Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance Communications

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

This article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing remarkable about it to be on Wikipedia. The content highlights usual announcements about mergers and acquisitions which any other company of this clout would be doing. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A defunct operation which was acquired and merged into another business (which itself does not have an article so is not a Redirect target). I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements to indicate that it achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (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 Fifth Harmony. Purely on the numbers, this would be a no-consensus. However looking at the "Keep" opinions here, a lot of them are either based on the "other stuff exists" argument, or they are based on speculation of things that may occur in the future. No prejudice against recreation if and when she has established an independently notable solo career. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normani Kordei

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

No relevance aside from being a member of Fifth Harmony. All that little information fits on the group's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite relevant and will be in the future, she will be on Dancing With The Stars from March 20 onwards as a solo artist, the page is needed then for record of her performances, etc. So her account can stay unlike the other members though.

Katty368 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. We will need somewhere to keep record of her performance and scores. Those over at the DWTS articles always make sure all the celebrity contestants have Wikipedia pages ready before the season begins. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~(vote change further below) - I am typically a delete voter. There's too much "bloat" on WP. But, as said above, now that she is on DWTS, she is most likely going to be her own person. --- But I would much rather prefer that the page be redirected until AFTER she becomes notable. Not, "and will be in the future, she will be on". We don't own a crystal ball. We deal in the "here and now", not in future speculation. Kellymoat (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not necessarily see this as a weak keep, I mentioned this show will start on 20 March which is less than 17 days. So when it comes to keeping up her performance updates someone will have to make a whole new article which is very time consuming, competing on a huge reality show and being a member of a big girlgroup makes her relevant enough to have this page considering she will be engaging in more solo endeavors next.

Katty368 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL articles have a large amount of "back data" that need written because we do not start articles until after someone is notable.

We do not create articles based on what could happen in the future. We only deal with the past. Kellymoat (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I am concerned, DWTS does not need a weekly breakdown. Her entire run can written as two sentences --- Kordei was on the 2017 season of DWTS. She was eliminated in the 3rd week. How much more does it need. Kellymoat (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I convinced myself to change my vote. For all we know, every interview on DWTS is going to be about Little Mix. We MUST wait until AFTER she does something. Not before. Kellymoat (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you really think someone on a show that picks the contestants based on recognized NOTABILITY is not notable? GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D-list celebrities that campaign to be on the show to get themselves some publicity.

Besides, her "notability" is from being a member of a group. A group that has a page. That doesn't mean that she has her own status outside of the group. Kellymoat (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait who is Little Mix? Anyway I am still against the notion of the page being deleted, it's really not a big deal as far as I see. She is notable enough to have her page, I've seen many far less notable people having their own pages, so don't really see a page that has proper sources and everything being deleted.

Katty368 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out - Little Mix is not the all-girl group Nomandy is in. But really, that just demonstrates how non-notable any of them are (outside of their fanbase). Kellymoat (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fifth Harmony: Not notable outside of being a member of the group. If she gains notability as a solo artist, then the article can be recreated. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions [in this case, Fifth Harmony and DWTS] . The rules block Kordei because of being not "notable" out of the group. Now she's getting coverage for her role on a tv show which puts her over WP:GNG no matter how you slice it it is two events and anything else is guesswork and revisionism. Not to mention precedence, Camila Cabello got an article for quitting and for one song. Louis Tomlinson got one for a football stunt. Zayn Malik got one as soon as he quit. These famous boy bands/girl groups tend to be so famous that one thing outside of the band tends to get them their own articles, i see in this case no reason to break precedence. GuzzyG (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cabello got her article when she was in her second top 20 hit. Kordei hasn't announced a solo career, and there's a place for her little info on the group's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the Cabello chat, it was mainly the one song as it did not relate to the group just like this reality show does not. What place does the reality show have in the group article if it does not relate to the group? Group members do not get articles due to ONEEVENT, but this show creates a second event which means she passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same place Lauren Jauregui's solo project have in the group article. Each of them have their subsections. We would create an article just for her DWTS scores? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well i would hope the guidelines were followed just for anything. If she is in a separate reality show that does not focus on the musical group from which she is from that creates two things which people know her from which means she passes WP:GNG. Laurens is one song as a featured artist which normally does not count. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the user above, way less relevant people in groups got their own articles when they had barely had a notable solo project, Kordei is going to be on a show watched by millions and part of a girl group known by millions, this makes her very relevant. Also I'm not at all convinced by the statement that the members are not known by the general public, one person not knowing the members does not make the the group or the members not notable to everyone else. Her article complies with the rules and therefore should not be deleted.

Katty368 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everyone above who've argued to keep the page. Seeing as the members of Fifth Harmony are increasingly working on solo endeavors and with Normani in particular joining the cast of Dancing With The Stars, she will quickly be gaining notoriety as an individual, not just a girl group member, and there will need to be a section on her page dedicated to her time on DWTS. She also does a great deal of philanthropic work that could be placed on the page as well. She has more to her name than previous articles created for other band members with side projects. Stephaniehsueh (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I will repeat myself -- DWTS hasn't happened yet. WP is not a crystal ball, it cannot tell the future. No one can have notability based on a show that hasn't aired. Kellymoat (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fifth Harmony for the time being. She may gain more coverage in the future for her time on DWTS and other musical/dancing projects, but right now, a majority of her notability is tied up with Fifth Harmony. It is too soon to determine anything about her upcoming appearances on DWTS, and comparisons with other articles on other "less-notable" people is not a strong argument to keep this. I can see this article being created sometime down the line, but it is not warranted right now in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I sympathize with some of the 'delete' arguments -- our standards of inclusion for entertainment figures are ridiculously low. But the fact remains that every contestant in the first 23 seasons of this show has their own article, and that fact itself is a strong argument for inclusion here. As for the observation that the current season hasn't actually started yet, that isn't a persuasive argument. Many areas of Wikipedia embrace the notion of a "Future" class of articles, under which articles can be created if they are based on material that has been reliably reported. That's what we have here. If something happens in the near future that negates the subject's claim to notability, we can always go through a second nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normani deserves to have her own page. She is going to compete in one of the biggest dance competitions in the US. Her group is thriving and she might have more solo endeavours in the future. She has done so many charity work with and without her group. She even has acted in A TV series. There shouldn't be any debate in this topic. Srn27 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the two 'keep' arguments above. Normani is about to be on DWTS in 4 days. Every contestant of the previous seasons has their own page, and all of them has their DWTS scores kept. This argument alone should be enough to keep her page. She is also one of the favorites to win this season, so I highly doubt that she'll be eliminated early on. afterpartylaur (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the "delete" proponents, we should note that it isn't literally true that the contestant scores appear in every contestant's article. Indeed, the article on Priscilla Presley doesn't even mention her appearance on the show at all. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a good many other articles mention the subject's appearance on the show, but without providing detailed scores. I still believe that the instant article should be kept, but it's not because we need a place to store a duplicate account of her week-by-week performance on the show. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-district V of Mokotów (of Armia Krajowa)

