Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 March	12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HipVoice

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT. Written like a company brochure so this also violates WP:PROMOTION. Xaxing (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as I am unable to find substantial coverage of the firm in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya

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

Fails GNG. Has had no sources, and has been tagged as such since January 2012. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the claims were true, it would certainly be notable since it is a secondary school with a pretty large population. That being said, I can't find any non-Wikipedia mirrors that show it exists, which is odd for a school of the size, even in that region. I've been able to find sources for 100 student schools in the tribal areas of Pakistan before, so the lack of sources here worries me. If someone can find sources, please ping me and I'll change my !vote to keep, but otherwise, we have a huge WP:V problem here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gov site: it exists. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per systemic bias concerns raised in the RfC. A secondary school of this size is inevitably notable and there would likely be sources to meet WP:GNG if someone had the language skills and physical proximity to locate them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A secondary school that is at the very least verified to exist. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school may exist, but there are no reliable sources to support this (or any) article content. Sandstein 17:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. That it exists is not sufficient to make it encyclopedic. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of available sources to base content on. The school might have been demonstrated to exist, but that's about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NSCHOOLS and GNG. I am mindful of the systemic bias concerns outlined by the schools RFC, but, ultimately, we are an encyclopedia, not a social justice project. No sources, no article. Even if reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage do exist somewhere, it appears unlikely anyone will be able to locate or translate them, meaning that, for the purposes that matter—neutrality, reliability, thoroughness—they're worth nothing. Rebb ing 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG makes it clear that sources do not have to be available online or written in English. The systemic bias concerns here should weigh heavily. The sources provided demonstrate that GNG would likely be met if someone had the resources to find them. The best argument for deletion here is no original research, but the article can be scrubbed of that, and still meet our notability criteria. Just from a basic glance of the sources provided, this is at least as notable as a 200 person high school in the rural United States that gets kept because the school football team is the biggest news in the town. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that offline, foreign-language sources count for notability. However, notability cannot be met by hypothetical sources: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability," WP:NRVE (emphasis added); the sources listed below are mere passing mentions that do nothing to demonstrate notability. GNG is not written in terms of sources proponents imagine exist because imaginary sources can't be used to write articles. The schools RFC reaffirmed that this holds even for secondary schools: "Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." I made an honest effort to locate usable sources but found nothing; if you believe there is foreign reporting that provides significant coverage, it's on you to show it. That such has not put forward during this discussion suggests that it doesn't exist. Rebb ing 13:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebbing: I've added more coverage. The school has been covered by several newspapers. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as articles on high schools are usually kept provided the schools are verifiable. I'm surprised that the previous commenters couldn't find sources to verify the existence of this school. Page 2, item 110 of this PDF from the website of the Council of Higher Secondary Education of the Indian state of West Bengal lists the school. And this website of the West Bengal Council of Secondary Education classifies the school as a boys' school (which corroborates a claim in the article). This school is also listed in the mid-day meal program sponsored by the Government of India. Lastly, a student of this school is also mentioned in an article on Two Circles (not a very high-quality source, but good enough for verifiability). Having said all this, all unsourced material ought to be removed, and the article should definitely be cleaned up. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article (page, image) on the school in Anandabazar Patrika, a Bengali daily with more than a million circulation. Though the article is in Bengali, parts of it can be translated (disable Adblock for both websites). I'll ask someone at the Bangla Wikipedia for a proper translation. — Stringy Acid (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Bengali article in Zee News' Madhyamik discussing the performance of students from this school and various other schools in their board examinations. This is a large school in a highly populated area, and I'm pretty sure more such articles can be found. (The school's name translates to "বেড়াচাঁপা দেউলিয়া উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়" in Bangla.) — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, As the sources given by Stringy Acid, its a secondary school and its verifiable. Thus it is easily pass GNG. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and per this which clarifies that it is a notable higher secondary school. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is an example of the WP:GEOBIAS present on this project. There is no way a secondary school of this nature in North America would be nominated for deletion. Good sources have now been found through the hard work of Stringy Acid (which clearly should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE). AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there seem to be enough surces for verifiability , and that's al that's really need to justify a high school article. If we are going to delete the truly marginal articles on high schools, there are many worse than this--and if the verifiability is weak, I'll support the deletion. But the consensus that all verifiable HS are notable still holds--and needs to hold, or we will be spending half our afd energy on these articles, when we need to be devoting our efforts to the commercial promotionalism and the paraphrases of web sites that constitute many articles on non-commerical organizations. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 11 April 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 delete - empty page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypreet insan

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

Blank page. Fbdave (talk) 05:06, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of the Faroe Islands

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

This list has only one entry and is therefore useless. A template of the same name has recently also been deleted through TFD. Olidog (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a combined "Airlines of European Dependencies". I tend to agree. A one entry list that so rarely changes isn't likely to do much good. See also List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands. At one point they formed a combined list of two but that's still not obviously useful. The only value I can see in a list for these airlines is to populate List of airlines of the Faroe Islands, which might be helpful to people exploring the airlines of various countries and territories. In that case, though, it might be better to make one page for those smaller places' airlines. The other two existing lists are List of airlines of Guernsey and List of airlines of Svalbard, both two entries long. Mortee (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mortee BobLaRouche (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 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. Any editor may feel free to also create the suggested redirects if desired. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television specials aired in 2017

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

Indiscriminate list of TV specials which aired in the Philippines. Nominated per WP:NOTTVGUIDE Not only is this a barely notable topic WP:LISTCRUFT but it also mostly unsourced Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail for the exact same reasons:

Redirect Much better. Time consuming. But still contributing with proper sources. Per nom. - Supergabbyshoe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - such no related on special television events WP:LISTCRUFT. Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think redirect to 2013 in Philippine television, 2015 in Philippine television, 2016 in Philippine television does reconsidered each year-round, lets merge from their Lists of Philippine television specials aired to (year) in Philippine television. Oripaypaykim (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirecting would be sufficient although I don't know what content would be suitable for merging. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An unfocused list that reads beyond WP:NOTTVGUIDE and basically lists anything on Filipino TV that isn't regularly scheduled as a special. Keep it confined and much more focused in the "2017 in Philippine television" article. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same reason as Supergabbyshoe and Oripaykimkim. - User:Pinespunned (talk) 19:45, 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 Draftify. All participants so far have expressed a willingness for this to be converted into a draft, so we'll go with that rather than another relist. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redrum – A tale of Murder

