be referred to as 'he') and who seems to agree with John's version of the 'sexism' argument. I don't know where to go for 'expert' opinion on anglocentrism (I'm Irish, so perhaps unduly biased against anglocentrism; at any rate I'm no 'neutral expert' on the subject, always assuming any such persons exist). But as for sexism, I will shortly be leaving a request for comments on the matter at WP:GGTF (request now posted here). If I can be satisfied on these two issues, perhaps partly by people (especially females) from the GGTF telling me that I'm mistaken, then I would expect to switch to supporting a merge. This would presumably keep the 'Origins' stuff, but would presumably also reduce the 20 (and counting) non-British female leaders to at most perhaps 2 in at most a single sentence (or footnote?) along the lines of 'The term has since often been used to refer to other female leaders such as X(citation) and Y(citation)".
That said, I've spent more time on this issue than I reckon it's worth. So I hope not to be taking any further part in this discussion, apart from eventually saying something like that the GGTF people have persuaded me to switch my support to a merge, if and when they do in fact persuade me. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? If a standalone article is that egregious, merge or redirect it to Margaret Thatcher. — AjaxSmack 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. It overwhelmingly refers to her, and other uses are clearly linked to the original. It is not worthy of more than a one paragraph summary in the main Margaret article though, which can also mention any other people that the term may have later been applied to. — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this AfD clicking on "iron lady" from another figure. Finding just Thatcher would be confusing, for me and for many other readers. Stuffing Thatcher's article with mentions of other people is not very elegant for the reader as well. And BTW even if it were "overwhelming referring" to Margaret Thatcher, that does not mean it has to be merged automatically. It would be a in-depth analysis of a concept that has its own dignity, a type of spin-off that it is very common and also appropriate for encyclopedic content. It looks to me like the typical situation where you ("generic editor") try to be "simple", but you're only simplistic. These merging operations look to me like the same difference there is between properly cleaning a floor and sweeping dust under the carpet. Not a great service to the reader.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, what figure? See WP:HATNOTE, this would circumvent any confusion. With regard to your last point, Alexmar983, see my above reply relating to WP:WIKT and how this would be a decent and rational option.--Nevé –selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A redirect to Margaret Thatcher does not comply with the purposes of redirects as the Thatcher topic deals with her biography and "Iron Lady" is now a linguistic term. Nor does a merger work because doing so cuts out the sourced WP:NOTEWORTHY material about how the term is being used with other female political leaders. Now, if one could write an article about strong-willed female leaders, along the lines of "Steel baron", then a redirect to the re-written and re-titled article would be fine. For now, though, keeping the article IAW WP:PRESERVE is the best solution. – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the initial paragraph is about Mrs Thatcher, there is more to the article than that - the term has political meaning today which extends beyond Margaret Thatcher and the UK or even English speaking world. I agree that the article probably needs work especially around the Political Usage section but to redirect only would create confusion for those people looking only for the term, its origin and usage when not specifically considering the UK Prime Minister and deleting it would leave a gap in knowledge. Many strong women in politics become known as their countries Iron Lady and Wikipedia should provide the explanation and related uses and not merely in a disambiguation page. It needs the context and implications. For specific Wikipedia references to back this up, see WP:POFR, WP:PRESERVE, But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information and WP:ADDSVALUE. It needs work but a delete or merge would make the information less accessible than it currently is. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Srich32977 and Antiqueight: Your arguments have no strict encyclopaedic weight behind whatseover. Read WP:NOTDICTIONARY. What's wrong with merging parts of the article relating to her nickname into the Margaret Thatcher and Iron Lady (disambiguation) articles while at the same time creating a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for your other arguments relating to the phrase being used to refer to other politicians? The fact of the matter is that this phrase overwhelmingly refers to Margaret Thatcher. Per WP:WEIGHT alone, this article is unjustified as a part of this encyclopedia and is much better suited to Wiktionary. Just go and have a look at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#The Iron Duke. Yes, there are several known generals and the like known as an "Iron Duke", but the nickname almost exclusively refers to him alone, and hence why The Iron Duke redirects to the Duke and Iron Duke is a disambiguation page in its own right. I previously proposed having Iron Lady redirect to the WP:DAB page, but this argument had indeed been rejected by most with the argument that the DAB page almost exclusively referenced more to Thatcher than any other female leader. Moreover, searching for "Iron Lady" in Google Images shows nothing but Thatcher (albeit with the Meryl Streep portrayal of her). The overbearing background to this Afd proposal is sound, Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. But alas, I understand your concerns. Hence why I have proposed the following three options that are infinitely better in my opinion than keeping this article the way it stands today. Note: I personally prefer the third option.

Merge any useful or beneficial information to Margaret Thatcher in a new section dedicated to Nicknames as per the example with Wellington. This new section can include explanations of such epithets as Milk snatcher or Attilla the Hen as well as a couple of others perhaps, so the section wouldn't exactly be neither too spacious nor too crowded.
Create a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady. This seems entirely reasonable. Why waste an entry on Wikipedia on such meaningless drivel on so-called "Iron Ladies" that almost certainly goes on to fail WP:FALSEBALANCE. So what if there other famous politicians around the world known as an "Iron Lady"? Let's be honest here, just how frequently are such women politicians referred to as such once their careers have been fully established and respected by most commentators? How often are the likes of say Angela Merkel or Hillary Clinton referred to as "Iron Ladies" in this day and age? Simply put, referring to a female politician as an "Iron Lady" is usually used by journalists to point out rising females in politics that display a certain "steel" or "toughness" about them. Thatcher was referred to as "the Iron Lady" by a Soviet newspaper and was in-fact meant to be a snide criticism, hence a total contrast in context. On the other hand, Bill Clinton of course was once referred to as "The first Black President". Doesn't make that so important or encyclopedic, does it? It's undue weight, pure and simple.
Just redirect the article to Margaret Thatcher with the following hatnote:No problem. If an average Joe genuinely came across "Iron Lady" looking for another person? (Unlikely.) They should have no trouble in clicking the hatnote to suppress any confusion.

Once again, I cannot help but regard these arguments in favour of keeping this borderline-WP:STUB page as an article as extremely petty. Most of the information related to how Margaret Thatcher had got her nickname in the first place is at Margaret Thatcher#Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79. The rest of this article just rambles on too list media-noticed female politicians that have just happened to be called an "Iron Lady" by some odd journalist in the media. This includes Theresa May, for that matter. So just about any female politician. To be entirely frank, this article is absolutely superfluous for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The very least we can go about is implementing of the above three alternative options. The status quo is just an embarrassment.--Nevé –selbert 12:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worthy to note that Iron Lady had been originally a redirect. There is clear precedent to this proposal.--Nevé –selbert 13:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Neve-selbert: A dictionary defines the words and gives the origin. An encyclopedia defines the words, give the origin, some context and details as well as the other people for whom the phrase applies and again, some context around why. A dictionary would focus on the meaning of the words - the current article is focused on the origin and implication of the name (and should cover why so many women simply by being women are thus titled). It does need to be cleaned up - improved, especially to make it more encyclopedic but deleting it or redirecting it to another article makes the encyclopedia poorer not richer for the experience. I would much prefer your proposals to purely a redirect or deletion. But I think the article could be improved which should be the aim. I think there is historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article but it needs work. I may be biased by time of course - in my lifetime the phrase Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke (who I tended to think of as a horse). ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely baffles and bewilders me as to how Wikipedia would be "poorer not richer for the experience" of having Iron Lady deleted. Nevertheless, I of course accept that you take the opposite view. But with that being said, I remain entirely confident that giving note to the "historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article" can be transferred to Margaret Thatcher or a Wiktionary entry with untethered success. She is, as I repeat, the irrepressible primary topic for the term "Iron Lady". For other "Iron Ladies" (or the lack thereof) they can simply be listed at Iron Lady (disambiguation) in the same fashion as Iron Duke lists the other "Iron Dukes". For the historical context? Let's go about splitting the transferal of information between the Thatcher article and a new Wiktionary entry. As for the potential future? I frankly think that this article has had a good run. What more can we add to the article? Why each and every single female politician listed has been referred to as yet another "Iron Lady", as well as how and when and in what context? This would inevitably result in undue weight. As much as one may be optimistic, I cannot fathom as to how the article can be any "better". The article as it stands really is as good as it gets, we've had it for around a decade now as some sort of semi-stub article. That aside, redirecting Iron Lady as a section redirect would also not be a problem. I personally happen to believe a section redirect unnecessary since the term "Iron Lady" is already mentioned in the lede section in the very first paragraph at the Thatcher article. Your statement that Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke is merely your own personal viewpoint. Here, a Google Books analysis: "Iron Duke" renders about 183,000 results while "Iron Lady" renders 40,600. That is less than 100,000 for "Iron Lady". Another point, "Iron Duke" has been used to refer to male generals and the like more often in a historical (and encyclopedic) context than "Iron Lady" has with female politicians and the like. The mainstream media perpetuates this myth of an "Iron Lady" female politician purely based on the outstanding example set by Thatcher (and her alone). Could you name any so-called "Iron Lady" wannabees following in the "Iron Lady" footsteps of anybody else for that matter? She was the indisputable progenitor that made the nickname possible. It's time we all realised this, and went about rectifying this real predicament there is with the status quo.--Nevé –selbert 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who asked Wiktionary for an entry. Next time maybe you could that before the Afd... :D Still, an entry of Wiktionary would not list all the examples, so it's not the same thing. I've already told you why putting it in the disambiguation is not the same. When I use "iron lady" in another women biography I cannot link to a disambiguation page. It wrong for the DRDI and it's not the correct use of a disambiguation page (that it's mainly string based). A sociopolitical analysis is possible. It's not my field and I certainly don't have the sources from a Chemistry Department in China but it is an established sociopolitical term. Also I showed it to other female users of different nationalities during the last days. Those who replied to me they all agree that its use is implicitly sexist, that's why in many countries noone would never use it anymore (Scandinavian politician are no "iron ladies", and part of my family is Swedish, I know there's some truth in here :D), but it is historical and it's actually a perfect example of how societies reacted to a female politician, who has to be implicitly "strong as a man or even more" (or similar). See for example the use in the title Iron Ladies of Liberia, or this use used by Joshua Keating. In many countries now it is different, in other ones it is not and the term is still used, but it is a fact. One of these female friend said in her opinion there are here some echoes of the gender-gap activism of the anglophone world where often instead of focusing on the sociological aspect of a situation, people sometimes just try to "remove it" acting on the language. Maybe she's right or maybe she's not, I am not expert. Of course now you're going to discuss how poor and self referential this statement is, but I'll live with it. I mean, with the limited access I had to the sources I did what I could to avoid this deletion, which in any case does not baffles and bewilders me, it's quite common. It's the strategy of "revolving door" content that I saw so many time, where there's always someone who try to split stuff everywhere and than we have to recompose it again after some years.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you honestly name me another "Iron Lady" with the same WP:WEIGHT that Thatcher holds? The likelihood is simply that you can't. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Thatcher certainly satisfies this criteria. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a disambiguation page listing other "Iron Ladies" or the lack thereof in similar fashion to Iron Duke. There is absolutely precedent for this, as I say. I have suggested either a Wiktionary entry and/or a new #Nicknames section at the Thatcher article that can make up for article deletion. As John accurately stated above, this article is mainly media-driven. Can you bring up any Google Books or newspaper articles referring to every single female politician on that page as an "Iron Lady"? She is by far the primary topic for this term, and hence the term should and must redirect to her page or at least a section of her page. A Wiktionary entry can make up for information that cannot be merged to Margaret Thatcher, and other "Iron Ladies" that have been referred to as such in a historical rather than mass-media context can be listed at the WP:DAB page. This is plain rational thinking, and housekeeping at its best. I remain in full agreement with Cnilep and K.e.coffman that this article is merely an unnecessary WP:FORK. The majority of its information derives only from the origins of how Thatcher got her nickname (which is already included mostly at her article) and other female politicians randomly called an "Iron Lady" by the media without any historical context at all. I'm sorry, but the inclusion of this article is not sufficiently merited as to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Thatcher or rather the film based on her life is the primary topic for this term. That, is just a fact.--Nevé –selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Your argument would have more merit if you (or anyone other than a Finn) had created a Wiktionary article for "Iron lady", but no one has. (Suggestion – proactive editors can start at Iron lady.) Even so, another factor to consider is how helpful this article has been to WP users. We see in the page visits link that 122,699 users (267/day) have looked at it in the last 15 months alone. (And I am jealous – this number is 5 times greater than the visits I've seen on the two Good Articles I worked on!) The closer of this AfD should consider – projecting back over the last 13 years, perhaps ≤1 million users have viewed the article with the intent of finding out more about the Iron Lady. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and if they had though about a merge, there will be statistically much more comments in Talk:Iron Lady about that. We actually risk that some of the next million reader in the following years, dissatisfied with a "forced" redirect, will try to write it again. I suspect it also from that fact that I found this Afd by pure chance, by the presence on other language editions and by the reactions of all third parties I'm showing this discussion during these days. That's why a "revolving door content" scenario is highly probable. This will generate lots of wikicentric discussions full of links to help pages and even some nasty comments, but no real improvement. So I still think that the best option for a generic reader is to find an article with a warning and tag with a request for improvement.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated the instance of wikidata here. I have never used the phrase "winged word" in English but the Swedish and Italian definition sounds appropriate to me. It is a neologism that can be associated to a specific creator. It is possible that the English label may be changed, but the instance represented by the item is correct.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of a "revolving door scenario" are slim and even so, see Harambe for example. The primary topic for the term is the late gorilla and there can be no doubt about that. Yet there is a hatnote at the top of the page to suppress any confusion if somebody happens to be looking for something different related to "Harambe" given the link given to Harambe (disambiguation). There will certainly be a hatnote at the Thatcher article. And since Thatcher is evidently the primary topic for the term (and I have given more than a fair share of evidence in my replies above), most people searching for "Iron Lady" are probably looking for the film based on her life rather than the woman herself for that matter. They most likely just landed on this article by mere accident. "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher, "Milk Snatcher" (which redirects to a section, by the way) is second. Most searches related to "Iron Lady" or "The Iron Lady" are beyond reasonable doubt related to Thatcher, and I can certainly supply you all the statistics the Internet can offer if you like. The same goes for "Iron Duke" with Wellington. The rationale for redirecting this article is clear and sound. I can assure you that there will be no indiscriminate loss of information at all. I have thusly prepared contingency plans to prevent such a scenario from happening.--Nevé –selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A contingency plan that does not imply a wikictionary entry before the Afd wasn't probably the best version.