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

Article created in 2009, as an apparent stub of the Polish version of Wikipedia. Has been in violating of WP:CIRC since it's creation, and fails GNG. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing significant there (I think it's from the Polish WP, rather than Russian, though).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural, mass nomination needed). First, it has a reference so it is not a CIRC violation. Second, this should have been a mass nom - why choise sub-district V when we have all seven, from Sub-district I of Śródmieście (of Armia Krajowa) to Sub-district VII of Warsaw suburbs (of Armia Krajowa)? Third, notability. It is a hard case. There is extensive literature of Warsaw Uprising, through most of it is in Polish. One could think that it would be sufficient to merge them to District of Warsaw (of Armia Krajowa). but looking at some of the 7 sub-districts articles shows that they already are beyond stub, and that they are discussing history of fighting in each of these regions. Granted, those articles are often poorly referenced, but they are not OR, just failure of WP:V. As such, I see no reason to delete this (plus, as I noted, it is weird to nominate one of the series of 7 articles without discussion of the larger context). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only source supporting this article is another Wikipedia article, which is the definition of circular sourcing. The only source on the article to which this article is linked makes no references to the subject of this article. Not only that, but I failed to find anything of a reliable source supporting anything in this article. I only focused on this one article out of the even because it has been very poorly sourced since it's creation in 2009, as I stated above. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - requires some more depth and research but nothing there is untrue and is easily proved. i.e. [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. etc. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'd delete a unit of the Polish resistance? Seriously? There is clearly some major notability. Is this the thin end of the wedge to eventual deletion of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany and World War II? Is this historical revisionism? Where are we going here? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Where are we going" is into that dangerous territory where you criticize the motives of other editors. If you have that kind of complaint, take it to WP:ANI.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a rhetorical device, not a statement about motives. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I do not accept the CIRC criticism. The real problem is that there is no reference at all, but that is typical of stubs. Looking at the linked article, which has slightly more content, fighting in this area was particularly unsuccessful. What does the Polish WP say on the subject? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 17 March 2017 (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 here is that, regardless of his publication history, third-party coverage is lacking. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Callahan (economist)

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

American academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) As for the scholar notability guideline, he is not a full faculty member, and has fairly low Google Scholar citations and trivial library holdings for his field. Considered redirecting to an article on Economics For Real People, as its reviews occupy most of the author's article, but again, low library holdings for the title, and the book was not even listed in Book Review Index or Digest, so the other reviews are niche, minor, or unreliable. Alas. czar 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – REPEC provides a listing of scholarly articles, all reliable and independent. Also, given the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days, it is not surprising that he's not mainstream. (Just like Helicobacter pylori was not the mainstream cause of stomach ulcers until 1982.) Alas (indeed) upcoming travel prevents me from working on the article. (ARROO!) – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that he wrote are not independent of the subject (himself). The question is what significant coverage in secondary sources or collections show the impact of his work. czar 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entries under section headers "Notes" and "External links" are more than sufficient to ensure subject's notability. If the bar were to be placed so high that even such a lengthy career in economics and academia is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, then our enumeration of 1551 entries [as of this writing] at Category:American economists would be very slim indeed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? I count his two books, his staff listing (none independent), and two book reviews mentioned in the nom, published from the same institute that published his books. External links are all listings of his own blog posts. More than sufficient?—not even close... czar 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both his single-digit h-index on Google scholar [5] and his failure to appear on REPEC's list of the top 25% of economists in his home state [6] argue that he does not pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other argument for notability has been adduced. We need academic impact, not just the existence of publications, for notability, and I don't see it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at H-index#Results_across_disciplines_and_career_levels, I see that "7.6" is an acceptable h-index number for full professors in economics. Callahan (if I read this right) has a "9". – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics about the issues with using h-index without added context. @DGG also considered them low. czar 05:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "citation metrics" guidance does not support David Eppstein's comment. Also, not being in the top 10% (or 25%) REPEC listing is a poor argument. By that logic WP would only have 1,010 US economist articles. But Category:American_economists gives us about 2,000. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics weren't his sole rationale, though. czar 05:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without more his argument (like Xxanthippe's below) is WP:ATA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the above arguments were not convincing and that no other sources are forthcoming is not "ATA" czar 06:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Can't find much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, prolific in terms of publication output, but the guidelines look for third-party attention, not just a high publication count. Comments above implying that Callahan should get a free pass because of 'the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days' are not grounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 19 March 2017 (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Vipers

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable band under WP:GNG or WP:BAND. It doesn't look like there are sources beyond event listing, download, shopping, and social media. Largoplazo (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great band name, but tragically non notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band meets the first criteria for WP:BAND and has had significant, non-trivial press coverage from reliable sources, including a published article in The Big Takeover Magazine by Jack Rabid (print only). The band also features members from three nationally touring acts including 10 Ft Ganja Plant, Destroy Babylon and Pressure Cooker, mentioned in the recently added references. Rastagroove (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sightline Institute

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

Fails WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I have added several references indicating this Institute's activity over the past couple of decades (and do think an encyclopaedia can play a reasonable role for a "who is saying this?" query regarding one of their reports) but unless someone can identify in-depth coverage about the Institute itelf, I am afraid this isn't enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - borderline case, but I don't, as the above editors also found, think that this organization passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 25 March 2017 (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. Please avoid asserting that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES; it's not very illuminating and it doesn't address the concerns at hand. Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Hero Shivaji