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM and this appear to be a case of WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be incubated maybe, if Sandhya2012 wanted. I didn't see anything about a release date, so I'm unsure as to when this would be released - or if the filming has commenced or completed. I get the impression that filming may have taken place, but the articles only seem to discuss the controversy surrounding the actress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've tidied the article up a bit but I think it's a borderline case. There has been some coverage about the fact that it's been unable to secure a release because of India/Pakistan tensions (being an Indian film with a Pakistani actress), but not a huge amount. Total Bollywood[1] gives a release date of last Thursday but may or may not be reliable (says 'Wiki' but has a named author; not listed on the relevant project's source list either way). I'll do some more looking. Mortee (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79 and Mortee: I'm open to withdraw my nomination if anyone can provide some sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM or I suggest draftify per WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided on this one. I could maybe see an argument for it, but when push comes to shove I'd prefer that this be incubated in someone's draftspace as I don't really think it's ready at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I think that's right. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time looking for more sources and can't find any. Supposing this isn't released, I don't think it'll warrant an article long-term. Supposing it is released, perhaps soon, presumably it'll get more attention then and we can write an article based on that. If we just delete it we'd lose the work that's gone into it which would make writing that version harder, so moving this to a draft seems like the best call. Mortee (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:18, 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler

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

Fails WP:GNG a coatrack article for his replica property empire. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the meantime the article requires removal of unsourced trivial detail and hagiographic language that undermine credibility. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave modest clean up a shot, to no avail: [2]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, the hagiography gets in the way of serious analysis, but once out of the way (it should be now- I've had a gin at it), the remainder of the article does not withstand scrutiny. Whatever limited notability the village had (and a search suggests it was not as popular as the article indicates), the creator had even less; their are almost no sources apart from us online. Now, of course, they don't have to be online only; but it would be odd for a notable topic not to have some online presence. The article's references do not exist, so they cannot be taken to demonstrate weight. The list of sources at the bottom of the article would be useful, but they are inaccessable to me atm. Perhaps someone who can glance through them can weigh up the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage the article subject would require to pass WP:GNG at the least.

Further- let me re-emphasise, partly encouraged by Thewayweis' call to arms below, that if as has has been mentioned many times there are newspaper articles from the 70s (or whenever), they would go a long way to demonstrating the notability which is required but is still lacking. So, Thewayweis, can I suggest (in the most emphatic manner politely possible!) that instead of attempting a campaign of moral persuasion via massive chunks of text here, your time would be far better spent collating these source articles. You will note, perhaps, that your massive paragaph has been answered, succintly and accurately by Theroadislong in a single line, regardless of how much you wrote. So, get the newspaper references you mentioned, and either insert them into the SLF page as references, or put them on the article talk page, or even bring them here. Title, date, article title, byline, page number would be great- and sufficient. You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias :) and, after all, we have many editors who are local enough that if they want they can probably physically check the newspaper archives at another date. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing sources online, like the other posters have noted above. There's a chance with somebody who was notable in that time, that there's a lot of material offline, but unless somebody can find it it's not doing us any good. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pretty much per the same reasoning as White Arabian Filly above. I have done some minor cleanup of the article just now, removing footnotes that no longer supported anything in the text, removing one newspaper ref that did not mention the title of the paper and so would be untraceable even for somebody with access to offline archives, and just tidying up the refs. Here is the article before my edit, in case somebody wants to look at those now-removed references. The company mentioned in the lede does not have any online footprint that I can find. The Sir David Brand Award for Tourism might be a claim to notability, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to change my !vote on that count. As for the Elizabethan Village, it looks like a place I would like to visit and there's obviously a lot of hard work and dedication behind it - which does not translate into notability, unfortunately. There seems to have been a number of local newspaper articles written about it when it was opened and again around its anniversary, but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. It is mentioned in Armadale, Western Australia which is reasonable but I do not believe that it adds to its creator's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the need to enter this discussion and hopefully put my point across as the author of the article. As a newcomer to wikipedia, I am deeply grateful for all the constructive editing that most contributors have done on the article and I truly don't mind guidance in any sense - I welcome it! Again, as a newcomer, half of the time I am not sure where to go to respond, as there are so many links within links within links to know what is the appropriate option. Nor do I know when suggestions come up on boxes how to fully implement them. Shame wiki cannot allocate a guide to each newcomer if not to make life a tad easier to contribute. The disputed recurring problems, in my humble opinion, seem to be notability and references. The fact is that Stanley Leopold Fowler DID build the Elizabethan Village in Armadale for which there is a plethora of images and documented video footage, he DID win the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism (images of newspaper articles were supplied to wiki permissions), he DID have three attempts to get permission off Dr. Levi Fox (I spoke to Amy Hurst at the Trust who verified his attempts as they are noted in their archives), the Elizabethan Village DID get a plaque commemorating him and the Elizabethan Village as a historic site which he built (the images were sent to wiki permissions and the City of Armadale needs to grant permission for them to be released). What some one personally thinks about the site pales into insignificance with the fact that it is there and standing as a historic site. I might not like the Stonehenge but it is there as a testimony. I personally saw the blueprints at the archives at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford -upon -Avon and spoke to Amy Hurst, Collections Archivist at the Shakespeare's Birthplace Trust, who can verify their gratitude not only for posterity but also for having the only accurate blueprints, drawings of the original buildings, which they can consult to keep the original buildings from decay). The references kindly given by his daughter, Sally-ann Fowler were from newspaper articles from the 70's (I provided images to this effect of the articles) and I have asked wiki permissions ([Ticket#2017012910007647] Stanley Leopold Fowler) if these can be used. The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot be used as permission needs to be sought from the authors of these articles (who are possibly deceased and cannot be tracked, although I have tried). When the article was initially proposed for deletion this issue, I thought was dealt with but it seems to have reared it's ugly head three times. I hoped that dealing with it once was enough!