In any case Harambe does not exist in many language editions and does not receive so many visits, "revolving door scenario" chances are therefore high. The hatnote does not solve the mistaken links to the Thatcher article from other articles when it has a generic meaning (the way I ended up here). In another scenario you're forcing to redirect to a disambiguation page with no source, and that's also wrong per se, as disambiguation pages should not act as a de facto article (or a portion of an article). Even if part of the people came here because of the movie, they didn't complain about the article as it is, and they were a lot; this tells you something about what readers mainly perceive as correct (I had another proof just asking around offwiki). In any case, noone has ever doubted that "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher or that the majority of the use is referring to her, but I am (we are, probably) aware that there is now a consistent use as a generic sociopolitical term, that goes beyond her. The fact that it has been retroactively referred to leaders emerged before her is also a spy of that. This aspect has its own dignity, it is worth an article alone because of its worldwide use and stuffing it in a redirect is excessive. It's good sense IMHO to "let it be". There is also a potential loss: as every work in progress, the article when present is ready to include other sources. Splitting it makes this process of improvement much complicated. The improvement to the whole wiki come from someone who wants the article alone (a new source, a better cat, a new instance on wikidata)... I've also realized that we don't have a category and an article for "winged word". That's what the presence of an article makes 99% of the time when it is appropriate, it fits in the workflow of the wiki. An article in the right place is a constant push for improvement of the whole wikipedia. I saw the "revolving door scenario" so many times and I spent so much time fixing the effects of these "neutral" and "complete" redirets in different languages that I cannot but feel the duty to oppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just cannot understand why Iron Lady can't just be merged into Margaret Thatcher. We can create a new section at the article relating to the nickname, and how it has been used retrospectively to describe other people. Therefore Iron Lady redirects to something like Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady. A hatnote can be added above that section like so: It's like Nixon redirecting to Richard Nixon. I mean, sure there are plenty of other Nixons, but the 37th President is the primary topic for the term and hence Nixon rightfully redirects. We face a similar dilemma with "Iron Lady". Dividing the information across Wikipedia through a disambiguation page and a merge along with the Wiktionary proposal seems to be the best compromise. Having had a look at Pages that link to "Iron Lady", there aren't too many pages linking to this article. I am sure most readers would be satisfied if they were transferred to Wiktionary to read about the term and how it came about. Yes I regret not creating an entry before opening up this Afd. I only came up with the idea soon after I opened this discussion. That was a mistake, I realise that. If you like, I can create the entry for Wiktionary:Iron Lady now. Would you find this helpful, Alexmar983?--Nevé –selbert 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it helpful for Wiktionary, it might change someone else's position here. It does not change mine. Connectivity for me is a subtle topic, it goes beyond explaining how the link to a disambiguation page works. It's also about an overall perspective on how article and language editions interact, in my experience 66% sources and 33% good sense. I bet you here a coffee than if redirected in less than 5 years somone willa sk to or will recreate this article. And it will look to me like a fragmented distribution of information in the meantime. I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, so many people won't do it at all. It's not like Nixon, if you end right there the disambiguation hat is at the same level of your eyes. To me it is a decent article with its dignity of a sociopolitical term with explanation and examples, it deserves to be found under the right category and linked to wikidata, just there, waiting for some better sources like millions of peers. In any case, I'm here by chance... I know what it is to correct this "forced" redirects, and I kinda feel sorry for whoever will try to do it later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, I'm sorry, what? This is nonsense. A hatnote would appear right below the heading, as is convention. Just like Nixon. There shouldn't be any "surprise redirects" at all. Iron Lady is, as I must repeat, a media-driven nickname and not a sobriquet adopted by most historians to describe other female leaders. Per Criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, I am confident that Iron Lady satisfies the criteria. I would also recommend adding {{Copy to Wiktionary}} to the article in the meantime. Furthermore, I would note the fact that we already have Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto von Bismarck despite a number of media sources ([14][15][16] [17]) indeed describing Angela Merkel as another. Yet Bismarck is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term and hence a redirect is justified without mentioning Merkel. Having a disambiguation page for "Iron Lady" meets that situation half-way. I'm pretty sure that if President Obama or Putin were women they would be described as "Iron Ladies" too, for that matter. Most journalists picking out "Iron Ladies" are most likely male, and it really is a lazy description used without weight for posterity. Has the nickname "Iron Lady" stuck to Hillary Clinton or Merkel or even Rousseff? No. Has it stuck to Thatcher? Absolutely. Even Meir has to be described as "the Iron Lady of Israeli politics" to disambiguate her if you will. Who refers to Thatcher as the "Iron Lady of British politics"? Nobody dares to disambiguate her from the pack, she is the Iron Lady without further ado. You go on to say that you'll "kinda feel sorry" for those who have to correct these "'forced' redirects". This can be easily rectified in my view. Per WP:ASTONISH, I would myself be astonished if users were shocked, surprised or overwhelmingly confused by landing at Margaret Thatcher. This was her nickname above all before anybody else, for crying out loud. Just like there are plenty of John Tylers and Andrew Johnsons, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in sight here. Any contemporary "Iron Lady" today is always seen as a latter-day emulation, imitation of Mrs Thatcher, rather than their own person in their own right. I must stress that a hatnote would satisfactorily suppress any confusion. For just one example, take a reader misspelling "Barrack" without the extra "r" in the search bar ending up at Barack Obama. That person (however dazzled beyond belief) can easily click on Barack (disambiguation) and land at the See also section to enter Barrack. Your concerns may be understandable, but I believe that they can be sufficiently managed. There is even an option of getting a bot to go around to fix links to the article-in-question, if the idea of a reader landing at Margaret Thatcher is so unthinkable and outrageous.--Nevé –selbert 19:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it time this discussion was closed per WP:SNOW, as it seems clear there is no prospect of consensus for deletion, but it is wasting the time and efforts of several Wikipedians who could be using their time more productively? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: You are correct in saying that there is no prospect of consensus for this article's deletion per se, but neither is there a consensus to keep the article the way it currently is. Per the Afd stats, almost double the amount of those wanting to keep this article would like the article merged/redirected to Margaret Thatcher.--Nevé –selbert 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are currently 5 Keep, 3 Merge, 5 Redirect (Incidentally redirect seems in practice to be the same as deletion). So no consensus for any course of action. My understanding is that in the absence of consensus for change, no change takes place (in effect the status quo is assumed to be the 'old consensus', which stays in force unless and until a new consensus emerges to replace it). In other words there doesn't have to be consensus for Keep. (It may or may not also be slightly relevant that most of the recent votes have seemingly been for Keep, arguably suggesting a drift towards Keep). However I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's on debating this question. As an involved party, I won't be flagging the discussion as closed myself, as I understand that is normally best done by an uninvolved party. (Right now I would tend to expect that an uninvolved party would conclude that it should be closed, mainly because there currently seems to be only one person trying to keep the debate alive, but my expectations are somewhat irrelevant, at least in the sense that an uninvolved party can and should ignore them). So having said my bit on the subject of closure I will now happily leave that question for others to decide.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, do you think it would be a good idea to have this article tagged accordingly and renamed to Iron Lady (nickname), with Iron Lady redirecting to Mrs Thatcher with a hatnote? I confess that I opened a move discussion about this before, but that time I suggested redirecting this page to Iron Lady (disambiguation) (not Thatcher's article). This could be one way forward, perhaps.--Nevé –selbert 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an unnecessary complication. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Complication? I beg to differ. If anything, it would certainly de-complicate matters beyond reasonable doubt. Take a look at Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto Bismarck for precedent. Merkel is frequently referred to as an "Iron Chancellor" in the press, yet this does not automatically merit encyclopedic weight. The #Political usage section should be removed, if this article is indeed kept through lack of consensus. Personally, I happen to believe that a move would make perfect sense, and would render as an amicable compromise indeed for this article to be disambiguated with "(nickname)" at the end of it. She is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this cannot be clearer. Other female politicians are called "Iron Ladies" consistently in sole comparison with Thatcher. She is the Iron Lady, just as Bismarck was the Iron Chancellor. I could go on and on (but I already have, see my replies above) Frankly, the status quo is a blatant disregard for WP:WEIGHT, and just cannot afford to stand in the long term.--Nevé –selbert 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Yes, the title has been applied to other female leaders, but almost always in a sort of throwaway way to compare them to Thatcher herself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher as a clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Other entries should be merged to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or pruned. Only keep those where the target article actually mentions a notable attribution of the nickname to the subject. Not all female political leaders are routinely called "iron ladies"; I even suspect that very few are. — JFG ^talk 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Compromise: Rename the article "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), eventually along with appropriate minor modifications to the article, especially in the lead, plus a suitable 'About' template at the top, and have a link to it from 'Iron Lady (disambiguation)', and probably also from the Margaret Thatcher article (as is currently the case). And then let "Iron Lady" redirect to Margaret Thatcher per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as "The Iron Lady" already does). Otherwise we will have a situation in which rules like "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" are being misused to prevent the existence of a well-sourced article about a topic which has been viewed relatively recently by over 100,000 readers, is found in over 40,000 Google Books (at least 15,000 of which make no mention of the so-called primary topic (Thatcher), and quite a lot more probably briefly mention her without being about her), not counting non-English books (as well as 435,000 general Google references in English that don't mention Thatcher), and is relevant (sometimes arguably, sometimes unarguably) to thoroughly encyclopedic areas as diverse as Political Science, History, Media Studies, the evolution of Language and/or Culture, and Feminism. Besides in practice violating WP:BIAS through having sexist and anglocentric effects as already mentioned, such a result would be a very bad case of Wikilawyering and a serious violation of WP:IAR ('Ignore all rules that prevent you improving the encyclopedia'), one of our most fundamental rules, as it gives effect to the the 5th of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia ('Wikipedia has no firm rules'). It would presumably also be setting a pretty terrible precedent for similar future disimprovements of the encyclopedia. With so many books dealing with the topic, there should be plenty of scope for subsequently improving the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if somebody has the technical skills (which I don't), it might be simplest to just be BOLD, rename the article as "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), create the two suggested links to it, create the new 'Iron Lady' as a redirect to Thatcher, remove the Article-for-Deletion notice from the renamed article, and leave a note here saying this has been done, and that anyone who wishes to do so can always create a new Article-for-Deletion request for the renamed article. The point is that an awful lot of the argument here (about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) seems to be the unfortunate result of the article currently having an inappropriate name. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, a better new name for the article would be "Iron Lady (expression)", since, as the article already indicates (somewhat inadequately at present, but that is easily fixed), the term is also used for non-political figures such as the Hungarian swimmer Hosszu, and this use may (or may not) increase over time. (I also considered "Iron Lady (neologism)", but rejected it, as we are quite likely to eventually discover much earlier uses of it, and also the 1970s is not all that 'new', and gets less and less 'new' as time passes).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do broadly agree with this proposal; thanks, Tlhslobus, for your admirable effort at striking a happy medium here. If this Afd does close as "no consensus"? I will certainly attempt to implement this proposal thereafter. I just think this Afd should be closed first (you could go ask WP:ANRFC, that is if you want such a closure to occur sooner). Also (as a side note), I think The Iron Lady probably should be retargeted to Iron Lady (disambiguation), as most searching with the definite article are probably looking for the film rather than the woman herself.--Nevé –selbert 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neve-selbert. Thanks to your very valuable and much appreciated support, the proposed compromise now has support from both sides of the dispute, so I expect it will have a very good chance of succeeding. So I'm happy to wait a little longer (too long might be a mistake, but that is not yet the case). It's probably best not to complicate things here with a distracting discussion here of the entirely separate question of where 'The Iron Lady' should redirect, but please feel free to raise that interesting question in some other forum.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lot on line so I used my time to more "productive things" (no offense). I don't read all what's new here but if the final idea, as far as I understand, is to use "iron lady" as a redirect but keep the content in an article with another title such as Iron Lady (nickname) or similar, of course I support. The title per se has never been an issue from my perspective, I just cared about the presence of a "junction article" (which is not the same of a disambiguation page).--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Alexmar983. It seems to me that we probably now have consensus on this compromise proposal - it's been there for 3 days now, has received support from key figures on both sides of the dispute, and has received no dissent. But I'm no expert on precisely when consensus is deemed to be reached. So I'm now going to try to take up Neve-selbert's above suggestion about asking for closure at WP:ANRFC - I assume the admins there are fairly expert on deciding whether or not it should be closed now on the basis of the compromise proposal, or whether we should wait a little longer. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having now taken a closer look at WP:ANRFC, I came across this:

'Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.'

It doesn't say how long we need to wait for consensus to be 'reasonably clear'. So rather than waste the time of admins, I propose to wait another 48 hours (until 8am (UTC) on Saturday 15 October 2016), and if there have been no objections to the compromise by then, and no requests for more time, I intend to close it myself as soon as possible thereafter, on the assumption that the compromise has consensus (always assuming somebody else hasn't already closed it on that basis). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhslobus fine with me... I suppose you're going to move the page, than create the redirect from the old title.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose compromise – I chanced upon this page again and read the "potential compromise" discussion. I for one disagree that the purported compromise is valuable. Yes, this article would be better titled Iron Lady (nickname), however this is AfD, not RM, so we are here to debate whether this article should exist at all. In its current incarnation, the article still looks like a WP:SYNTH of every time any political leader has been called "Iron Lady of X" by some bored journalist, plus a WP:COATRACK of similar nicknames, so it should be deleted with any salvageable contents merged. Let me repeat my proposal: keep only the mentions of "Iron Lady" where the subject has been repeatedly and consistently called such (that covers fewer cases than currently listed), then merge those mentions to the existing Iron Lady (disambiguation). Let the Iron Lady title redirect to Margaret Thatcher, and redirect Iron Lady (nickname) to Iron Lady (disambiguation). — JFG ^talk 12:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I honestly don't care which route is eventually taken. As long as Iron Lady redirects to Margaret Thatcher, I'm satisfied. But yes JFG, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, and your proposal is certainly my preferred (albeit not only) option.--Nevé –selbert 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synth says. 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'

But the sources do state it, notably the Collins dictionary and International Museum of Women sources. Therefore it is not a WP:Synth. Similarly most of the other nicknames are explicitly described as 'Iron Lady'-like by the International Museum of Women source. (I expect there are more such sources too, given that Google shows over 15,000 books and over 400,000 articles that mention Iron Lady without mentioning Thatcher, as I already mentioned above in the context of the argument about it being encyclopedic, and involving WP:Bias, WP:IAR, WP:Wikilawyering, etc)

WP:coatrack says that 'A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely.' But once the name is changed to Iron Lady (expression) it will be entirely focussed on its nominal subject, so it will in no sense be a coatrack. I have already pointed out above why the subject is thoroughly encyclopedic, and why deleting it would violate WP:Bias, and WP:IAR, and would be a very bad case of WP:Wikilawyering.

I called coatracking the mention of "metallic" and "the only man in…" nicknames. This is barely trivia. Again, only the section mentioning various Iron Ladies should be kept (and pruned to notable and persistent nicks), and they would fit perfectly in the dab page. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:SNOW, it is also quite clear from this Afd that there is not going to be a consensus for deletion, but that there can indeed be a consensus for a name change plus redirect of the original name. But if people refuse to accept the compromise, the Afd will presumably be closed without consensus, and a great deal of time will have been wasted for no productive purpose.

However if objection(s) to the proposed compromise are not withdrawn by the objector(s) in the reasonably near future (or if it/they are not vastly outnumbered by expressions of support for the compromise, which I don't expect), and no alternative acceptable compromise is suggested, it will presumably eventually be time to ask for closure via WP:ANRFC. But I guess I should wait at least 72 hours (3 days) before even considering whether or not to submit such a request (or alternatively to perhaps attempt the WP:Bold option already mentioned above; or maybe I'll just leave it all to somebody else on grounds that I have better things to do with my time).

Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlhslobus: You have made your point at length, and it's not up to you or me to assess consensus or lack thereof. Let an admin handle closure. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back over to Margaret Thatcher or else just delete this article. It, frankly, appears to be a mess. As has been pointed out by several people now, we have a clear-cut primary target situation where Thatcher is "The Iron Lady". A lot of information here about how such and such is seen as "the only real man in X" or whatever is merely trivia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher, not seeing much cause for controversy on that. Artw (talk) 22:36, 16 October 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 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic bit-banding

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

When it comes to bit banding, generic or otherwise, I can only find information on ARM's usage of this technique. In fact, it seems to me to be a term applied to an algorithm implemented in their hardware. I would say that bit banding fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any reliable references on the topic outside of ARM manuals. Even if this is refuted, though, this article is about "generic" bit banding, which is, while not defined well by the article in its current state, should apply to topics beyond ARM's usage, which I could not find any references on whatsoever. Sjrct (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability made. ¡Boz zio! 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Algorithm (Short Film)

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be a few Wikipedia articles about this filmmaker and his films. They probably all need to be examined for notability. The original article was pretty messy, so I tried to clean it up a bit, such as adding URLs to the citations. One of the citations goes to a blog on Blogspot, another goes to a questionable online magazine, and another goes to an article on Forbes.com written by a blogger. The Forbes.com article doesn't mention this film and is used as decoration, I suppose. I didn't remove that or the IMDb user rating, as I didn't want my edit to get reverted. I don't really see anything better than this on Google. As someone's debut short film, it's quite difficult to get coverage. The other articles probably have a better chance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While one does find coverage such as this, I agree it falls short of GNG and NFILM. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian 'Jaws' Wright

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

There is already an article on this fictional character at Vivian Wright, part of which has been copied and pasted into this one. Also, this article is unsourced. APM (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Vivian 'Jaws' Wright[reply]

Merge/Redirect - I don't care which of the two articles becomes the main one. AfD is not necessary regardless. It looks like this "Jaws" article has a little more information than the non-jaws version, so if making this the redirect, merge it first. You can always redirect without an AfD, you know. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a fictional character like any other article needs to have reliable sources, neither this or Vivian Wright have any so both may need to be deleted. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The article does not establish notability, so it is not necessary. TTN (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Vivian Wright should also probably be deleted; I tagged it with "In universe" template. The merge/redirect is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This has been open for a long time. There are persuasive arguments on both sides, but I am not seeing consensus for either argument. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Khan (singer)

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

Due to a far more famous namesake actress, it is very difficult to find sources. Most present sources are related or fail otherwise to WP:RS. Does not seem to make the threshold of notability WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not yet risen to the level of being a notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is known for singing in a non-English language. Has anyone searched in Urdu for her? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much above the bar set by NMUSIC. Some examples are below:

"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour." Tribune, Geo TV, Sabaoon TV
"Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." 35 minutes coverage in Naghma Zar