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

Could not find sources for passing WP:NFILM. Trying an individual nomination instead to see whether it gives a better result than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?, which was a multi-page nomination. Per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, merely stating that sources exist without proof is not an argument to keep. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFILM. This user seems to be making a habit of nominating clearly-notable articles that wind up being basically always being kept as snow keeps. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question --The Drover's Wife, I am willing to believe that a film with two well-know principal actors might be notable, but how can we tell that this is actually the case. I recognize the difficulties in sourcing 1960s Bollywood films from reviews, but there should be books covering the period by now. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say I have books on 1960s Hindi-language Bollywood films floating around (not least because I don't speak Hindi!), but it is a widely-distributed film starring notable actors, and so it is highly unlikely that Hindi-language sources don't exist. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article source does not support notability. Searches found nothing helpful, just listings in film data bases. No reviews found. No elements of WP:NFO suggesting that RSes likely exist are met. Happy to reconsider if RSes are found that satisfy notability guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 07:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- for want of adequate sourcing. As noted above, the only sources available are sparse and routine database entries. Attacking the nominator and asserting without evidence that there surely must be sources out there somewhere, seems a poor defense of this rather bad article. Reyk _YO! 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero live-action television series

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

Fancruft. No sources, all OR and effusive. JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced essay. Neiltonks (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible WP:OR, completely unsourced and reads like an opinion essay. --Joshualouie711^talk 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 17 March 2017 (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. While the issue of OR is problematic, I think those questions were answered in the responses in the discussion. As was the NEO question. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-CEEI mechanism

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

WP:OR, lacks citations, fails N for neologisms. Possible merge with Competitive Equilibrium. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is quite rude to nominate an article for deletion with such cryptic reasons. I spent a lot of time and effort in writing this article, so if you think it should be deleted, you should spend some effort in explaining your reasons in full English sentences rather than in barely-understandable codes. Now, regarding your reasons:

This is not Original Research. It is a summary of a paper published in top economics journal, with 167 citations.
The sources on which the article are based are well-cited. I agree that it could be good to extend the article with more material and add more citations, but this is not a reason for deletion.
I do not understand what you mean by "fails N for neologisms". I think this reason should be deleted since it is unclear. If you refer to the acronym "A-CEEI" in the title - it is the formal name given to this mechanism in the cited paper.
It should NOT be merged with Competitive Equilibrium. The concepts are related but different. Competitive equilibrium (CE) is a usually a descriptive concept: it describes the situation in free market when the price stabilizes and the demand equals the supply. CEEI is usually a normative concept: it describes a rule for dividing commodities between people. It is inspired by the concept of CE but used in very different contexts and meanings.

--Erel Segal (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "fails N for neologism" is rather ~~nonsensical~~ confusing, as the oft-cited WP:N refers to something else entirely. The guideline in that case would be WP:NEO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal thanks for the link, but I still do not understand, why this specific article is considered a neologism? --Erel Segal (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, we have thousands of problematic and/or questionable articles that are unassessed, and in this particular case my shorthand was supported by the wikilink to the applicable policy. We use a "curation tool" so when you're going through multiple articles with multiple issues, an editor is likely to use shorthand which some may not understand. Ok, so I suck at remembering all the acronyms but that article lacks citations which is why I called it OR. Shawn in Montreal had you clicked on the blue link where I tagged the article, you would have seen it was linked to WP:NEO. Erel Segal this is not about me being rude - it was actually rude of you to call me rude - it's about me doing my volunteer job as a new page patroller helping to clean-up some of the obnoxious backlog. If you think a single paper published in a credible economics journal passes the policy requirement, then you have no reason to be concerned. State your case, and let the AfD run its course. In the interim, I recommend cleaning up the article so it appears more like an encyclopedic article with citations instead of paper published in an economics journal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme A wikilink to the applicable policy is not enough since it does not explain why you think that this specific article violates the policy. We are all doing volunteer job here... this does not exempt us from politeness.
I understand that you do not have time to carefully read and assess all the new articles, but, this does not mean you should mark for deletion any article that you are unsure about. If you are unsure about the value of a new article, it is better to first contact the main author and ask for clarification. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a single published paper in a journal doesn't equate into encyclopedic acceptance of a procedure the article claims to be notable based on citing two sources while the majority of the article remains unsourced. The lead of the article states: A-CEEI is a procedure for fair item assignment. The acronym stands for Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes. What substantiates the procedure as being notable? Is it in wide-spread use, or is the article attempting to make it acceptable? The majority of statements in the article lack citations, so I would think the presumption of OR is justified. Suggestion: cite more published RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know there was a subfield of economics dealing with quantitation of just allocation schemes, but there seems to be one and it seems to be quite interested in this idea. I find papers working out implementations [7] [8], proposing alternatives [9] [10], and criticizing its assumptions [11]. It's clearly not a neologism in the sense of NEO (having little or no usage in reliable sources such that it requires analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position). The alternative mghti be to merge to Resource allocation, but that article is much too undeveloped to contain and contextualize this idea. FourViolas (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come you get four violas while the rest of us have just one, or none? That hardly seems like a fair division. E Eng 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wasn't already familiar with this topic but Google scholar finds 167 other papers citing Budish's original paper, and 137 other papers containing the exact term "A-CEEI". I think that's well above the threshold of notability for an academic concept. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the keeps and/or article creator need to add sources to the material in the article or move it to draft space because as it sits now, all but one section remains unsourced which lends credence to the belief there may be a violation of WP:NOR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. I agree that the article would be improved by incorporating more sources, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. FourViolas (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the overall appearance leans to OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a fundamental error (no offence meant): you can't assess OR or notability by looking at an article. You have to look at the world outside to do that. The question is whether sufficient reliable sources exist, not whether some editor has cited them in the article. Of course, doing the latter makes it easy for everyone to see that the former is true, which is helpful, but it's not necessary for a keep at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly widely accepted by academics in its field. I think we should rename the article by spelling out the acronym immediately this AfD is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (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. Preponderance of policy arguments support keeping. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmazHS

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

Article's subject does not appear to be notable upon a full review, (coverage in reliable sources is far less than significant, and the criteria of WP:ANYBIO are not met), including a google news search that returns 9 hits (0 of which cover the subject in detail). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable professional video game player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment try looking up "amaz" instead. The previous title "AmazHS" wasn't really WP:COMMONNAME, so I've decided to change.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial & well-sourced. Besides, what does deletion accomplish? Acad Ronin (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Its barely larger than a stub and is littered with sources tagged as "unreliable" (and rightfully so, it seems to be largely sourced by non-reliable Youtube videos and brief mentions in listicle entries. Nothing that shows significant coverage. "Deletion accomplishes" upholding the concepts that shape the entire premise of the website. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - per my comment above, sourcing is extremely weak. Not convinced the subject meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical of the initial sourcing provided, but far better sourcing has been dug up, so I feel it now meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in reliable sources such as Gamespot [12] and Aftonbladet [13]. - hahnch e n 17:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GameSpot source is strictly an interview - a first party account. The Aftonbladet appears to be a... Swedish tabloid? Neither of these are third party reliable source accounts that help it meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in reliable sources like VentureBeat [14], Kotaku [15] and The Daily Dot [16] (note that article was written before Dotesports changed ownership).--Prisencolin (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone voted "Delete". The sourcing is extremely weak and does not meet the GNG. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This is an undisputedly notable streamer, currently the second most popular Hearthstone streamer. He is a co founder and captain of Team Archon, which he later left to join NRG eSports, which is sponsored by Shaquille O'Neal and other investors. He is currently a consultant for Blizzard and is the host and founder of Amaz Team Championships which had the largest prize pool of any non-Blizzard backed Hearthstone tournament with $250,000 in prizes.
1. MINOTTI, Mike (2016-10-31). "Hearthstone caster, streamer Amaz turns to Kickstarter for 2nd season of Team League". Venture Beat. Retrieved 2017-03-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Jason “Amaz” Chan, a popular broadcaster and player of the market-leading digital card game, announced a second season of the Amaz Team Championships. The first Amaz Team Championships had the largest prize pool of any non-Blizzard backed Hearthstone tournament with $250,000. But the second season isn’t guaranteed. Amaz has turned to Kickstarter to help fund the tournament, seeking a goal of $206,322 (that number only looks random because it’s converted from $1.6 million Hong Kong dollars). This time, the prize pool is only starting at $100,000. However, it can go up if the Kickstarter exceeds its goal. Like the first Amaz Team Championships, the second season will be an invitational event focusing on popular Hearthstone personalities, competitors, and streamers. “Whether it has been through their streams, video content, or tournament participation over the years, this is my way of saying ‘Thanks for being involved in the community!'” Amaz explained in the Kickstarter page
2. Clark, Tim (2016-09-07). "Na'Vi dumps its successful Hearthstone team". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Adding to the sense that the game is struggling competitively, we also learned today that Jason “Amaz” Chen has left Team Archon, the organisation he co-founded, to join NRG eSports, which includes Shaquille O'Neal among its investors. As a result, the only remaining Archon player, 15 year-old phenom William “Amnesiac” Barton, will now become a free agent. The end of Archon comes as less of a shock, given that the organisation has been gravitating away from competitive play for some time, as indicated by the departures of Purple, Zalae, Orange and the former world champion Firebat. Despite the predictability of Archon’s demise, the fact we now won’t see a second Archon Team League tournament is another blow to the Hearthstone as an esport. With its $250,000 prize pool and concurrent viewers peaking over 120k on Twitch, ATLC can lay strong claim to being the most successful Hearthstone event to date. That there’s now no sign of anything similar on the horizon, and continued question marks over the game’s competitive viability percolating within the community, ought to be of concern to Blizzard’s esports department. And that’s before we even get into talking about Yogg.
3. Asarch, Steven (2016-11-18). "'Hearthstone' 'Mean Streets Of Gadgetzan' Expansion: Priests Finally Get An Amazing Legendary, Raza The Chained". iDigitalTimes. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Amaz, one of Hearthstone’s most popular streamers, just revealed the best Priest Legendary coming in Mean Streets Of Gadgetzan . Raza The Chained is a 5-mana 5/5 Priest Legendary that has the Battlecry: “if you have no duplicates in your deck, your Hero Power costs zero (0).” That is absolutely bonkers; the possibilities for this card are almost endless. Everyone complained how underpowered Priest was when Purify was announced and now the Hearthstone devs are doing everything they can to make Priest OP as hell.
4. S, Dan (2016-03-29). "Hearthstone's Whispers of the Old Gods: Mark of Y'Shaarj reveal". ESPN. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  First up, we have Jason "Amaz" Chan, the founder of Team Archon, one of the leading teams in competitive Hearthstone. "Mark of Y'Shaarj gives a minion +2/+2 and is a bit more rewarding when it's cast on a beast, but outside of that isn't too interesting as it's very similar to Mark of the Wild," Amaz noted. "The most interesting part with this card, though, is that Blizzard is giving Druids another direction besides the standard Midrange Combo Druid that we are so used to seeing in ranked play and tournaments. This confirms the recent Blizzard interview that they wanted Druids to have beast synergies along with the Hunter class. The fact that you can always cast it on any minion unlike Demonfuse's mechanic makes it a little bit more flexible as well."
5. Wolf, Jacob (2016-12-01). "Houston Rockets dive into gaming, hire director of esports". ESPN.
  The article notes:
  
  The Houston Rockets have expanded to esports and gaming, hiring a new director of esports in the team's front office, the franchise announced Thursday. The new director is former Team Archon chief executive officer and Namecheap head of esports Sebastian Park. No further moves for the team have been determined, and it intends to explore all options before making a formal investment.
  The franchise, which has shown interest in esports before, hired Park as an experienced esports executive. He ran Archon, the esports team owned by famous Hearthstone professional player Jason "Amaz" Chan, from 2015 to 2016. Park, 25, is a native of Los Angeles and a Yale graduate in cognitive science.
6. Morris, Kevin (2014-12-24). "The most important people in esports in 2014". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2017-03-12. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Jason “Amaz” Chan
  DreamHack
  Prominent figures in the Hearthstone community usually fall into one of two categories, player or streamer. Jason “Amaz” Chan is all of that and more. Regularly attracting 35-50,000 viewers on his daily Twitch streams—despite broadcasting in the middle of the day—Amaz has become one of the most popular community streamers, partly because of his unique ability to make his audience feel involved in a team effort. His cries of “do we win?” have become one of the best known catchphrases in the sport.
  Chan also had a very successful 2014 in tournaments winning IEM Shenzen and the M-House Cup, and coming second in the Viagame House Cup and DreamHack Summer. He was the first signing for both Team ROOT and later Team Liquid before leaving to form his own team, Archon, where he snapped up world champion Firebat as his marquee signing.
  His popularity shows no signs of waning, and with the formation of his own team Chan will only become a bigger and more important figure within Hearthstone in 2015.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amaz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The strongest source is the latter from 2014 which list him as the top 10 most important figures in eSports since the game's release "regularly attracting 35-50,000 viewers".
Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in VentureBeat, Kotaku, The Daily Dot, PC Gamer, IBT Media, and ESPN found by Prisencolin and Valoem clearly demonstrate that Jason "Amaz" Chan passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Loud