The issue of collaboration as I see it, especially with the last deletion proposal, was that there was no collaboration nor constructive guidance by the editor who deleted it. Albeit, I must apologize for thinking it was Theroadislong although he/she cited COI. I was fascinated by the man who actually created something tangible for prosperity, which is officially deemed a historic site, and there is nothing concrete said about him. Is he to fall into obscurity because of referencing? If my style of writing was the issue that can be changed, but no one even said it was to me for me to correct it, although it was called a 'hagiography'. Yes there are guidelines on wiki, but those seem to also be at the whim of individual interpretation. I question how many times can the same article be up for deletion? Going back to the beginning, I cannot stress how grateful I am for the constructive editors who have truly contributed, helped and guided this newcomer...so on a positive...there is always hope! Thewayweis (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is doubting the "truth" of what you say but Wikipedia only summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen your encouraging post imperatrix mundi and yes I take on board the constructive suggestion to gather the arms, clear the field and direct the energy into collating all the information I have to support Leo Fowler. Thank you...may be that's all I needed :) Thewayweis (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list...I uploaded the images originally in wiki commons under Stanley Leopold Fowler as I don't yet know what SLF page is :( These articles show different aspects of the making of the Elizabethan Village and are all about Mr Leo Fowler

Birmingham Post 15th July 1977 - Much Ado for the Outback Bard by Andrew Moncur

Daily News 15th September 1977 -"Unveiled-A piece of Olde England" -

Mr Leo Fowler receiving the Sir David Brand Award - unmarked newspaper but an article non the less -

The Sunday Independent - Elizabethan Add -

The next image is from an article announcing Mary Arden's but unfortunately unmarked and the date is for the purpose of uploading the article

Tudor Village Re-created by Dennis Hancock - unmarked newspaper have given a date for purpose of upload

Woman's Day 28.11.1977 - His 'fair house in another's land' by Hugh Schmitt

Woman's Day cover Image 28.11.1977 -

The Examiner pg 24, 12.02.2009 -"A piece of Shakespearean History up for sale"

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07 (not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Leo Fowler selling his property The Round Island https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sale_of_Round_Island_Evening_Echo,_Bournemouth_newspaper_article_1st_July_-_unmarked_year_(1).jpg

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07.(not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Image of the island for sale

File:Sale of Round Island, Evening Echo Bournemouth newspaper article 1st July unmarked year (2).jpg

Image of The Round Island up for Sale

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 17.10.2009 Image of plaque at the Elizabethan Village from the City of Armadale commemorating Leo Fowler and acknowledging his Sir David Brand Award handed over by the Mayor Linton Reynolds

The Leo Fowler Function Center image - originally it was The William Shakespeare Function Center but changed to commemorate Leo Fowler on 17.10.2009

Poster inviting people to join in the celebrations for Shakespeare's birthday at the Elizabethan Village

youtube footage of the Elizabethan Village ...I wasn't sure if these are valid for you but there are many more footages and photographs that can support the whole journey. On Sall-ann Fowler' s you tube channel you can find footage of Bricklehampton Hall and Round Island as well as the imported antiques and the Elizabethan village.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5rLNGlj0M&feature=youtu.be - this is just one of the documented footages but there are many more.

There are more snippets in articles I can post if you wish but they are unmarked so not sure of the actual newspaper. I had to reload them on and upload them to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stanley_Leopold_Fowler as this is as far as my wiki knowledge extends.

Hopefully, these uploads for you will be enough reference for Stanley Leopold Fowler to stay on wiki as a notable human being. There are also two books published by Sally-ann Fowler with ISBN numbers, that I listed originally, but was told being that they were self-published it doesn't count :( although you can buy them on amazon, lulu and i think Barns and Noble.

Thewayweis (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article about the Round Island sale hasn't comeup. It was published in Evening Echo, Bournemouth "Another Island up for sale" speaks of Leo Fowler being the owner of the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayweis (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with redirect, to Armadale,_Western_Australia#Natural_and_Cultural_Attractions, or perhaps create article at Elizabethan Village and redirect there. There clearly needs to be a link of some sort from this man's name, even if not a standalone article. PamD 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create article Elizabethan Village, and redirect SLF to it. A search on Google Books under " "Elizabethan village" Armadale" suggests it was a regular tourist attraction in its day, and someone with access to old Australian tourist guidebooks would find much more coverage. The impressive collection of press cuttings can be used as references, before someone deletes them all as copyvio. It gets a mention by Howard Jacobson, a mention in a novel, etc. A contemporary tourist attraction with comparable listings would be likely to have an article. The man is probably not notable, but his creation seems to be. Another useful current ref here. PamD 10:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a mention in the Telegraph here. PamD 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as the plaque shows, it was the Village, not the man, which was awarded the "David Brand Award for Tourism", which the David Brand article confirms to have been the former name (dates a bit iffy) of the now WA Tourism Awards (though their website has no sense of heritage and doesn't include a list of former winners!). PamD 11:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address new sources and move them for viewing somewhere off-wiki (we do not have the copyright permissions to host these uploads)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article needs help referring to Thewayweis Jacob20162016 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that Elizabethan Village is a more suitable focus for an article than Fowler himself. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, a lot of the content could be reused and so it would be good if it could be userfied to give either Thewayweis or someone else the chance to do so. – Joe (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I would be content for the article to be about Elizabethan Village instead, rather than the man behind it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it would be welcome, I'm happy to help with the development of an article about the Elizabethan Village if that's the outcome (that seems to be the way this is going) Mortee (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the willingness to tidy whatever needs tiding but I have to say that the discussion above has horrified me. You are willing to accept the Elizabethan Village but not accept the creator!!!!! Astonishing !!!! It's like acknowledging the works of Shakespeare but not acknowledging the writer. The village is notable but not the creator....Did the village create itself. At the end of the day, did the village literally receive the award into it's hands or was it handed into the hands of its owner, creator and builder Leo Fowler. Splitting hairs comes to mind. The plaque issued in 2009 states "City of Armadale - Historic Site - Elizabethan Village - Brought to reality by the vision and hard work of retired British Engineer, Leo Fowler, Anne Hathaway's Cottage, Shakespeare's Birthplace and Cobwebs Restaurant accurate replicas of the original buildings on Stratford-On-Avon.".

I truly don't know what to say to the above! On the subject of copywright, all the above was given with the permission of Leo's daughter Sally-ann Fowler, and as Imperatrix Mundi said "You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias " I have given everything that you have asked of me and still,  it seems, that someone, something wants to discredit the man who created  and self-financed the village.