Just a note for other readers, she's a Pashto singer, not Urdu. Many more such examples can be found and added to the article. Lourdes 05:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article still shows no significance and YouTube is not a reliable source. The Banner talk 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your nomination and reasoning are faulty on policy grounds due to a variety of reasons; mentioned below (my apologies much in advance; this is not meant to question your efforts):

When you nominated this article, you only referred to GNG, not realizing that SNG could also be a probable route for notability.
When you nominated this article, you claimed there were no RS. You could have easily done a Before and got sources like Tribune and Afghan News, which alone are enough to raise the notability of the subject above the NMUSIC bar (even if one were to forget the so-called Youtube links for a moment).
Currently, you mention that "YouTube is not a reliable source". You need to at least once go through Youtube to understand that there is no policy or guideline that restricts Youtube links; what is important to understand are the situations when Youtube should not be linked (especially the copyright issues that one has to be careful of; but of course, you are not referring to that). I have provided you two archived videos of news reports that allow the subject to qualify on an additional NMUSIC guideline. Within the article, you don't need to link to Youtube. You can simply quote the actual sources, Geo TV and Saboon TV. Verifiability requires the citing of the reliable source (Geo TV and Saboon TV in this case) and not providing of web links.
Lastly, the article may or may not show a credible claim, but while in CSDs, that criteria is valid, (that an article may be deleted if no credible claim of significance is mentioned), in deletion discussions, the criteria to be followed is mentioned in GNG and SNG. If you have an issue with significance not being shown in the article, that is not a valid sole claim in Afd discussions, especially for subjects like Laila Khan who has had extensive significant coverage in Tribune, Afghan News, Geo TV, Saboon TV, etc all of which I have documented above.

If the interested editors have time, they can include these sources and their contents on to the article. A regional bias should not dissuade us from including worthy subjects into Wikipedia, especially subjects like Laila Khan who are titled some of the most "famous Pashto singers". Lourdes 03:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just do me a favour and start reading Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The Banner talk 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a grasp of it. Which particular part would you wish me to read up? (There's nothing on youtube, and nothing particularly on Tribune or Geo TV or Afghan News or other regional sources being unreliable; if you might be referring to that; but please do direct me to the particular section and I'll go through it). Thanks. Lourdes 11:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the sections "Self-published sources (online and paper)" and "User-generated content". The Banner talk 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Do you believe that the Tribune, Afghan News etc sources might be self-published sources? Lourdes 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With Banner's assistance in removing unwanted links, I've edited the article a bit and added all the sources now to the article. Lourdes 15:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsuitable, incorrect and/or double "sources". The Banner talk 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banner, I've added ten sources, out of which five that discuss the subject at considerable length. I am not sure if you're referring to those sources, or to the ones that have been removed. Therefore, I would suggest that if you have any issue with the current 10 sources (5 of which are absolutely extensive coverage of the subject), please list the sources below and your objection to them. Thanks. Lourdes 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At present the following sources are not more than passing mentions: source 1 (Walk Down memory Lane), source 3 (AVT channels launches musical Web TV), source 4 (Hunar-e-Hawwa awards conferred on excelling women; no indication of the value of this local award), source 6 (‘Amann’, a Pushto anthem for APS tragedy). Source 7 to 10 can not be checked at all, and the last one seems to be a primary source (interview with miss Khan). The Banner talk 13:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banner for the concise and correct analysis. By your analysis, I believe you accept source 5 (The Tribune source) to be significant as per RS. I also believe that if you are not able to check source 7 to 10, you can check the archives of all of them by pasting the key words "Laila Khan" and the channel name in Google search. The 10th source is a feature combination covering the singers achievements and combined with a live interview and songs by the performer. And these qualify her on NMUSIC (as stated right above). Thanks. Lourdes 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant is a big word, "just acceptable" is a better description. Reason for that is that it is close to a primary source: an interview with the singer herself. Primary sources should be avoided and replaced by independent sources. The Banner talk 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banner. Just acceptable is fair enough. As the 10th source is evidence of Laila Khan being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", one can expect that it would include her primary statements too, and this would again qualify her on NMUSIC. Lourdes 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: The article is too far along for me to delete it per G5, but it was created by a puppet of a rather prolific sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23. Thanks for the note. I'm alright with whatever action you deem fit per your judgement. I'll defer to that (even if you wish to delete this later). Lourdes 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse: another blocked sockpuppet The Banner talk 11:49, 6 October 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. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli

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

non notable author. The book claimed to be a best seller is actually selfpublished, and has a total of 6 copies in worldcat libraries. The scientific publications are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been addressed once already and there seems to be some confusion that Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli is not only a self published author as the International Thriller Writers Organization only accepts authors with at least one book published by a recognized publisher can join, in Rita's case her novel published by AmazonCrossing. This is a formal publisher not self published, where Amazon translates and covers the process of publishing as a regular publishing house. Ericlklein1776 (talk) 1:58 pm, Today (UTC+3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlklein1776 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it remains true that the translated book is almost totally unknown, and I don't think has any reviews. Even if we accept that all the works are not self published, she still is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentor (translated book published by Amazon Crosssing) book was a bestseller on Amazon, it has over 1,100 reviews on Amazon US. also there is a news article showing it being on the top of the Kindle store in US, UK, and Australia -

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2015/10/11/il-thriller-italiano-che-conquista-inghilterra-e-usa46.html (Italian) Ericlklein1776 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment The 'International Thriller Writers' organization membership requirements do not categorically bar self-published authors from full membership. At the organization's website their position is summed up with

"Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status."

— Neonorange (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have coverage in Italian, especially if you search on variations of her names. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can add quite a few additional interviews and articles in Italian: The Big Thrill, the web magazine by the International Thriller Writer Organization http://www.thebigthrill.org/2016/01/the-mentor-by-rita-carla-francesca-monticelli/ Additional interviews about her books can be added from Wired and Tom's Hardware, was not sure if these were considered relevant. Ericlklein1776 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Stub until article can be rewritten with new sources identified below.There are no independent sources in the article and I can not find evidence she passes GNG or NAUTHOR. Based on comments above, she has only one non-self-pub book. Jbh ^Talk 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Changeing !vote based on new sources. See my comment below. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as no WorldCat holdings and essentially nothing else to what would've suggested a better convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, she does have a small WorldCat holding. Updated to include additional references, articles about Rita, and interviews with Rita. Added in her teaching authors and her being a guest at both the Turin International Book Fair and Frankfurt Book Fair (both with a reference). Added in details about how she was noted in Wired Magazine as one of the 10 best Italian independent authors. Currently getting translation of article where she is noted for having sold 200k copies of one of her books.Ericlklein1776 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a Google News search indicates notability (I don't speak Italian so I can't really check the entries), e.g.: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those look like good coverage in RS. One though is a blog review and the last one looks like some Amazon promo. I think she will squeak by GNG because of the coverage she has attracted as a successful sulfa published author rather than passing NAUTHOR. Changing !vote to weak keep but I would be happier if someone were able to incorporate the sources. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are already incorporated in the article (except one that is less relevant). Also notice this one from La Repubblica (one of the biggest newspaper in Italy) [23] which is already included in the article. There are also more from notable magazines (Tom's Hardware and Wired) in the references.Chee74 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 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 Gnana Kirukkan. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jega (actor)

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

Insignificant ~~actress~~ actor not meeting general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gnana Kirukkan, only film subject has acted in and known for. Names can be tricky in Indian context. Maria Jegarajan is a he. He is supposedly working on 1 or 2 more films, may be one can turn redirect into an article if they bring the actor sufficient coverage. Anup [Talk] 14:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing his gender to my attention. I struck through and corrected. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 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 20:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Pai Dong (restaurant)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches found very little written about this restaurant chain. I did add a link to a Kampery webpage as an external link to the article. Lacks significant coverage published in reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is dead, and the restaurant shows nothing notable about it.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; insufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per logic outlined at WP:UNOPPOSED--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:06, 29 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lawrence (producer)

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

Not independently notable music producer. The Grammy award, which I think probably is the sole reason why this article was accepted from draft is for the whole band Mumford & Sons and not exclusively for him. I'm unsure if the award from The Music Producers Guild is a de facto notability. Not individually notable, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Redirect to Mumford & Sons —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added sources to verify his winning a Grammy award, added a profile in external links, minor copy edits.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemy Soibelman

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

Notable? I think not. TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been a member of The Groggers, G-Nome Project, and briefly Hamakor, which satisfies criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Stub is not the same as non-notable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of thing happens fairly frequently and is of absolutely zero encyclopdic interest. TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. And just because peple with morbid intests dig up these stories now and again it it does not mean they are of any lasting interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately Amy Wroe Bechtel is not notable for anything other than having disappeared. A plethora of news articles does not make notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Amy Wroe Bechtel, it's about her disappearance. And a plethora of news article actually does make a topic notable -- see WP:SIGCOV. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominators "morbid interest" in others "morbid interest" in these kind of articles are interesting. Anyway, this is clearly a IDONTLIKEIT nom based on NOTNEWS. Clearly this case has received plenty of attention. The article is kind of short but that can be fixed. This article covers both WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE. Even the user !voting delete also uses IDONTLIKEIT when referring to the fact that the article subject has been the fixture of plenty of media coverage ever since the disappearance. Tiredly referring to NOTNEWS without going further into your thoughts is just pointless.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article creator is a serial creator of worthless articles. The amount of time and energy I devote to attempting to purge Wikipedia of this guff is nothing to the amount of time the article creaor devotes to this guff.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your characterization of me as a "serial creator of worthless articles". I'm not sure what basis you have for that. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also repudiate the implications of bad faith iplicit here. @I don't like it my curvy pink butt. I believe this article should be deleted because the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia article because it is of no lasting interest. There will always be articles on unsolved murders & sisappearances; the topic is of interest but the individual example rarely so.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated three Disappearance/Murder of.. articles all three has been kept. BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helped by the fact that there is a nasty little cabal who get busy canvassing eacother when one of these worthless articles is nominated. I think the number of editors who agree that these articles should go vindicates me. And I only got into this because I nominated an article I came across while new article patrolling; I almost immediately got accused of wikistalking merely because I nominated another article by the editor. These people are not acting in good faith.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. Without the over-the-top remarks about others. BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep This case has inspired ongoing coverage, including this August 2016 [24] long article in Runner's World.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also seems to have inspired ongoing coverage as well. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on the extensive coverage it has received over the years. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adults go "missing" all the time so it is not really encyclopedic, being mentioned in a TV entertainment program doesnt give it notability either. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant, in comparison to notability and sources-BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications of notability or significance sufficient for an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a news story; repeat coverage is indicative of missing white woman syndrome and therefore should not be taken as an indicator of notability, but rather as "routine" (for this type of case) coverage. Sandstein 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: missing white woman syndrome is a good one! Describes this article perfectly. Runner's World would be the outlet to continue the coverage as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS; a sad occurrence but not uncommon around the world. And just because it was a segment on a TV show does not mean lasting notability. I am sure there are many such cases which have been featured on similar shows which have no articles and there are, unfortunately, many similar occurrences which are never on a TV show which also do not have articles herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant. Of course there are other similar cases but for that matter we dont find a sportmans not notable because there are other sportmen who are just as good. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

has anybody cited WP:OTHERSTUFF? . I thought not. I don't understand the rest of the above para either.TheLongTone (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user above states that its not uncommon around the world. that is Otherstuffexists. people disappears all the time, but that is irrelevant to individual notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While an unfortunate event, I don't see enough to show that is notable compared to similar disappearances. The coverage is on the lower side and mostly local. Usually a crime would be notable if it, for example, leads to some lasting secondary effect (a change in a law, a link to another crime etc). I don't see that happening here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly "local news" does not trump overall coverage and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified above that it doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING. We do consider the type of coverage. Local coverage can make literally anything appear notable (as I remember one editor saying, their dog eating up the gardens in their small town would become notable enough, if we use local sources for GNG). The quality, the amount of detail and the frequency of coverage does matter here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Bateson