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to support notability. One song charting on multiple charts is not enough. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable artists with song charted in many countries and reliable sources - [17][18][19][20] - TheMagnificentist 15:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding each of these sources:

[21] - Four lines of vacuous promo from a fansite.

[22] - Their own Allmusic bio.

[23] - A three sentence-long promo from a music promoter.

[24] - A paragraph-long reliable secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it's a fansite.

Allmusic is reliable and a secondary source. Doesn't matter if it's "their own bio".

Disagree that it's a music promoter.

Paragraph-long is good enough. Electronic music isn't the same as popular mainstream music for it to immediately have sources with 2-3 pages about a topic. - TheMagnificentist 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To meet any WP:MUSIC criteria is not an argument for guaranteed notability. The guidelines clearly specify it means a subject may be notable. One chart entry is a start, perhaps, but In this case there is not enough significant evidence to merit an entry. Most references are user submitted sites. Specifically regarded two sources argued above:

[25] When AllMusic was primarily a print publication it had tight criteria for inclusion. Not so much these days, evolving since it began partnering with Rovi/TiVo database for its content. While the site continues to have independent editorial oversight, their standards have dipped to list bands whose only criteria is that they have produced a product(s) that is offered for retail distribution. A band can be listed that otherwise does not meet a single qualification per WP:MUSIC. Also note that the site itself openly solicits bands to provide their own promotional material to aid them in putting together an entry, making the content a strange mixture of first and third person reference. AllMusic entries therefore need to be assessed on a case by case basis. In the case of this subject, the entry seems very "light".

[26] The site is a collective of mostly amateur (and a few professional) reviewers. Take that for what it is. It's significance is weak. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per analysis which is spot on by ShelbyMarion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The House That Jack Built (2018 film)

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

See film notability guidelines, which state that films in production are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article does not state anything notable about the production, and Google search does not find anything about the production except that the film is in production. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NFILM, movies that have begun filming but not yet been released are notable when "the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The production section of the article easily meets the GNG. ~~More could go into it regarding pre-production, but the article was literally just created, and I don't have the time to expand it right now.~~(<--Done!) -- Irn (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All that the article says about production is that the film is in production. Not every film production is notable. If the author doesn't have time (more than 24 hours after creating the article) to expand the article to show that the production is notable, maybe it isn't notable or may be WP:TOOSOON. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I quoted above, according to NFILM, the "Production" section of the article must meet the GNG. According to the GNG, notability means having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The "Production" section of the article easily fulfills that requirement. (If you follow the link for "the production itself" it tells you that this includes "development of the concept and script [...] the securing of financing and producers [...] recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) [... and] actual filming—dates and places", all of which is addressed in the article's "Production" section.) -- Irn (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Irn. There is enough coverage by independent sources for the work to be notable. The notability guideline also states that a film can be reasonably considered notable when it "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person", and Lars von Trier is most certainly a notable filmmaker. AndrewOne (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Gabriel

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

No independent evidence of notability. Google search turns up an actor, but no third-party information about an artist. This draft contains peacock language; that isn't grounds for deletion in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Zero sources relating to a painter named "Samson Gabriel" found in article; zero found in web search.198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP Mduvekot (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Grayson

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

Delete: as an insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is long past time that we deleted all articles referenced only to IMDb. That is declared a non-reliable source for purposes of notability. Wikipedia does not aim to be a directory of every person ever appearing in film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added some sources. She has multiple named roles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faces_(Candyland_song)

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

Not notable. Jd02022092 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of this song. Meets WP:NSONG. Gab4gab (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Article has multiple sources, and can be redirected to Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Plantenga

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

fails WP:AUTHOR. no indepth coverage, no major awards won, no notable publications. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable source coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Columbus Dispatch - Bart Plantenga, who is considered the world's expert on yodeling. Authored well received book - see many reviews quoted on his site. Lectured at Library of Congress. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra Mutual Fund

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

This company does not appear to meet the standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor quality but appears to be the best available on the company, which speaks to the company's lack of notability. Anything salvageable can be merged into Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, but there's no reason for the mutual fund to have its own article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The references listed above are all either announcements in relation to granting a license to the parent to operate a fund or are PR announcements complete with interviews/comments from the CEO or other company officer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep One dedicated article from unimpeachably reliable source, The Economic Times. Both the other print/website sources are well done, non-tabloid, but both of their Wikipedia articles have self-promotion issues. If they are reliable, then a keep seems a no-brainer. Input fr/ unbiased editors familiar with the Indian business environment would be helpful. Tapered (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Any notable content can be merged with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited which already has a sectio on the mutual fund. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, a merge is unlikely to actually occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would the solution be to do some sort of preemptive merge in the event that the article is deleted? Or if the article is going to be deleted, should we ask the AFD closer to hold off until a merge has been completed? Marquardtika (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge !votes are allowed at AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited § Mahindra Mutual Fund. Seems to be a decent compromise, and this WP:ATD-M can improve the merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I just removed some copyvio from the article (diff1, diff2), and there's not much left worth merging. Struck my !vote above. Delete. No prejudice against a clean-start article, sans copyright violations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Association of Architects