Thewayweis (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention the brilliant story of the bricks, window frames and tiles, together with all the antiques swimming across the oceans to land on the Western Australian shores and gather together, under the moonlight, reaching a consensus of who is going to be assembled with whom, of course with the help of all the reusable jarra. And that's how they built the Elizabethan Village. Thewayweis (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no one here is trying to discredit Stanley, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises dispassionately what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. If there are insufficient sources about him, as opposed to the Elizabethan village then we can't have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewayweis, is your view that there should be articles about both the village and the creator? My impression from the discussion was that other editors think that because he's mostly notable for the village, we can cover the details about him in an article about that and don't need both. Perhaps we should write the village article and then see if you still think there are details that that need to be presented on a page of their own. Mortee (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my response to Theroadislong Technically, you ARE discrediting him as a creator of the village and just accepting the creation. Quoting the need for "reliable" sources even after the knowledge of the era we are talking about is beyond comprehension. I have been saying repeatedly, to no avail, since I have written the article that Leo and the Village happened in the 1970's which is a very, very different information era than the one we know these days. I have complied to the requests above and posted on here images to that effect. Leo is the village, the village wouldn't exist without Leo! There is a history room named after him "Leo Fowler Function Room". This process is equal to Kafka's "Trial" as it seems an article can be up for deletion three times at the whim of individual likes or dislikes. Please delete all wiki articles of people who have ever created anything and just keep the creations. What more do you want ...it was in the 70's!!!!!!!! Forgive me,but the communications that are building with yourself, as the nominator for deletion, seem to have become a personal mission, to what extent, is unclear to me.. I accept constructive ways forward but refuse ones that are making no sense.... it appears the road is truly long!!!!!

Secondly, my response to Mortee - yes an article should be for both on wiki...As I said if you accept one (the creation) and discredit the other (the creator) by this line of suggestion you should remove many other names from wikipedia and just retain the creation. This whole journey has become a non constructive farce.... Thewayweis (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have a look at WP:ITSA and WP:NRV to get a picture of the arguments being used. Shakespeare is notable because there are sources about him - not because he wrote the plays; they were a conduit to provide those sources. It appears that the village is notable, but the creator does not necessarily inherit the notability of the village, notability is not inherited. Only sources can establish this. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Noize

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

Non-notable musician, fails notability for music, lots of peacock words - TheMagnificentist 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSICBIO criteria #1 is met by these three sources: all music bio, The Guardian article and CMJ New Music Monthly. Gab4gab (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment User User:Imalawyer has been blocked as a sock. Jacona (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article just passes WP:N. However, it does need to be rewritten because of the "peacock words." Imalawyer (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above user User:Imalawyer has been confirmed as a Sock puppet of User:Sdc3000.Jacona (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable musician. In addition to meeting criteria 1, also meets criteria 2. Not necessarily well known in the English-speaking world.Synchronism (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His album Power made #24 on the Belgian Album Chart source. The coverage he's received is also substantial. We'd be endorsing a cultural bias to remove this, it says a lot that he's got articles on so many other Wikipedia languages. KaisaL (talk) 19:10, 23 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) 00:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the Third Bell

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

Fails WP:NFILM: I can't see If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject expect this and this which looks like a interview session with the director and a copy of each other. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the Asian Age source was a review. It looks like with that and the other sources, it could just squeak by NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: I believe in your judgment but I'm a bit uncomfortable using Deccan Herald sources because of the author's linkedin profile. Both sources were published by the same author couple of months before the release of the film which trigging toward the promotional use and I can't see any source published post release except Asian Age you mentioned above. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only encyclopedically relevant prose in the article is "The Asian Age reviewed the movie, praising its two leads while also stating that it needed a better supporting cast." The rest is catalog-like listing of cast, release, etc. No value to the project at this time. This info can be found in the IMDB and an encyclopedia article is not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:47, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kisses Delavin

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

Reality show contestant. Not notable per WP:Notablity and fails to meet WP:BIO –Angelo 6397 ^{T A L K!} 13:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:16, 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 redirect to Shenzhou program. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhou 12

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

This seems to be WP:CRYSTALBALL. The only source seems to contain speculations and statements. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources, nor any reliable sources to even verify the information present. In addition, the Chinese wikipedia doesn't seem to have this article as well zh:神舟十二号. I would prefer to delete this article as it is WP:TOOSOON at this time. No prejudice to recreation, once reliable sources actually emerge. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shenzhou program (with no prejudice against deletion either). WP:CRYSTAL is the main reason why this wouldn't have standalone notability in addition to lack of a sources due to being a future event. The coverage on the Shenzhou program page is more than enough for a future event for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content is not useful and speculation. I would say go ahead and delete it and perhaps salt it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD-R to Shenzhou program § Future missions for now, which has some content about this there. Also a valid search term. This has received some coverage, but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 14 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ImpediMed

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

Not seeing enough independent sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked at all of the eight cited references. Six of them are not independent sources (five sources on Impedimed's own web site and a press release). Another one is a "Media release" from the Australian stock exchange announcing a commercial deal, and the other is on a pay for view site and I haven't seen it, but judging from its title ( "ImpediMed unveils its game changer: Sozo") it is just an announcement of a product launch. The earliest pages of hits on a Google search for Impedimed are full of things such as Impedimed's own web site, the Wikipedia article, Twitter, LinkedIn, a report of a financial deal, Facebook, PR Newswire, pages of statistics about ImpediMed's financial performance, and so on. Nothing that begins to indicate notability in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per analysis by User:JamesBWatson. I had a look at the source in The Australian mentioned as inaccessible above, and it primarily revolved around a product called "Sozo" and only mentioned the company briefly. Sozo may be notable, but I don't think that ImpediMed is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 31 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 reason given for keeping is that an editor thinks it "seems notable enough" without any indication why: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medibio

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

Not seeing sufficient independent sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me, just needs some improvements. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references are either from Medibio itself (and therefore not independent), or routine business news stuff that may or may not just be reheated press releases. The only one I'd consider to be from a decent source is the Hans Stampfer article, which does appear to be a high quality peer reviewed article, but it has the tiny drawback of not mentioning the company. I do not see how Medibio meets WP:CORP or WP:N at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 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 Keep. Not huge evidence of notability, but I think it just makes it, and anyway the only possible alternative would be "no consensus", which would lead to the same end result. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love for the Elderly