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

~~The article has no references to independent sources, and~~ I have failed to find anything that would establish notability Maproom (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel the above remark - I had failed to notice the actual references, which I have now moved into the "References" section. The HuffPost article seems acceptable, I don't have access to the Formenti book. Maproom (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - has some independent coverage and is above only being a press release page. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough coverage to justify an article on this filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article reads like gibberish but there appears to be a minimal amount of sourcing adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable or not, all of the content is pretentious nonsense, a poor attempt at promotion by an obvious COI account, and unworthy of an encyclopedia. TNT and let a neutral editor recreate it if anybody cares to. Sandstein 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT; this is strictly a vanity page, with poetic language and outsized claims. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Weakly sourced, including self-citations. HuffPo is a blog and is generally not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Declaration of interest: I am Bateson's publisher]. Above claims of 'pretentious nonsense' and 'gibberish' seem close to trolling. In what sense are Sandstein and Coffman qualified to make these unsupported judgements? Have they read her work? Bateson's work is credible, ground-breaking, influential and acclaimed. Her book, just published, is good confirmation of this. Additional refernecing from the International Bateson Institute to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarey (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 October 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. But those who want to keep suggest making the article about the magazine, so if that does not happen, a renomination may be considered. Sandstein 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G Files awards

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

It should be noted that this is an award given by a "Governance magazine" named "gfiles".

This is not a government award. This award is not given by Government of India.

This award is in the news as some very notable people were given this award. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the parent magazine, which gives this award "gfiles". This is their magazine website and this is their award website. Now, Indian government websites end with .gov.in Marvellous Spider-Man 09:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very strong possibility that this page Gfiles (deleted twice) is related to this magazine which gives this award. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with suggestion that it might make more sense to move it to the name of the magazine (whether that is Gfiles or G Files remains to be determined) based on the sources I found. I suspect more independent sources exist in Indian newspapers that Google didn't show me, but I don't think the award is notable independent of the magazine. I was unaware that an article on the magazine had previously been deleted, but since it was deleted initially as a test page and then as G11/A7 (promotion/no indication of significance) I suspect it lacked independent sources, and my search indicated that such sources do exist. I don't therefore consider the previous deletions rule out keeping this article or moving it to cover the magazine as well as the awards. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to gfiles which is apparently the name of the magazine (they always use a lowercase g in every reference I found) and make it a section of an article about the magazine. I have found a handful of references reporting on this award, so it is apparently notable, but I think it would make more sense as a subsection of an article about the magazine, which appears to meet our inclusion criteria, previous prods notwithstanding. Fieari (talk) 04:31, 9 September 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, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable award. Fails GNG. Except for the one economictimes article, other source domains are not even reliable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beesha Fiqi Yaaqub

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

An Ethiopian sub-Clan or community (ie Beesha). It's a clan in the Gedo region of Ethiopia. It's a sub, sub subclan (six levels down) of the Darod clan. Below Darood, Fiqi Yaaqub is a member of the sublcan Sade and then Marehan. Neither the Darood or Marehan articles mentions Fiqi Yaaqub. Article is all mixed up and hard to grasp anything. Lots of talk about genealogy. There's nothing to save. Prod was removed saying, "no clue what it is but might be notable". Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I found a mention here but am otherwise unable to understand anything in the article. Seems like a Somali (or is it Ethiopian?) sub-clan. But there is nothing available in scholarly literature and the way the article is written, I am unable to understand anything else as well. I guess this is ripe for a WP:TNT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DistrictBuilder

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

Blatant promotion bombarded with passing mentions, non mentions and faked verification. Random refs thrown in to verify related aspects that are not specifically about this software. Deceptive article from paid promoters. This software lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the awards are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep - The Washington Post article mentioned in the lead gives a good mention of DistrictBuilder in the context of it being a notable method for citizen groups to try redistricting. It's only a single mention, but the context provides weight, IMO. That's one RS... I usually require two. The reference "Mason Political Scientist McDonald Wins Award for Redistricting Software" would be my second, except the link is dead and the wayback machine doesn't have it. If the content of that reference is what our article claims it to be, then that is plenty sufficient to merit keeping. I do note that a large number of other references are tagged that they don't actually back up the claims made in our article... so, I'll grant that this is not a necessary given.

IFF someone can find this dead link, and it checks out, or if another source for the award can be found, this is a Keep vote. Otherwise, mark me down as ambivalent. All the "statement not supported by reference" tags is certainly troubling, after all. But AfD is not cleanup, so... Fieari (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mason ref is primary, comes from one of the developers employer. Article itself is available here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article is primary... but is the award self given (a vanity award)? More importantly, is the award NOTABLE? If the award is notable, then that in addition to the Washington Post reference would be sufficient for me to make this a firm keep. I'm not certain it is notable, and my google news searches on the award are giving me results that I'm not 100% certain are actually related. Do you know anything about the award? Fieari (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can see, it's an award from an individual convention. Register and pay, you are in line for an award. Small pool, small audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Softwares tend to have some of the best coverage available and here it clearly doesn't satisfy. This Washington Post coverage is very brief, like 2 -3 sentences and I don't see enough depth over here. Neither do I see any other reliable third party sources covering it. Wikipedia is a not a directory of all software and this is pretty much a non-notable one. This doesn't pass GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Data International Limited

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

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page with sections such as "History and about" and "Products". Tone is promotional, and sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references seem good and enough to pass it Notability. But the article is a little bit promotional, which can be fixed by tagging it with "advert" tag and thorough cleanup. Not a reason for deletion. - Mar11 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a distinct paucity of independent RS coverage that reaches WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is hardly any coverage in RS. I found one link to a forbes/sites [25] but this doesn't help it notability (Forbes/sites have been previously considered as WP:USERGENERATED sources). This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 24 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Roshan

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

Not notable for anything tennis related. No main draw appearances on the ATP tour, No wins in the minor league Challenger Tour, No Davis Cup. No idea on GNG, but as far as Tennis Project, he's a run of the mill, non-notable player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable minor sports player/figure. No wins, as noted. Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 22 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 speedy delete (repost of a deleted article). Huon (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dami Tha Prince (music producer)

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

Fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search reveals no substantial coverage, and links in the article currently are not reliable sources. Google News only returns three pages, none related to this producer. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references, of which Twitter and Soundcloud are included, are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands no evidence of notability, no sources good enough to allow it to stay as a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, speedy as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dami Tha Prince (I look for someone else to concur on this) and salt both - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Cataldo

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

Does not meet GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP;PROF. The references are either from his own college or the local newspapers that will publish anything at all about local people--and none of them are substantial. He operates a bottled water company, & has taken care that it gets some publicity, but those are just PR. He created costume designs for a few important films, but none of his designs have won any prizes of their own. He has no significant academic works, and according to WP:PROF, the notability of faculty in the creative arts are judged by the criteria for those arts--and he does not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. What coverage I have been able to find seems to come from sources that while not necessarily doubtful in their veracity, are compromised either by some tangible connection to the subject, or by being purely local. We need more than this to meet GNG. I would also note that there is more than slight whiff of promotionalism here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the argument for keeping would seem to rely on the "award winning" discussed. However, seeing the press release from the award organization, Cataldo is not mentioned; this is an award that goes to the product, and doesn't automatically tie to an individual (unlike, say, how a producer gets a Best Picture Oscar or an author gets a major book award. (The article curiously both overstates how it was described and understates it simultaneously; when it says it was the third best water in the world in 2015, it's using a 2013 source, the year it took the bronze. In 2015, it took the gold, so it was the best... but only the best purified water, and only among those entered.) The TV source reeks of churnalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) And just to back up what I say about the award not necessarily representing the world's best: "What is surprising however is how few bottlers are actually involved in the competition." --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 30 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Kshirsagar

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

Article contains two sources one is his book (primary) and the other is to Deepak Chopra's website (dead, but not reliable anyway). A google search just shows more primary and unreliable sources. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently fails GNG. Anup [Talk] 08:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 27 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 keep. Per the two keep votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looky Looky

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

Unsourced, undefined notability, unprecise text (gold disc - where?). No such page in Italian Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Giorgio Moroder, song does not have enough notability to justify it's own entry, the Moroder article basically has the same content about this song, the text is accurate for gold disc, and I added sources to verify the content since it was unsourced.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now better sourced and it explains that the work is both important to Moroder's career as well as distinct in sound from the rest of his works. --Bensin (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted above): The article meets at least two criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings: a) "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." (Yes, it charted in at least three countries.) b) "The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country." (Yes, it was awarded a gold disc). --Bensin (talk) 16:51, 1 October 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) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Santos

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

Fails WP:NACTOR for lack of available reliable, independent sources.- Mr X 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) - Mr X 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no starring roles in notable films means does not meet WP:ENT. Searches on the news articles bring up the celebrity chef that was a runner-up on Hell's Kitchen, not this actor from Portugal. Article was fashioned by connected contributor and mentions non-notable web series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not listed as a cast member in the blue links, this page may have been made by a relative (who also created deleted article Keven Santos Xyzspaniel (talk) 17:15, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Advertising Group

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

Not notable. It's claims to notability seem to rest upon winning non-notable awards and an inherited notabity from its client list. Cabayi (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Those "non-notable awards" have Wikipedia articles, which is an obvious contradiction: Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Epica Awards. The "Aranypenge prize" is a Hungarian one running for 17 years now. I don't have the incentive to browse through the Lions' and Epica's winners to see how many of them is known for absolutely nothing. :-) --grin ✎ 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means because this article essentially exists only for PR, the fact it only focuses with otherwise activities fit and suitable for company listings. To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR. The listed sources otherwise state this, considering none of it is actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry for being the Devil's advocate but do you intend to delete every advertising company from Wikipedia since they are... PR? My starting point is usually Ogilvy & Mather, how about trying to getting it removed? I much more would like comments along the line that "there are no independent, external references" or "there are no activities listed apart from winning the awards" instead of "it's a PR agency so the article must be PR". (It was not written by them, that's what I know. I am not related to them, that's another, just being called in to help.) --grin ✎ 08:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think there's a reasonable comparison?

Ogilvy & Mather, one of the world's largest, 166 year history, multi-national vs.
Republic Advertising Group, seemingly no presence outside Hungary, 19 years old.