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH which states that an organisation is notable only if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The few sources that exist are passing, trivial and routine. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the face of it, a role in professional accreditation would provide a strong claim to notability. However I found this article from Architects Journal: "RIBA stops recognising Commonwealth Association of Architects schools". That said, there appears to be subsequent cooperation between the organisations, at least in running a student competition: [27]. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NONPROFIT, it's an internationally active, recognised non-profit accreditation body (though as already pointed out, its standards and approach differ from the RIBA). It's also been active in this capacity for over 50 years (celebrating its golden jubilee in 2015). Sionk (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGSIG states "No company or organisation is considered inherently notable. No organisation is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organisation it is". The length an organisation has been operating also has zero bearing on notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? I was arguing that the subject meets WP:NONPROFIT.Sionk (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been improved with additional sources such as Sri Lankan and UK press stories Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:32, 25 March 2017 (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 keep per point #1 at Wikipedia:Speedy keep because no deletion rationale has been advanced in the nomination. As mentioned below, WP:PNT should be allowed to run its course. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

মাইজভান্ডার দরবার শরীফ

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

Entire article is in non-English, and only contains a single ref. Might fit as an article if translated into proper English, or on the language's respective Wiki. UserDe (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is premature. The process for dealing with articles posted in other languages is at WP:PNT. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. It's in Bengali and is listed at WP:PNT. That process should be allowed to run its course - which may eventually lead to it being nominated for deletion again but at least it'll be in English by then. Neiltonks (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2017 (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 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finmo

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor and better sourcing doesn't appear to be available. Written in a folksy, PR way that makes it appear as if a company representative created the article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. This content belongs on the company's web site, not here, i.e. this language: "The secret sauce here is the Social Feed..." -- seriously? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY - No Third party coverage cited at all - the first reference is a companies house listing - so it exists, but that doesn't make it notable, the second is their own blog, the third was issued by the company "We wish to create an entire ecosystem ..." and the fourth doesn't mention them at all - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails COMPANY, PROMO, GNG (external coverage) South Nashua (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 17 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Allende

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

Non notable footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This footballer has only played in the third tier in Chile, which is not a fully proffessional league per WP:FPL and in youth international matches which is not enough for WP:NFOOTBALL. Also discussed shortly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Marcelo Allende before going to AfD. Qed237 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to pass WP:GNG with mentions of Arsenal trials and interest as well as mentions of his feats with Chile youth teams, including captaining. --SuperJew (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, Routine coverage about a minor player trialling with a big club is not significant and is WP:BLP1E in any event. Giant Snowman 08:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Subject fails WP:NFOOTY because he hasn't played either in a fully professional league or at senior international level. Tabloid-website coverage of trials at Arsenal, hung on his playing in the same position as the club's existing high-profile Chilean player, doesn't come close to GNG. Re-create when he plays professionally. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Gricehead's comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Marcelo Allende, I do belive this player has played in a professional match or two. However all that being said I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, very few footballers pass WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG at the tender age of 17 and regardless if the article is deleted or not it almost certainly would have to be expanded or restarted in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The references provided in the article are simply routine transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources provide below indicate GNG, significant profiles / interviews with the player. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say delete but this guy signing for Arsenal is getting alot of coverage. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Star], it goes on [28]. I would like to point out that footballer Wayne Shaw was kept at afd a few weeks ago, and he also fails WP:NFOOTY, so just failure of this guideline is not really a good enough reason to delete. Evandro Rachoni De Lima is another example. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reformulating the query above I get a rather astonishing 6,370 Google news hits. One (at least) meets WP:GNG. With a slightly different Google News query I'm seeing more articles that meet WP:GNG such as two, three, four. On the Spanish version of this article I find five. I also note there are Ukranian and Mandarin Chinese versions of this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough independent sources and media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 21:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Bellinghausen

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

Only reference to this WP:BLP is a NYT article that gives only a passing mention of the subject, a mention which shows no notability. Thus, fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage is one mention in an article so fails WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails BIO Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (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 comes from a WP:SPA, and provides no arguments why the sources satisfy WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Logan Khaleghi

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

Non-notable producer lacking in-depth significant support. Awards appear to be minor in nature. reddogsix (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many kinds of "Emmy" -- and in this case, according to IMDb, the nomination seems to be from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences College Television Awards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search link above does not give any independent reliable sources. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been updated with more references. This article is legitimate. Mtbj25 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2017 (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. Despite the low level of participation, I just about see consensus, as the one "weak keep" comment has to be taken as very weak, since the linked sources are minimal, and it is an exaggeration to say that "he" was nominated for a Grammy: a record on which he had worked was nominated, and a mere nomination not of oneself but of something one is connected to is really not evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D.R.U.G.S Beats

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per [29] and [30]. He was also nominated for a Grammy. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medisize Schweiz AG

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not an independent company. Unsourced (and I could not find proper independent sourcing elsewhere) The Banner talk 12:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ist grown from a interpendend company and today a national branch of an international company. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete per nom, no "evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" and if the article's creator is correct in saying that it is merely a branch of a larger company, that is actually another for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The parent Phillips-Medisize may be notable, but I'm not seeing much of anything about the subsidiary. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Joshi

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

Fails WP:GNG: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I failed to find anything to support her role in any film listed in the article except Dear vs Bear. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. As they said, not finding anything to back up the claims in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 25 March 2017 (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 21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raria

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

Can't find any source to support if this clan exists. Deproded by the author without any improvements. The article was deleted back in 2014 after the expiration of PROD (see Raraya). GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - weak because I would have recommended redirecting to Rajput or elsewhere if I had found passing mention in reliable sources, but I don't even find that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: I tried per all possible options listed at WP:INDAFD#Main points but can't find anything. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 09:34, 11 March 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-running Tamil Language television series

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

Unreferenced, trivial list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be a worthy list topic (as per WP:SAL), but not the way it is currently presented – e.g. see List of longest-running United States television series, which is ordered by number of season/years, not number of episodes. And, yes – it needs to be sourced... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Renko

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

Non notable actor despite his 30 odd films I could find almost no in depth information about him. He had one starring role in a notable film but all the other roles seem to be secondary or in non-notable films. I think he fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leading role in | many notable films. The fact that he is a actor only in french films but still a leading actor in many pages on en wikipedia (not all are listed). Easily passes WP:NACTOR and also WP:GNG, here are some further sources [31] [32] [33] [34]. These sources include the Hollywood Reporter and British national newspaper The Independent. I know there are more sources so if needs be I can retrieve some of these, although I doubt anyone should make a case for delete. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Initially offered as speedy, speedy has been contested, with comments about the deletion made by Inwind at Talk:Serge Renko. --Dereckson (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose in the Park Literary Festival