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

promotional article for very local organization. The Glamour and USA Today articles is just mention in a general article--Glamour 1 of 31, USAToday, 1 of 10. Huff Post is worthless for notability. That leaves only local sources for a local organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With (claimed) volunteers in 56 countries, the organization may not be that local, but even if it were - being featured on national TV (Rede Record in Brazil [3] and an interview with Harry Connick Jr in the US), in addition to cover story on American Profile [4] and regional coverage, are sufficient per WP:ORG. As for style and content, it truly needs some work, but that's nothing irreparable. -- IsaacSt (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love for the Elderly has been on international television like Rede Record and regional coverage as well which abides by WP:ORG. It also operates globally to impact senior-aged citizens. --Mayamarks (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 27 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 brief, consensus was that nothing had changed since last, recent, AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Jen-kun

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

Lack of sources, non-notable person per Notable persons criteria, orphan UserDe (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article was on AFD just a month ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fu Ren-Kun Timmyshin (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in agreement with Timmyshin. Notability was established in previous AfD. The article needs to be improved, and there is a long bibliography in the history that some scholarly person could sort through. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:56, 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 Speedy delete per the request of the author. This does not preclude another article about the subject. Hut 8.5 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ronald Richards

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

A minor functionary, there are no substantial sources about him. Awarded the OBE, but my last survey showed that a large proportion even of current OBE awardees are not covered on Wikipedia. It's mainly awarded for quiet work in the background. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian Dictionary of National Biography entry covers WP:ANYBIO. Mortee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've blanked this and listed it at WP:CP for the blatant copy-pasting from the Australian Dictionary of National Biography page – whole sentences lifted verbatim – to be dealt with. It's probably eligible as a G12, as there's only one substantive contributor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See listing at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2017_March_4 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:02, 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 04:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication here of anything that makes this person a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article: he was a policeman and then deputy director of a (national) government department, but what did he achieve, do or say that anyone would want to read about? WP:ANYBIO is indeed satisfied by his inclusion in the Australian Dictionary of National Biography, but that criterion is quite specific that, while "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the […] standards", "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". It's my understanding – open to correction – that an OBE is a fairly mundane honour routinely dished out to civil servants inter alia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: - some quotes from the ADNB entry that might be relevant below. I'd say these are enough to warrant an article (as the ADNB clearly agreed). It includes a bibliography, too, so it should be possible to incorporate those sources.

"... deputy director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation..." (comparable to the FBI, according to our article)

"... sent to London to work with Military Intelligence, Section 5..." (MI5)

"... set in train the defection of Vladimir Petrov..."

"... served as chairman of the counter-subversion expert study group of SEATO..."

Mortee (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against the creation of a new article on the same topic. ADB is usually a pretty good indicator that someone is notable and that multiple sources exist on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Why delete first rather than rewriting now? I've been holding off editing because of the wording of the copyright template, waiting for that claim to receive attention, but if we agree that there should be an article about this person, shouldn't we rewrite this article rather than asking an administrator to delete it first? Mortee (talk) 17:35, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin in Veil

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

Almost-notable band but not quite meeting any WP:BAND criteria for inclusion as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND criteria #4: Band has received coverage of their tours, mostly in the local language of the country (http://www.sanctuary.cz/12730-report-masquerade-virgin-veil-ve-vsetine, http://www.rumba.fi/live/eat-pussy-not-lamb-pitkaperjantai-raskaamman-livemusiikin-parissa-dubrovnikissa/, http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php/3290-death-rock-herbst-neue-alben-von-masquerade-und-virgin-in-veil-hier-komplett-anh http://www.cvltnation.com/cvlt-nation-interviews-virgin-veil/ etc.)
Radio plays on France's "Attitude FM 98.3fm": http://www.attitudefm.com/podcast/frontiere-rock-speciale-deathrock-du-20-09-2016/ (Playlist: https://www.facebook.com/ReadershipHostile/posts/1599960836975749)
WP:BAND criteria #5: Band is signed on Danse Macabre Records, a serious independant label with 20 years of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Cannot verify criterion 4, because it is not clear whether those sources are reliable or independent. Two of them appear to be blogs, one is just a directory listing, and one is an interview; none of those constitute the type of coverage we need.
FAILS criterion 5, because they have not released 2 albums under any notable label.
It isn't sufficient just to have radio plays; see criterion 11. They need to be played in rotation nationally. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right about #5, apolgies. Found this for #4 ( http://imgur.com/a/RyyZm ) a feature of the band in nationally released magazine Sonic Seducer from Germany. Contains references about their tours and releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the article sources are reliable. None of the hits from google news are reliable sources. Other search tools come up empty. Delete. Tapered (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Band in nationally released magazine Sonic Seducer from Germany, article contains references about their tours and releases. ( Hoog, Karin. Sonic Seducer, November 2016, p108. Scan: http://imgur.com/a/RyyZm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 10:24, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tadhg Kelly

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

Unreferenced BLP that doesn't establish notability JDDJS (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find sources for the gamer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Calloway

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

Article does not establish notability and the only source is twitter, which isn't very notable JDDJS (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's an actor in a handful of popular TV shows and the article links to his IMDb profile, which lists several notable TV shows, per WP:ENT — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has had various minor parts, and most notably was the Nickelodeon show when he was around 10-14 years old. Almost no coverage found of his career. Not sufficient. MB 05:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough of his roles have been substantial.Also, IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability.Cllgbksr (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 1 April 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. WP:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mccall (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable individual lacking significant, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:26, 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. Sandstein 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostory (video game)

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

Unnotable, most of the sources aren't RS (company's own FB, twitter, steam etc, not RS) Google news returns nothing of usefulness. L3X1 (distant write) 03:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, advert. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources would we need to add in order for this to be classified as "notable"? (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What are the major game-reviewing websites? Have they reviewed this game, or are they going to do so? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any reviews for the game, though I don't know if anyone has any plans to review it. If we were to delete the page now, would it be possible to bring it back once there are sources and such? Because if we could do that, it may be the best route for now. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Chocolatejr9: That is always an option. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the WP:VG/RS search pulls up nothing, indicating a lack of notability in third party reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:04, 2 April 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 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kenyon (musician)