I think you're over-reaching there. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. You stated that "if it's a PR company then the article must be PR, therefore to be deleted by default". Size was not mentioned, neither notability nor relevance. I have reacted exactly on that. I am not familiar with the handling of PR companies but I'm sure it's not enough reason to be deleted that it is an advertising company. (If I was I would have voted.)

Please do check this category to see for yourself that 19 years old is not a problem, there are much younger ones already listed. And it should definitely not be a reasoning that "it's not in the USA so must not be relevant". Nationally relevant entities have their place in enwp. (Apart from that that it seems to be awarded by a foreign body so they have been at least noted outside HU.) --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grin, You invited comparison with O&M, then complain when I make the comparison. You then ascribe comments about PR companies and the USA to me which I did not make. Rational discussion with you isn't possible. Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: You are being unfair.

[UPDATE: I have replied to you since I have believed you made the comment but I have realised that user:SwisterTwister made the post, I have replied it and you have replied as it was your comment I was replied to. I apologise for the misunderstanding: I have replied to the specific comment above, and if I have said "you" I have meant the original poster.]

I quote the original post I have replied by SwisterTwister: "To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR.". I have complained that he made this statement, which (in my reading) means "it is obvious that the company is an advertising company, therefore the article must be an advertisement". I have cited O&M as a counter-proof of his statement. I also have cited the list of already established Wikipedia articles about advertising companies, about companies with less than 100+ years of operation, about companies with pretty short list of publicly recognisable achievements and along these lines: all of these being a direct reaction (counter-examples) on what he have written. He made more statements along these lines, and I tried to show or mention articles contradicting what he has said or implied. If you believe I have debated myself you have possibly misunderstood what I was writing. Please try to read it as it were a reaction to what he has written. :-) Thanks. --grin ✎ 08:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm sceptical of this article -- created by a SPA; tone is clearly promotional. I reached out to Wikiproject Hungary. Hopefully they would be able to shed some light on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to @K.e.coffman:

The article was created by a person whom I'm familar with and he approached me by asking for help about what's now. (He's not very familiar with wp processes.) He is in connection with the company and was asked to create an article (I suppose), but he can probably change the tone if asked, he probably don't want to invest more time into a deleted article. I will suggest him to rephrase it anyway, if possible.

As someone from Hungary I cannot see what more light could be shed on that. I can assure that the sources do exist and they are real, I have checked them. As for the company: It's some advertising company who have created some more or less visible local projects, have been awarded by some significant national and some international bodies, so I (as someone don't knowing the topic) would consider them notable on the basis that they were picked from the masses of advertising companies by some basis like quality, skills or luck :-). I never have heard of the company, nor the other already wikipedia listed companies in the field, so that won't help. The article was created in huwp around the same time and it's been flagged as "requires rewriting of promotionally phrased content", but not on deletion track. --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the tone of the article is clearly promotional. No sources have been presented at the AfD to demonstrate notability of the company. The awards alone cannot sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 27 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hansanarayan Bhattacharya

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

The article has only one reference, which is apparently to the book of the subject. This means that, technically speaking, this is an unsourced BLP. I tried to find sources myself, but search in English does not give anything significant. May be a Bengali speaker could have more luck. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article fails WP:BLP; if the decision is keep or no consensus, reliable sources must be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies on WP:AUTHOR ("The person is regarded as an important figure OR is widely cited by peers or successors.") Bhattacharya's widely held and archived work is expansively cited across decades in Bengali literature.Page 153, Page 15, Page 17, Page 55, Page 321, Page 3, Page 19, 324, 365, Page 60, Page 311, 322, 324, 325, 326, 341, Page 38, Page 229, Page 228, [26], Page 19, Page 8, Page 286, 399, Page 487, Page 160 and many more like these... Wikipedia articles like Chhinnamasta reference the work of the author. If anyone's interested in reading his work, you can check out various of his books archived at the Indian Government's Digital Library of India (maintained by the Indian Institute of Science).[27][28][29]. Lourdes 17:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After the edits by Lourdes I believe that the article passes WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements & new sourcing. However, the last sentences has a bad case of overcite. Perhaps it could be corrected, by moving some refs into Further reading or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right K.e.coffman. I don't want to lose the sources (really had to work double time to search them out), at the same time the way it looks is exactly how you describe it. Any suggestions are welcome. Lourdes 13:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spot-checking the references did not find non-trivial coverage of the subject, required for WP:GNG, and even the 20-reference overkill for the claim that he has been widely cited does not come close to what would be needed for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David Eppstein:, would you check the subject's notability on AUTHOR rather than GNG or PROF, none which I've referred to? Also please note the nominator has themselves changed their !vote to keep and confirmed the subject's notability (presumably on Author). Thanks. Lourdes 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was improved with reliable sources. Revision required at last paragraph. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ciara Durkin

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

Delete: tragic case of a death deemed suspicious by family but after nine years absolutely no evidence of anything suspicious, any murder or conspiracy. Tragic but not notable. Quis separabit? 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree it is tragic but not shown to be notable; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; a family tragedy, but does not rise to a level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 26 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 and redirect to Mark Hoppus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing and Nobody

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

I created this page some time ago when it appeared this artist might be more active than they turned out to be. In the end, they released one song and have unceremoniously fallen apart. Deleting the page seems like an inevitability at this point. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, doesn't really make WP:NMUSIC. Is there a suitable redirect target? - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Hoppus may be feasible as he's the only one with a Wiki article. Otherwise, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 3 October 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 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mazo

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

Lack of notability, User:Alwhorl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwhorl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2016(UTC)

Comment: Who nominated this article for deletion? There is no signature. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this has not found any claims of actually satisfying the applicable notability, normally we could often look to the native Wiki, but I for one actuslly know the EsWiki has onee of the worst standards considering there has not actually been any sources; if no one has cared to improve that one, or perhaps at best this one (since that Wiki and this one have the same alphabet and lineage), it also then shows there's nothing for us to accept it, let alone peg for notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: for @Northamerica1000, @SwisterTwister -- are IPs allowed to nominate AFDs, CFDs, etc? In this case, one did. Quis separabit? 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually @Alwhorl is not an IP but it was as an IP (User:157.253.211.192) -- probably got logged out w/o realizing -- that the AFD process was done. SO I guess, it's OK. Quis separabit? 02:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Rms125a@hotmail.com: I have added the unsigned template atop to provide more context. This nomination was created by a registered user. In answer to your question anyway, Wikipedia:Deletion process has nothing prohibiting IPs from nominating articles for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000 -- OK, thanks for the 411. In any event I realize that, as I stated above, @Alwhorl is not an IP, just did the the AFD process without being logged in. Quis separabit? 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~as insufficiently notable as a~~ — does not rise to threshold of NOTABILITY as a musician; adopt @SwisterTwister's rationale. Quis separabit? 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I have lived in Colombia for seven years and never heard of the guy. The article was created by a Romanian editor, most likely as a result of Mazo's guest appearance on the single "Señor Loco" by Romanian singer Elena Gheorghe. But I don't think he's had a hit in Colombia. Richard3120 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 22 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 The Monkees discography#Compilation albums . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary Collection (The Monkees album)

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

Non-notable album with references only from other wikis. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be the case, I do feel that the article just needs some added references, or some more work and it will be fine. I do have my reasons for opposing the deletion of this article, but I'm finding it difficult to express them into words. I do feel that the article should be kept, and if it doesn't, there should be some way to add the existing information elsewhere. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be added to the band's article somewhere. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly by shoehorning the respective song information into the articles with the information of those songs. Unlike The Beatles where almost every song has their own page, most of the Monkees songs are covered by the albums they originated from. For example, Most of these songs don't have their own page. They simply share a page with the article page of the album they originated from. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not convey notability. If the album is not part of their actual catalog, it should be deleted. Otherwise, it can be added to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums and redirected. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'll be honest that I remain opposed to the deletion of this article, I think that if a deletion or re-directing is really necessary, I think the latter would be a more suitable option. I mean it wouldn't be the first time an article that was not deemed worthy would be re-directed to a related article. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums - The album itself appears to have little interest by reviewers and such, probably because it just collects previously made works that already appeared in other albums. Without critical commentary on the album, as an album, it doesn't really deserve a standalone article. Fieari (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums. A greatest hits album which was released during a band's active career, which often has one or two or three newly-recorded songs on it of which at least one is often released as a new single, is typically eligible for inclusion under the same standards as a conventional studio album — but the kind of "catalogue reissue because original albums are mostly out of print" compilation that is compiled as a cash-in 10 or 20 years after the band broke up, and which accordingly features no new or previously unreleased music, is rarely notable enough in its own right to warrant its own standalone article. And the sourcing here, which fails WP:USERG pretty much right across the board, is not remotely solid enough to make this one an exception to that rule — lesser known alternate mixes of already-released songs are not enough, in and of themselves, to claim that the album actually has "new" music on it. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 26 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 merge to Minor Passions characters. with the understanding it should be a very short mention there,Abba or ¡Bozzio! please cary it out. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Vanderheusen

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Passions characters and cast unless there is any evidence of notability forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that; a merge to Minor Passions characters would probably be better. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @J Milburn: I agree with your vote to merge to Minor Passions characters as it does seem the most appropriate course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Passions characters. There is no information about Vanderheusen currently on that article, so a simple redirect is not appropriate for attribution reasons. ¡Boz zio! 04:36, 22 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Watkins

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

Recreation of recently PRODed paid promotional article. PROD reasons still apply: highly questionable notability, sources look good on the surface but are mostly tangential, primary, or accurately cite information that does not in any way show notability. WP:TNT even if he were notable, though Google/GNews is not promising at all for prospective RSes that are actually about him. If notability can't be turned up, I recommend SALT - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's clearly been a very professional WP:REFBOMBing job done here, but none of the cited sources, nor any that I can find elsewhere, meets the required standard of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search at The Philadelphia Inquirer site turns up some articles that might indicate notability: Search results
- Political action committee head named to guide Chester Upland's recovery
- Judge: Embattled Chester Upland chief can keep job
- State calls for removal of Chester Upland receiver
- Joe Watkins quits as receiver of Chester Upland schools