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

No indication of notability; cited only to its own website. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to establish notability. The Ottawa Independent Writers website mentions the event but that is hardly surprising. Otherwise I find nothing in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think notability has been established; none of the sources seem to indicate lasting significance; a influence on a wide area, or much in depth coverage. A few (what seem to be) local sources have been offered but largely seem related to or meant to publicize this event. It may become notable in the future, but I don't think it is yet. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VistaPE

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

Definitely fails WP:GNG. This article is also unsourced. DrDevilFX (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a link to the 2010 Winbuilder AfD above, as it included VistaPE as a secondary entry. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: This article became secondarily involved in the 2010 AfD mentioned above. Looking at the discussion and the links, VistaPE does not seem to have risen above a particular project/scripting instance of the tool, without evidence of notability in its own right. A redirect to the WinBuilder article is a possible alternative to outright deletion. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus (Zoltán Deme film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pretty much every relevant policy and guideline. No evidence of notability, no RS, it's not NPOV and it's clearly OR. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 25 March 2017 (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. Article should be considerably revised as well. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels For Wishes

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

Non-profit with no meaningful press coverage other than in connection with the Make-A-Wish Foundation (fails WP:INHERITORG). Notably, the only press coverage not listed in the article appears to be a series of reports alleging that the foundation misled consumers. E.g., [35], which makes me very suspicious about the origins of this article. But even adding those sources would not add up to WP:ORG as once-off reports that a charity is not kosher don't make the charity inherently notable. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if sharply revised' per this gNews search: [36] This "charity" has been exposed as semi-fraudulent, and dumpec by at least one chapter of the Make a Wish Foundation. Certainly we cannot keep it in it's present form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2017 (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. If it were just a matter of WP:N, I would probably call this No Consensus, with a call for some major editing. But, there's enough here to make it doubtful this meets WP:V, which is a much stricter requirement. Anybody who still feels we should have an article about this person is encouraged to start a new version from scratch, in draft space, and make sure to address the concerns here about better sources and making sure everything is verifiable. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KH Kim

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

1. This entire entry is "made up" with no reliable sources for the long family history and personal story that is part of the narrative. No sources are found on the web to corroborate anything biographical that has been written in the entry- the content is not verifiable. 2. Suspicion of "socking" in this entry. The entry may be "self-authored" under different aliases. HangulRover (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs lots of work and I agree that personal biography elements are un-referenced and disproportionately long. However, she is cited multiple times in national magazines (Forbes, Newsweek, Economist) for her studies on creativity.Glendoremus (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you re listing the article. As mentioned before, the entire entry reads like a personal soap opera with ridiculous statements that are not verifiable. The multiple citations are simply quotes from this person mentioned in magazines- there is no "feature article" about her work anywhere except in her personal pages. Furthermore the google scholar citations are erroneous as it lists numerous others KH Kim's who work in the biomedical sciences and have thousands of citations. The KH Kim under consideration only has an h-index of 15 and not the inflated one listed.

The person does not have a titular position at William and Mary, and is an Associate Professor of Educational Foundations- Not Professor of Innovation and Creativity as listed by this page- this can be checked at the William and Mary pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangulRover (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "featured on the cover of Newsweek" story was checked and it contains 3 lines mentioning this person besides a host of numerous other researchers who have also studied the "creativity" problem. Stating her study was featured on the cover of Newsweek is a fabrication, or the very least stretching the actual facts.

The entry states Kim is a descendent of King Gyeongsun (897–978), the last ruler of the kingdom of Silla - there is no evidence of this "royal lineage" anywhere! HangulRover (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry contained numerous fabrications such as royal lineage which was unverifiable; a professorship of creativity which was checked to be an associate professor of eduction position; and numerous other assertions that read like a personal soap opera with no 3rd party sources to verify the trials, tribulations and triumphs of this "luminary" from South Korea. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion. The entry was full of fraudulent claims and should be deleted from WikipediaHangulRover (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)contribs) HangulRover (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only in its trimmed-down state. The article as nominated was heavily promotional. And it's difficult to get an accurate estimate of the citation counts for her works because her Google Scholar profile [37] is larded up with papers by other people with similar names, but the ones that actually list KH Kim in the authors and have something about creativity in the titles are probably hers and have enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The recommendations of David Eppstein were checked in terms of actual papers and citations. There are less than 10 papers that are actually this person's work and the h-index is actually 8 or 9. Also the person does not hold a titular position at William and Mary to warrant a notable listing but is actually an "associate professor of education". By fabricating the significance of her so-called study "featured" in Newsweek- when in fact dozens of others were also "featured" in the actual article, and simply juicing up the article with ridiculous claims pursuing multiple Phds, "royal lineage" and what not, the credibility of this article is called into question. There is suspicion of both socking and ghost auto-biographing this piece for the sake of free publicity. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion.HangulRover (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)contribs)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and scholar searches did not show that they pass WP:SCHOLAR or WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 25 March 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle McLaughlin