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

Found no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a source that was in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion, from The Seattle Times. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Northamerica1000: That source actually establishes the notability of "Song of the New Earth", not the musician, per WP:NOTINHERITED. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MUSICBIO, GNG, lack of RS. Shamanistic music in his psychotic healings? Get dat out of here! L3X1 (distant write) 23:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass our guidelines either as a musician or an author. Youtube and the like are absolutely NOT reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 April 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 List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. A narrow/literal reading of the discussion would indicate deleting, but the redirect resets things back to how they were after the previous AfD, which seems like the right thing to do. I'm going to stop short of protecting the page, but @BugMenn: you are cautioned to not make edits contrary to previously developed consensus without gaining support via the appropriate talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mount Druitt

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

Was redirected as a result of a prior AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt. Editor continues to ignore the consensus of that prior discussion. Please delete and salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been the outcome during the previous AFD discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be eligible for a G4 Speedy (recreation of deleted article), but the editor (User:BugMenn) did add the "Incidents" section, so it's a bigger article. So IMO it's OK to reconsider it. One problem is, the "Incidents" section is just a grab-bag of police reports -- it's not like any encyclopedia-worthy stuff happened there. The editor has recreated the the deleted article, and just now deleted the AfD notice from the top of the article, which is not the kind of behavior we want to see -- or reward. I don't think User:BugMenn is promoting the entity. If he was he wouldn't have written the "Incidents" section. He just likes shopping mall articles. If anything, the article as it stands now kind of deprecates the mall, what with all the police-blotter info and all.

I don't care about shopping malls, but the existence of the article doesn't bother me. The previous AfD did have a couple of Keep votes, from editors pointing out that it would leave {{Westfield Australia}} with a single red link (or black link anyway, if the template is edited) and that seems unwarranted and would look a bit odd. Here's the template:

This makes sense. If editors want to document the activities of Westfield Australia (an apparently notable entitity) to this level of detail, I don't see how that's harmful. If we don't want this, then maybe we should look at all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} and nominate then en masse, rather than just picking off one?

On the other hand, the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Even the new material about the big brawl just mentions the mall in passing. So a delete vote on that basis would be defensible. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt fails WP:GNG. The incidents section is now bigger than the rest of the article. So WP:UNDUE. But these incidents don't even establish notability of the centre. The editor that has tried to defy consensus also has preciously used socks in AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is concerning that the editor in question didn't get his way Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Westfield_Mount_Druitt. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after thinking it over, and looking at the other links in {{Westfield Australia}}. It seems illogical to focus on one link in {{Westfield Australia}} and say "let's delete just that one", because all the articles are basically similar. If someone wants to bring up all the articles {{Westfield Australia}} for consideration for deletion, that'd be different. But that'd be heavier lifting, and I'd probably oppose that.

Sure, the creator of the article is not acting great, but we don't delete otherwise acceptable articles to punish editors (except in the case of banned editors), that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the merits of the article in this AFD and its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. AFDs are not a discussion related to the behaviour of the creator. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know; it was user LibStar who brought it up. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you've said previously that this article does not seem to meet WP:GNG yet now you say keep. Secondly you've used an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second G in GNG stands for "Guideline". It doesn't meet the GNG and that's a data point; it's not the end of the discussion. Let me turn the question around. The proposition is this: "There are 35 links in {{Westfield Australia}}. Many of them [maybe all, I didn't check them all] are to articles substantially similar to this one. Yet this one and only this one should be singled out to be deleted, because ___________." Well, what goes in the blank?

What we need here is a bundled deletion nomination for all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} (unless there are a few that, for some reason should be excluded -- can't imagine what it would be, a mall is a mall, but maybe). WP:MULTIAFD gives step-by-step instructions on how to do this. Let's do that, and fine. You probably won't get my vote, but that's just me, and maybe you'll be able to clear out all 35 or so articles at once. Until then, it makes no sense to make a scattershot approach to this group of articles. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of the larger Westfields are notable but many of the smaller aren't. You still are using a flawed WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There is absolutely no need for multiple nominations and this cannot be used to argue a keep case. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the WP:ALLORNOTHING. I read WP:ALLORNOTHING and I understand [[WP:ALLORNOTHING, I just don't agree with it. It's an essay, just somebody's opinion, and IMO it's pretty silly because it says "Keep, because if you delete this you will have to delete other articles in this class [if you're going to be logical and consistent]" is a bad argument, when actually it's a very reasonable argument, if deleting the other articles in the class doesn't look like a good idea. What WP:ALLORNOTHING says, in essence, is "If you have a class of very similar articles, deleting some of them and keeping others, at random, is a good way to make an encyclopedia". And that's silly.

So what's your cutoff? Westfield Mount Druitt is 60,088 square meters with 240 stores. Westfield Belconnen is 94,718 square meters with 287 stores. Is Westfield Belconnen "in" and Westfield Mount Druitt "out", then? Westfield Woden is 62,000 square meters and 260 stores. Does that extra 1,912 square feet and 20 stores seal the deal for Westfield Woden? A lot of these malls are larger, but a lot of them are in the 60,000+ square meter range. Westfield Mount Druitt is in that smaller group.

So, I mean, I'm asking. Maybe there should be a 70,000 square meter cutoff, or something. I note Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) exists (it didn't pass though). I also see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, which just shows that there are Wikipedians who are interested in this subject and willing to work on it. I'd leave 'em alone and let 'em'; they're not going after your articles. Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Keep I know I've done something bad, but I will work on the article when on the draft AFC and submit when it meets th WP:GNG standard. Same thing happened with the Marrickville Metro article which was deleted in December. BugMenn (talk) 14:40 5 March 2017 (UTC)

you need to accept outcomes of deletion discussions not try to circumvent processes and recreate deleted articles without consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in previous AfD discussion and per LibStar above.Charles (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:35, 11 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, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or "Redirect" is okay too), obviously, to List of Westfield shopping centres in Australia. I say "obviously" because the list-article exists and can easily be expanded with some content on this mall and all others. Redirect or merge are good alternatives to outright deletion, in part because they leave behind the edit history allowing for re-establishment of the article if/when there is _substantial_ new content available. Just because the list-article and the navigation template exist and have barely any content besides the bare list, doesn't mean that content should not be developed at the list article. At this point there is not substantial content in this article (of the "incidents" only the first one possibly merits any mention at all), and if this mall is covered in the list-article there would be no need to split it out to a separate article. Any editor interested in reconsidering the other mall articles can and should edit at the main list-article first, making a table there probably, and proceed to implement mergers/redirects as they see fit and/or with merger proposals posted at the corresponding articles. The navigation template can/should be updated to show a blacklink (i.e. no bluelink, no redlink) for the Westfield Mount Druitt mall and any others merged to the main article. (I think that is mildly better than showing a bluelink which suggests to the reader that there will be a separate article about it, but which brings the reader to a row in the list-article.)