The author(s) of this promotional bio should be aware that if this is kept, Wikipedia should cover this, to have a balanced article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a pile of these. It's possible this stuff could amount to enough coverage for GNG, but basically in political terms he's a party worker of decades' experience but little evidence there's readers for an article or content about the subject to do a BLP; anything that was actually a notable incident should be in the relevant article, and mostly these aren't incidents that were themselves notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, he briefly appeared tonight on NBC Nightly News, as a "Republican Strategist" giving his take on Donald Trump's latest statement on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Hmm, Category:Political strategists. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, Category:American political consultants and Category:Pennsylvania political consultants (PA is the only state to have such a category). wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Republican Strategist" Joe Watkins had another soundbite on tonight's NBC Nightly News, this time to opine on Donald Trump's support for "stop and frisk". wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Making no comment on the current content of the article, it looks like the subject meets WP:GNG, appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable. Cleanup is certainly advised, and there may be room for some aggressive cutting, but as a political analyst, his opinions seem to be notable enough for the news to go into depth about them, so he should be notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page and online resume. "...appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable" is not reflected in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This does not make a subject notable; WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources does, but it's missing from this page. Accepting such promotional articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems enough here in the way of sources for a decent article. He was in charge of cleaning up Chester's notorious schools. I might have to start this as a stub from scratch though, since it is in dreadful shape. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OUTCOMES. Lots of little refs don't matter. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what outcome you are referring to. Have you actually examined the references? They are generally in-depth and easily satisfy GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources suffice to meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sources. the shape of the article overall has no baring on its notability.BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no WP:POV violation that I can see. Subject meets WP:GNG through sources already pointed out. Just because someone is in a political party doesn't mean that the page should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 25 October 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. WP:NPASR, as it were. Didn't go for a softdelete here as the two sources provided by Izno may indicate notability, but there is not enough discussion for a keep close, especially given the caveats accompanying the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentice (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable freeware game. Coverage of this game is almost non existent and the only references to it are download links. There is no reliable source which ever did a review or even looked at this game. It has been created with an open source game-maker software. The "price" it won was a non notable award by the organisation which created the game-maker software. The "company" (not an actual company it seems) of the game has been defunct since about 10 years after it created 4 similar freeware games (and their WP-page has been deleted by an AFD too). The article fails WP:GNG therefore. The game also fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES too, as no significant (the 2 'reviews' of the game in the article are on blog-like non RS sources) coverage of this game exists. The only thing which comes close to that is an extremely short 4-sentence blurp on the borderline-RS Adventure Gamers website. There was a previous AFD 10 years ago, but they never established actual notability by our guidelines, and it seemingly went to 'keep' because editors apparently expected this game and its sequel to become much larger. Dead Mary (talk) 19:11, 15 September 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, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable sources from WP:VG/S for the game online are this review of the sequel and this news bit of the re-release. No comment on notability. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 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 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Preiß

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable Wehrmacht soldier; no significant RS coverage can be found. The article states that the subject has "200 confirmed kills" as a sniper, but searching for various combinations of "Josef Preiß", "Josef Preiss", sniper, Oberjäger, etc, did not produce a confirmation. I located an entry at feldgrau.com (non RS): Josef Preiss, but it's essentially empty.

The article was discussed at AfD in 2015, resulting in a keep decision. The discussion centered on whether the subject met WP:SOLDIER and did not produce new sources, and none were added to the article. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. He is mentioned in the 100. Jäger-Division (Wehrmacht), with one line: "Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945", but no citation is provided and his kills are not mentioned.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000).

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josef Preiß in German or Josef Preiss:

Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945.

There are pictures with him, and information in German, if there are not in English it doens't mean that you will not find it in German. And watch your language such as "unremarkable soldier".

Here from the start: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/100._J%C3%A4ger-Division_(Wehrmacht)

He was recipient of the Knight's Cross and met WP:SOLDIER, there is no need to delete it. That, added to the other mentions in directories of KC recipients is, in my view, sufficient for GNG. If there was a keep decision why do you insist?

And leave us alone with your "given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000)". Are you historian to decide which one was awarded for valour and which was not, are you historian to decide which intricate detail or not should be kept (deleting referance from one soldiers life), are you really a historian who understand how the German system of awards worked? The Knight's Cross, which was the highest decoration for a German soldier during WWII, was awarded for extreme bravery "exceptional acts of gallantry which decisively affect combat actions" and was awarded to any rank in the German Army, and you had to been awarded first the Iron Cross 2nd Class and Iron Cross 1st Class, which were awarded for combat valour. These were conferred progressively. These awards dates back to 1813. Unlike British system, it was bestowed across all ranks and grades. It could have been awarded for a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troop in battle, or to a humble private soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry. It could have been awarded for an ace pilot for shooting down enemy planes, to a tank ace for destroying enemy armoured vehicles, or to a submarince ace for sinking enemy ships.

There were over 18 millions germans who served in the German Army, plus hundreds of thousands of non-germans who served (mainly in the Waffen-SS) and were eligible for Knight's Cross.

There were 7,282 awards of Knight's Cross and it's highest grades (the exact number is unknown as records for the last hectic months of war are incomplete), and although it might seems high to you, the Knight's Cross was a wide-ranging award (whether you like it or not). There was a rigorous process when awarding a Knight's Cross, it had to pass to many levels of scroutinity (the Divisional commander, the Korps commander, the Army Group and so on all the way to the Armed Force High Command), and was reviewed meticulous and had to be approved by Hitler himself. Like the British Victoria cross, it come with an accompanying citation and it appeared in different newspapers and others forms of propaganda, just like London Gazette. The recommendations papers, complete with added comments by various senior officers, can be found in the German Federal Archives, and I invite you to study them, because they will help alot to understand why they were awarded that medal.

Lastly, Germany fought continuously from 1939 till was defeated in 1945, even so the Knight's Cross was clearly an extreme rare decoration, taking in considerations how many served in the German Army with its four branches: Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, the non-germans and allies who received it, and the various Knight's Cross grades awarded to the original recipients.———

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:C0BD:C900:F18F:5AA7:29EE:395E (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the Knight's Cross was not "extremely rare", if we compare it to the U.S. Medal of Honor, of which ~450 were awarded during WWII. Taking into account that U.S. armed forces were slightly larger (20M vs Germany's 18M) and the fact that Germany fought in the war longer (56 months vs 41 months for the U.S.), to be just as rare as the MoH, the Knight's Cross would have needed to be awarded in about 620 cases. This makes the KC less than 10% as "extremely rare" as the US highest award in the same war. Other points re the Knight's Cross are covered in the discussion linked above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative analysis Intensity of combat is frequently linked to the number of military casualties sustained, an aspect which should not be neglected when talking about an award made for bravery in combat. Germany (including Austria and foreign nationals fighting for Germany) sustained about 4.4 to 5.3 Mio military deaths. The United States sustained 407k military deaths in World War II. Using this indicator, on average, there was 1 presentation of the Knight's Cross for every 600 to 730 military deaths in comparison to 1 Medal of Honor presentation for about 900 military deaths. This comparison shows that the MoH was less frequent, but taking into consideration that the KC was also awarded for leadership, puts both awards into the same order of magnitude. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few things here which should be cleared up. You could receive a KC for an act of "extreme battlefield bravery" without having received the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd class in advance. In those cases you'd receive the Iron Cross (both classes) together with the KC. The awards do not "date back to 1813". The Iron Cross, formerly a Prussian order, was recomissioned (once again) as a German order in 1939. The KC was newly created as an additional grade. I think it would be most interesting to learn more about the circumstances under which a KC was actually bestowed. In cases where professional historians have reviewed the personal records of recipient's the result was mixed. Valour, so to speak, was simply not enough. In his biography of Jochen Peiper, Jens Westemeier has argued that awards were bestowed upon Manteuffel and Peiper to cover up the disastrous outcome of the Battle of the Bulge. Moreover, Himmler looked after it that members of the Waffen-SS received high awards in sufficient numbers to be able to portray the Waffen-SS as an elite unit. (Himmler's Krieger, 2013, pp. 354-5.) Relationships were crucial, in particular to your superiors. So Peiper didn't recommend Werner Pötschke, whom he disliked, for the Oak Leaves after the battle of the Bulge. It is true that compared to other military awards the KC was a rare and prestigous award (echoed, e.g., by Günther Grass in his novella Katz und Maus). But the documents pertaining to this award have to be reviewed wih care and cannot be taken at face value. In most of the KC-literature, however, these sources have not been met with sceptcism. The number of military casualties should not be equated with intensity of combat. Other variables like weaponry and armament, troop strength, training, leadership, teritory, determination and so forth do apply.--Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was meant to present an alternative view on a statistical comparison. Linking intensity of combat to military deaths is not my idea. This concept can be found in numerous sources, available online. See here, here and here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the MoH was awarded to Douglas MacArthur and Jonathan M. Wainwright to cover up the disastrous Philippines Campaign (1941–42). Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument along the lines of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists or for modifying WP:SOLDIER #1, if its application results in propaganda-driven articles. Although in the case of Wainwright and MacArthur, MoH is not their only claim on notability: the former was Commander of Allied forces in the Philippines and the latter was a five-star general. So both are quite notable outside of the MoH award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So the MoH being a propaganda award, it confers no notability; the notability of the subject is defined by other considerations, such as passing WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notable and clearly received it as a combat award. Although I would like to see added some addition of information, but unlike others, does state reason; "200 confirmed sniper kills". Post-script Note: When I wrote this cmt, I assumed this was sourced to the books cited, but if not, it does need a RS cite for it to be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list where he is mentioned; otherwise, I cannot find any English RS source to confirm why he received the high award. I assumed the sniper information was sourced to the books cited, but it cannot be confirmed and as I said, to keep it would need an WP:RS cite. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is there a source that confirms the kills? I was not able to locate any information on this, even in unreliable sources, such as Feldgrau.com. This statement was added by an ID without providing a source: diff. I'd like to see a source for this before taking it a face value.K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find this information anywhere. For example, this WWII memorabilia site simply states: "He was an RKT, and a sniper that killed a lot of guys." I believe that whoever added this information confused Preiss with Friedrich Pein. Here's what I was able to find on a non RS website, but still:

"Oberjäger Friedrich Pein: Pein (...) served in the 12th Company of the mountain infantry regiment 143 as a sniper on the Eastern Front. (...) On 28 February 1945 he was awarded the Knight's Cross for 200 confirmed enemy kills.[7]"

Preiss is mentioned once on the same page: "Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945", with no kill information. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 200 sniper kills might make him notable, but this needs expanding from a mere stub and reliable sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been presented to confirm this. The addition of this number was made by the same IP editor who made this sarcastic edit. Who knows if they meant to add "200 kills" in jest or as a prank. Per WP:V, a source is required to take this number seriously and not as a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German Federal Archives have digitized the nomination, and/or approval/rejection documentations for the Knight's Cross. These records are available online via the de:Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. I believe you have to register to get access to Preiss' records, available here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German Federal Archives have not digitized the nomination, and/or approval/rejection documentations for the Knight's Cross. As far as I know they do not plan to do so, either. What they are putting online are their inventories and finding aids. So in BArch, RH 7/424 you'll find documents pertaining to Josef Preiss' award. But you still have to visit the archives to have a look.--Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They are available, so someone can go and get them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS requires reliable secondary sources (especially in the context of WP:MILMOS), not unreliable primary ones. Please see Assayer's analysis (link) on why the nomination materials may not be reliable as to what actually led to the nomination. Additional comments at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Bachmann (both AfDs closed as "delete"). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Passes WP:SOLDIER. Snipers can be notable in their own right, eg Billy Sing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- snipers can be notable, but so far no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been presented to indicate if this particular soldier is notable. WP:SOLDIER is a project-specific essay, and WikiProjects do not define notability, only community as a whole. Further, the essay is subordinate to WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV is required to establish notability of the subject under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so far, none of the keep votes have provided policy-based arguments or included any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bei letzterem zeichnete sich Unteroffizier J Preis besonders aus GeneralfeldMarshall Schoerner Oberbefehlshaber der Heersgruppe Mitte wuerdigte zum Vorschlag fuer die Verliehung des RitterKreuz am 7.4.45 die Tat des Josef Preis init folgenden Worten: "Ein beispielgebender entschlossener gewehrfuehrer dessen in kaltbluetigem Ausharren erzielten Kampferfolg der Aufbau eine neuen Hautkampflinie zu verdanken ist. Der Vorschlag fuer die Verliehung des RitterKreuz wird besonders befuerwortet" Do we even have the name of the article right? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same person; he's listed in the German archives as Preiss: link. The text above appears about him: Preiss was nominated for the RK on 7 April 1945, with Ferdinand Schörner enthusiastically endorsing the nomination in these words: "An exemplary resolute troop leader who achieved success in the enduring struggle." (blame the kludgy translation on Google). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything about being a sniper though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (and also stubby and with unsrc "he totes killed two hundred enemies!" to boot which really grinds my gears). Seems like much of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer) provides ample reasons and parallels, no? About failing GNG and BIO1E. (Thanks for teaching me a new Wiki concept, Mr. dead SS officer!) I see people saying he passes WP:SOLDIER but that's only an essay and does he really? Yes, he was "awarded their nation's highest award", but even according to that page (or the previously linked AfD talkpage) that's not an automatic notability pass, it also says that there ought to be "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and that people "only mentioned in passing in secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article", which judging by the info about sources at the Debus AfD talkpage might also apply here? Oh and I don't want to get involved in wiki drama too much but I feel like there really ought to be some kind of a tune up to the customs and guidelines when it comes to people like this whose claim to wiki-fame-and-reliability is an inclusion in a list of an inflated reward. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:SOLDIER has been modified to state:

"What constitutes the "highest" award has been the subject of debate. Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide it is considered that only the highest military grade of such awards is likely to result in significant coverage to confer notability."

Please see diif. As such, a KC award is currently not sufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER, which in any case is an essay, not a guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for a stand alone article, but if the award is verified it seems fair enough to redirect it to the parent list. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Lacks WP:SIGCOV but seems like a valid search term at the least given that he appears to be a verified recipient of the KC. Redirect to parent article i.e. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly passes WP:SOLDIER. Cedible sources state the amount of confirmed kills seanhaley1 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 6 October 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 19:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catwalk (whaling)

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

No sources found to establish notability. Unreferenced since November 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It should be added to Wiktionary if sources can be found, and if a glossary of whaling terms is ever created could be redirected there. ¡Boz zio! 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were some vague uses of the term in books about whaling, but like Bozzio says it belongs at Wiktionary if anywhere. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable WP:DICDEF. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 24 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. Salting may be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchfinder

AfDs for this article:

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

Written like an advertisement, previously deleted.

Note of full disclosure: I was made aware of this page because I have previously written an article on Bob's Watches and someone found this article and noticed its promotional tone which violates guidlines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC) (COI amended 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. purely promotional article about promotional website, DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that there do seem to be a small number of citations that MIGHT convey notability... but the problem is that this page is so severely an advertisement that even if it is notable, there's nothing to salvage for a real article. So even if notability applies, I'm actually going to buck my long-standing trend of avoiding WP:TNT, and say that WP:TNT applies here IFF notability is actually established. Delete without prejudice for being recreated WITHOUT being an advertisement and firmly establishing notability with real, valid, reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as "corporate spam" of which section "Buy Back Guarantee" is just one example. Salting may be a good idea, to avoid wasting volunteer editors' time in an event of likely recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 26 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Down It's Monday

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

Delete. Band with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. While they do technically pass the criterion of having two independently notable members, that's really the only one they pass — their only release under this name was a two-song single that wasn't particularly successful, and although they did play a few live shows under this name there's no evidence of them undertaking a major tour geographically broad or widely covered enough to satisfy the touring criterion. Very little genuinely reliable source coverage exists about this at all, in fact — the only source cited here is a (deadlinked) article which mentioned this project's existence only by way of a side note in an article about Doiron's concurrent solo album, and I can't find anything stronger on either Google or ProQuest. And since an article still has to be supported by RS coverage before NMUSIC is actually passed, nominal passage of a criterion is not an inclusion freebie for an article that's this poorly sourced and unfixable. Further, there's an WP:XY issue here with competing potential redirect targets — while Julie Doiron is more famous than Frederick Squire, the project primarily involved Squire's songs rather than Doiron's, so they both have strong redirect claims (and in the fairly unlikely event that anybody actually does directly search for this as a title in its own right, both Doiron's and Squire's articles will come up in the search results anyway.) Their articles can certainly both mention this (and already directly link to each other anyway, since this wasn't even the only thing they ever did together), but there's not really much substance or sourcing available about this to hang a standalone article on. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 23 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 speedy delete. Criterion A7 clearly applies: there was no assertion of significance or importance of this local church. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Embassy Waterloo

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

Non-notable church. Speedy tag deleted by user with no other edits. agtx 01:39, 22 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 Original Concept. History retained. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T-Money (rapper)

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

According to the article, "T-Money (born Tyrone Kelsie, January 4, year withheld) is an American rapper who was one of the leading pioneers in the rap industry with the group Original Concept. He was a vital player in the evolution of hip hop as one of the original innovators of the sound and the scene, extending into the modern rap genre."

If this is true, then he should have an article much before 2016. And he is not in the news which makes it fail WP:NMUSIC. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Smells like a hoax. I don't believe any of the sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Past member of Original Concept? "T-Money - went on to become another host for Yo! MTV Raps."(not cited, though)※〶 10:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Not a hoax. There are plenty of sources out there that verify ~~not only that he exists but that he meets WP:NMUSICIAN.~~ that he exists. These include the following: [30] [31] [32] [33] Everymorning (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first and third mentions aren't cites, and the other two are passing mentions that he worked on Yo MTV Raps. That doesn't pass WP:MUSBIO. Or WP:BLP - remember, for a BLP we need the actual sources right there in the article for it to be kept - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the sources I listed clearly establish that he exists and that most (if not all) of the contents of the article are true, I have since changed my mind and concluded they don't establish notability per the guidelines cited above, as they don't provide significant coverage of him. Accordingly, I have stricken and rewritten my original keep vote and now think this page should be redirected to Original Concept. Everymorning (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Original Concept. Verifiable [34], even if he doesn't qualify for his own entry under WP:MUSBIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I'm going to reach out to this first-time editor and see if we can get the article in slightly better shape. Right now it has some problems that are pretty standard for those new to WP (original research, referencing, peacock language), but also quite a few print sources on a pre-internet topic, which we need more of. It'd be a shame to lose them if the subject turns out to be notable. Will check back into AfD with an update in a couple days either way. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Update~~ to say I'm in touch with the editor and have explained why the interview (basis for much of entry) doesn't work as a WP source. Have requested ed cut back to just what's confirmed in reliable sources, and add any other sources s/he may have, so we can get a better picture on whether this is a keep, merge, redirect if not much left to merge, etc. Ed replied promptly so I'm hopeful we may have progress in a few days, would appreciate AfD staying open a bit longer to give new ed chance to get a handle on this. (My view's informed by my sense that the article actually is deeply researched and very likely accurate--the problem is just that it's original research. Might do better published in a secondary source we could then cite! But I don't think we need to worry about disseminating incorrect information by leaving it up a few extra days.) Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and preserve edit history. Sorry to say I haven't heard further from ed, and I can't tell on my own how much of the entry really comes from the print sources listed, or if those are just trivial mentions and the entry was basically filled out with the editor's own interview of the subject, which certainly doesn't go to notability, and would largely (entirely?) need to be cut from a BLP. I'm not sure the subject isn't notable, but in absence of proof he is, I think redirecting is the right call. Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:00, 29 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. Consensus not to have an article, no consensus to create a redirect. Sandstein 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthophobia

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

nn coinage, fails WP:MEDRS Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of phobias. Maybe someone is knowledgable about those anchored redirects? I always like those, but have never looked into them. But I failed to find any sourcing for this, just some strange horror films. Similar to this deletion discussion here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amychophobia (2nd nomination). Yvarta (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero MEDRS sources - no reviews in pubmed; none in PsyNet (can't save searches there- that is just a link to the search page). just another pseudopychnology "fun with greek" term that gets kicked around in garbage lists on the internet. Delete and salt like the rest. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of phobias. It appears to have at least one book source. It may not be a medical term, but it does have at least one cited reference, so it probably wouldn't hurt to show up on the big list. Definitely doesn't need its own article, of course, but deletion isn't necessary as redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if I am to believe GoogleBooks, the entire entry from the cited reference is "antophobia Fear of flowers. See also Flowers, fear of." So I do not buy that as a serious claim that the word is in use; hence, not even a redirect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:22, 29 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frasers Property

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

Possibly non-notable property development company. All information about the company itself in the article is sourced to an "Our Story" page on the company's website. There is one section on a definitely notable building the company developed (One Central Park). However, the sources provided for that section are a link to a press release by a partner development company that worked on the building, and a link to an award the building received. The award appears to be the only legitimately third party coverage provided in the article and the award is for the building, not the company (which is not mentioned in the award article). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of coverage in gnews search including in mainstream Australian press. meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see their name a lot, but what specific sources were you thinking of that contain any WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it seems some of the above articles are subscription only but I could view them via gnews search. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

urbandeveloper piece reads like a reprinted press release, others are corporate ownership coverage ... do the News Corp sources talk about the company in terms other than who owns which bits of what? -David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some of them talk about the company itself eg its plans for expansion and ownership structure rather than sites they're developing. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good, good ... they're a huge company, the sort of thing you'd expect to have been talked about - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The only notability is inherited from (One Central Park), which has it's own article. Wayne 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a mjor copany, and one central park just the most recent of their properties. Needs expansion. (that al lthe refs given come from that building is just a matter of the article being incomplete.) DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relies heavily on primary sources as written, but subject appears notable. Tag article with a need for better citations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. It appears to be notable, based on what it built, but I'd prefer better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 18 October 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] "Felicidades a Swift File Transfer, Guudjob y zeek! Las mejores apps Android de la Connect & Enrich App Challenge 2014". AppCircus (in Spanish).

[2] "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.

[Bream-3] Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.

[4] "Blumberg Capital & Qualcomm Invest $3 Million in Israeli Startup Zeek Mobile". Blumberg Capital. 20 May 2015.

[5] "Fintech Fundings: 25 Companies Raise $450 Million Week Ending May 22". Finovate. 21 May 2015.

[6] "UK sees $1.4B in unused gift vouchers each year". CNBC. 24 December 2015.

[7] "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". techcrunch. 27 July 2016.

[8] ttp://jewishbusinessnews.com/2016/07/06/top-10-israeli-undiscovered-startups/

[9] ttps://www.marketingweek.com/100-disruptive-brands/

[10] ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/yoavvilner/2016/01/18/16-london-based-startups-ready-to-take-on-2016/#5ff8a3546973

[11] ttps://www.marketingweek.com/disruptive-brands/zeek/

[12] "TAU Innovation Day". Telecom News (in Hebrew).

[13] "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.

[Bream-14] Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.

[15] ttps://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/14/overdraft-money-transfer-christmas-banks-credit-cards

[16] ttp://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000469149

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]