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

De-prodded with the false rationale that previous service as Mayor of a city of 100,000 indicates inherent notability. Fails the notability criteria set out at WP:NPOL which states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and which means this article must meet WP:GNG namely having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which this individual has not. All of the sources are effectively useless. They are either hyper-local coverage of the Mayoral election, non-secondary and non-independent sources or a single Fox News Channel source about the Mayor attending a political rally. I would appreciate if anyone arguing in favour of keeping could provide clear evidence of a NPOL or GNG pass AusLondonder (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a preliminary matter, the deprodder was right that this article is not suitable for prod. It's hardly a "false rationale" to believe that an article about someone who was twice elected to be mayor of a city over 100,000--especially in this case, where her election made Richmond the largest city in the country to elect a Green Party member as mayor--deserves the full review of an AfD rather than the summary procedure that WP:Proposed deletion reserves for deletions that are reasonably expected to be "uncontroversial". On the merits of notability, the search string <Gayle McLaughlin Green Mayor> yields hundreds of potential sources, including national coverage not only of the unusual circumstances of her election and re-election, but also of such policies as (a) her unusual proposal to use eminent domain to acquire defaulted mortgages from the lending banks (New York Times [38]; The Nation [39]; Associated Press, reprinted in multiple newspapers around the country [40][41][42][43]; USA Today [44]); (b) her support for worker owned co-ops as a remedy for urban poverty (Los Angeles Times [45]); (c) her advocacy of a tax on soda and sugar (New York Times [46]); and her challenges to the city's dominant employer, Chevron (In These Times [47]; Los Angeles Times [48]; Moyers & Company [49]). I think notability is clear here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that coverage of the circumstances surrounding her election as a local small city Mayor or routine coverage of her work as local small city Mayor such as coverage of her "support for worker owned co-ops" in the local newspaper demonstrate notability of her as an individual. Doing her job as a mayor does not equate to lasting significance. There are approximately 500 larger cities in India. Is everyone who ever served as a mayor in those cities notable for just doing their job? AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the Los Angeles Times is not the "local newspaper" for Richmond, which is part of the San Francisco metropolitan area and almost 400 miles from Los Angeles. The sources I noted above are national media reporting on the unusual activities and policies of the mayor. There is a lot of such coverage. By definiton, that's notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That particular article was published on the "local" section of the Los Angles Times website. It is only a passing mention of McLaughlin anyway, as the subject matter of the article is worked-owned cooperatives. Does it demonstrate notability of Mercedes Burnell, also mentioned in the article? AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If their articles are adequately and reliably sourced, then yes, they are. They certainly wouldn't get an unsourced or minimally sourced inclusion freebie just for existing, but they are notable "for just doing their job" if there's enough reliable sourcing about them doing their job to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the LA Times includes the mention in the local section, shows they think she is a local politician, despite what others may think is and is not local for the LA Times. There is not enough coverage to rise above routine and justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) The subject was an independently elected Mayor of a city well above the usual cutoff for the presumption of notability for mayors. 2) The coverage shown by Arxiloxos indicates nationwide and significant interest in the subject, well above what is usual for a similarly positioned elected official. 3) While other stuff exists, there are multiple mayors of Richmond that have articles. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: Given that would create a situation in which tens of thousands of people gloablly would be entitled to article can you please link me to a discussion or guideline supporting you assertion that a city of 100,000 is "well above the usual cutoff for the presumption of notability for mayors"?

WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD." A couple of AfD's with 50,000 as a threshold have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Green and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard W. Suscha --Enos733 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet the minimum threshold for WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the very nature of what a mayor is and does, the bulk of her coverage is always going to be predominantly local — so the localness or non-localness of the sources is not the controlling factor in and of itself. If she had been a city councillor and not a mayor, the presence or absence of more than just local sourceability would carry a lot more weight — but for mayors the bar to inclusion in WP:POLOUTCOMES is markedly lower than the bar for councillor inclusion, so as long as there's a reasonable volume of sourcing it is not as critically important that the coverage encompass an unusually large geographic range.
To be fair, AusLondoner is drawing from British standards for mayoral notability, where with a handful of exceptions the mayoralty of most places is a rotational "Buggins' turn" position where the most senior person on council who hasn't had their turn yet automatically gets to be "mayor" for a year, and thus has very little direct executive power and very little substantive coverage — but that's not the way it works in most North American cities, where the mayors are directly elected and have considerable power over the direction of city business. And that's the thing I think he's missing: the notability standard for mayors does hinge significantly on the question of whether that city's mayoralty is a directly elected position or a "thanks for coming out" ribbon.
So for a directly elected executive mayor, a population of 100K certainly wouldn't entitle her to keep an unsourced stub — but it is absolutely large enough to get a mayor included in Wikipedia if the article is adequately sourced. 50K, 10K, even 5K is enough if the article is genuinely substantive and well sourced — the population size test actually only comes into play if we're in a position where we have to figure out how much benefit of the doubt to extend to a poorly sourced article on the question of whether better sources are likely to be found or not. It's irrelevant if the article is already well-sourced and substantive, however — even the mayor of a village of just 10 people can get a Wikipedia article if they've been properly shown to clear GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Your take on this article seems to be rather different to your take at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Cohen. AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cohen's notability was stacked on just three citations to the same local newspaper, and unreliable local blogs otherwise, not anywhere near as many citations to a variety of newspapers as has already been shown here. "Local" wasn't the controlling factor there either — it was (a) the fact that the volume of RS coverage being shown wasn't a clear cut GNG pass in the first place, and (b) regardless of locality or non-locality there was only one newspaper involved rather than several, and all of the articles in question were of the WP:ROUTINE variety ("Cohen wins election" on election night, etc.) rather than substantive coverage about stuff she did in the mayor's chair — local coverage of the latter type does count for more than local coverage of the "reporting the results on election night" type does, and the coverage in this article is significantly more than purely local anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ms. McLaughlin has had much coverage in RS, plenty more than is necessary to meet GNG. Her administration's initiatives have been the subject of many reports in regional and national media such as this widely carried story [50]. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NPOL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 17 March 2017 (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. Meets NBOOK, as shown by Lourdes. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Edge

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

Non-notable book. The only sources are reviews on IP Watchdog (a blog); in Automation World (an industry-specific publication); and a passing mention in an otherwise unrelated press release.

This book and its authors Mark Blaxill and Ralph Eckardt have a history of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes; each of their articles, and the article on the book, have been deleted multiple times: two speedies (log) for the book; a speedie (log) and one AFD (here) for Blaxill; and two AFDs (here and again after re-creation here) for Eckardt.

This re-creation a week ago seems to be the latest attempt at WikiPromotion. The article was created by WP:SPA editor GalaxyK1D (talk · contribs), whose sole contribution has been to create this article. It's not clear to me whether this editor is the same individual as Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs), who was responsible for the prior now-deleted articles, or merely their successor. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could find one good review in Strategy+Business.[51] While Harvard Business School's review is trivial and not independent,[52] the review in ipwatchdog.com[53] is quite acceptable. IPwatchdog.com is a hall of fame inductee in the American Bar Association's top 100 blogs, so can't be discredited. These two reviews allow the book to qualify under WP:NBOOK, which requires two reviews only for a book to be considered notable. Additionally, the book is a suggested reading in courses at Stanford University[54], Aston University,[55] Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship[56] etc. This too makes the book qualify under WP:NBOOK, under the university reading criterion. Also, this book is cited multiple times by researchers.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] Lourdes 14:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it has also been reviewed by Financial Executive [65] Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 18 March 2017 (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.