I think this is a sensible compromise in this case, and that the option to merge to a list-article is too often overlooked in general at AFD. :) --do ncr am 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see this recommendation, except with "Redirect" rather than "Merge", was the outcome of the previous AFD. Perhaps the problem then was that nothing was merged, i.e. the entire content was effectively deleted by the redirect, and there was no way forward apparent to the contributor(s). What is needed is for a real merger to be done, with the target list-article at least partially transformed into a real list-article with content and inline citations to sources, from its current state (effectively a navigation template, merely listing malls while providing no content, sourced or unsourced, about them). One could start by developing a table row or two about some of the most notable malls, drawing on their articles. Then make a smaller row about this mall which seems not to be individually notable but which can exist as a list-item (for which no absolute law on notability applies; list-item notability can be defined by local consensus at any list-article). The last AFD outcome and/or its implementation was too harsh in effect. --do ncr am 22:42, 20 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. WP:NOQUORUM soft delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (Best You Ever Had)

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

Published sources are not discussing this song in depth. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete; the only choice here is between keep and merge, with people being about evenly divided on that. Since merging is fundamentally a content decision which doesn't require admin interaction, if people still think a merge/redirect is in order, that discussion can continue on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Albania)

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

Was a redirect, but you have an editor who insists on reverting to a virtually uncited article, which shows no independence from Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa), which is itself a poorly cited article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The channel does show independence from EMEA, as I've stated before, the channel besides English programs with Alb subtitles shows Albanian dubbings as well (sample 1; sample 2; sample 3), it also shows its own bumpers and promos (sample). These are enough evidences to prove that the channel exists, I mean I am looking at it right now in my TV which has Digitalb. The launching evidence is also listed there in the references. I really don't understand all this disagreement. Whoamiwilli (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What a coincidence that after reverting my edits to redirect the article to the EMEA variant, the "official" YouTube account for the Albanian variant of the channel was created on the same day. This is no real reference. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've explained this to you before on your talk page. I have asked them why did they close their previous YT channel and they explained it. I still have the message on Facebook, let me know if you want to see it. Also let's not forget about the first sample which is an actual (raw) footage of this channel in Albanian. Whoamiwilli (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2017 (CET)

Keep and expand Ngrica (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa) as a dedicated subfeed managed by both Digitalb and The Walt Disney Company Europe. If I'm not proven wrong, I believe this Albanian variant has the same schedule like the EMEA feed, just with a partial territorial disconnection from the main variant to provide Albanian audio and subtitle language tracks from Digitalb. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa) Albania may not be in the EU yet (they are a good candidate) but they are in Europe and as Bankster1. Some of the more major countries have their own, like France and Spain, but the other smaller ones, like this one, all get redirected. - Pmedema (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very curious to know why this EMEA article's name was changed from Disney Channel (Southern Africa) to Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa). Is there any source that proves this? Ngrica (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are different sources proving this, but this can summarise it. Disney Channel "Southern Africa" was in fact the Middle Eastern version of the network that Disney launched in 1997. It was managed by the Southeast Asian team (Singapore) until December 2004, when it became part of the Euro team managed from London. As it was heavily linked to the Scandinavian feed in promos and channel's schedule beginning in 2005, it began to be distributed as a Pan-European feed, and was launched in South Africa on September 25, 2006 (that's why some people over there mistakenly think there's an actual African feed, hence the former name of this article). Then it was launched on Poland, Turkey and Greece with their respective audio tracks for each country, but the first two finally got their own localised channels and the latter one is stick to this EMEA feed with a Greek audio track. During the mid 2000s up until 2010, this variant of the Disney Channel started to be carried on ex-Yugoslav TV operators (including Albania) with an Serbo-Croatian subtitle track enabled for the whole region. In 2009, the EMEA feed adopts the CEE-based promos, unlinking itself from the Nordic feed due to the rebrands from Jetix to Disney Channel in those regions. The channel still carries an Arabic audio track available only for animated series, and has recently launched an HD simulcast of that channel (with Arabic subtitles available for live-action shows, not present in the SD feed). Moreover, the variant used to show the KSA timezone onscreen while the narrator on the English track said the CET airings of the show. Currently, the channel broadcasts in English, Arabic, Greek with audiotracks available and in Serbo-Croatian with an subtrack available as well, needless to say that an HD simulcast is available exclusively for OSN in the Arab World. --Bankster (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But didn't you say above that this variant has also Albanian audio and sub tracks? You didn't include this here when you were counting the languages that are available. Also I found this sentence quite odd in the EMEA article: "broadcasting in the Balkans, Greece, the Middle East and Africa." Greece is also in the Balkans lol Ngrica (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming it had one, because there are no references about this feed having an additional Albanian audio/subtrack (on its main feed or via regional disconnection), just recordings on YouTube provided by @Whoamiwilli:. And also, I listed Greece as a separate region from the Balkans because it has its own audio/subs track and has minimal disconnection from the main feed when it comes solely to ads (provided by NOVA as far as I'm concerned), in contrast with the Adriatic countries that receive the channel in English with Serbo-Croatian subs with advertisement provided by local TV operators (which can interrupt broadcasting). --Bankster (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I struggled as to whether we should keep or merge this article. Bankster won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the sources that I saw, I could clearly see that this version of Disney Channel is legit, with audio/subs and ads in Albanian. - IEstiv03 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources fail under WP:VIDEOLINK for copyright violations. By the way, your vote may be questionable due to the fact your account was created nearly three weeks ago and your poorly involvement in Wikipedia in terms of contributions, which implies that this account falls in WP:MTPPT and WP:SPU. --Bankster (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your account is "falling" under WP:WL and WP:MOREX. - IEstiv03 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not, actually. It's not proven in my statements nor comments anywhere in this request for deletion. Instead, you're demonstrating yourself an impudent attitude towards an user who does not share your point of you about the deletion of this article, making nonsense claims not supported by any consistent argument. It is a matter of fact that users involved in a voting of any matter in Wikipedia must have a considerable number of contributions and length in the project to be considerate as an valid stand, and you keep ignoring it. (WP:DR) --Bankster (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting: "There are no vested contributors. No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers." I have just as right as you to vote here.- IEstiv03 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yup, you're right (it applied on the Spanish Wikipedia since I mostly contribute on there, so I assumed the English Wiki would apply that too). Nonetheless, you're not giving any argument or opinion about this matter in order to your vote be counted as valid by admins or bureaucrats, just a vague, redundant acceptance of an already debunked stand on this deletion request. --Bankster (talk) 20:07, 1 April 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Laughter

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

Would have prodded, but it's already been returned to this state from a redirect. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray Toro as the album itself doesn't appear to be notable currently as per WP:NMUSIC. PriceDL (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable musician releases first solo album, and the media have written about it.

So let's keep this album article, and move some of these references into it. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kellymoat (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning behind this vote? Just putting delete is not exactly a compelling argument. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops. For some reason this didn't make it to my watchlist. I didn't know there were updates.

Truth be told - WP simply has too much non-sense. WP is not free advertising for Hollywood. Let them pay for their own web domains if they want to advertise every single album. There is nothing in the article, or the references posted above (but they aren't posted in the article) that make this notable. It is, very simply, an album by an ex-singer of a D-list band.

The sources above do provide a weak indication that this album has received at least some coverage from outside sources. It may not be enough to keep the article around, but at least it is a sign of something. Also, your opinion about "WP simply has too much non-sense" is not relevant to this discussion. The discussion should be kept on notability as achieved through sourcing or WP:NMUSIC. I can understand the argument to redirect/delete this if you believe the above sources do not indicate enough coverage (as I am on the fence about it as well and opted for a "weak keep"). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if it passed the smell test, no one would even be questioning it. So, outside of the obvious, the fact that we are giving free advertising to songs that are considered "filler" is something that we (perhaps on a larger venue than this particular page) need to address. Why is this guy notable outside of his old band, and why are we giving any attention to the album. His own website doesn't even devote as much attention to it as we have. He doesn't have to, he has us to do it for him. Kellymoat (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except commentators on here are providing sources that establish at least some sense of notability for this subject. Your issues with this site providing "free advertising" is not relevant to this discussion. As I said before, this discussion should focus on whether or not there are enough sources to pinpoint whether or not this has received significant coverage from outside, third-party resources. Anyway, I will not clog up this AfD anymore with further discussion about this as we just have a difference of opinion, and I respect your viewpoint on this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided by Binksternet. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray Toro. Per nom, fails WP:NMUSIC; the first release of a somewhat notable musician, yet the album itself is not notable. Sekyaw (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Binksternet. The sources provide in-depth coverage and analysis of the album. Here is a quote from the Alternative Press article:
The scope of the album is remarkably diverse, thereby pretty much destroying any preconceived notion of what people may expect from Toro. While not a “concept album” per se, Laughter is loosely framed around the story of an older man visiting his childhood home and hearing a familiar melody coming from the house. He follows the sound and discovers a box of things the man’s father left behind that sparks memories of his life and the lessons he learned. Musically, there are a few moments where Toro throws down sweet six-stringed shred, but Remember The Laughter really focuses on his songwriting skills, from the pastoral prog rock of the title track to new-wave energy bursts (“Isn’t That Something,” “Take The World”) to blues rock jams that would sound great on a playlist between the Rolling Stones and the Fabulous Thunderbirds. It’s ambitious, alluring and all Ray.
This provides substantial analysis about the album's genres.
Here is a quote from a The Record article:
The start of the album ponders around light guitar melodies and very upbeat Toro vocals. ‘Isn’t That Something’ screams the most ‘single worthy’ track on the album and for an extra touch, has a nifty little Toro guitar solo that might give My Chemical Romance fans of old something to reminisce at. By the time you reach the second interlude ‘Ascent’, there’s a pattern starting to emerge, one of a life being told in single memories separated by interludes throughout the album. One of the later interludes ‘Eruption’ depicts a rather dark image of violence, possibly including someone close to the character, as sirens can be heard behind an emergency services call.
‘The Great Beyond’ fits seamlessly with Toro’s voice, slightly pained but still melodically full of life. Speaking of full of life, ‘Hope For The World’ starting off with the lyrics; “turn off the sound of war and hate.” The track is filled with lovingly wrote lyrics and something Toro could be proud to leave embedded in the album. The six minute long title track is slow to build up, but hits its peak four minutes in with Toro screaming “remember me” followed by a minute and a half long guitar solo fading into rather soothing baby mobile twinkles.
This provides detailed analysis about the albums' melodies.
Cunard (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its previous coverage was arguably due to him being a former member of a major band, but the album itself still fails WP:NMUSIC criteria. The album still has weak coverage for it to be considered notable and it was not that successful as it has not charted in any major charts in any country. Sekyaw (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings says:

All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

I believe the sources provided here clearly demonstrates that the album meets the first criterion in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The album therefore is notable. That the coverage is allegedly because he is a former member of a major band does not affect the fact that this album has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cunard on this. If the album has received coverage due to his past membership in a major band, then the album still has received coverage and obtains some level of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:NALBUM. The sources provided are either not RS or are brief mentions of the recording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 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. Sandstein 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Malki Group

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

unnotable, promo L3X1 (distant write) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo article on an unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 29 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 to delete at this time. Sourcing of the article appears to have been substantially improved; first participant's reversal from delete to keep carries substantial weight in this determination. bd2412 T 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Amir Bramly

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passed the Hebrew wikipedia (with no discussion on notability - just tone), and is amply sourced there. see - [5]. I will source all unsourced claims here. This is currently the largest Ponzi case ever in Israel - and is a significant amount also in dollar terms (more than 100 Million USD).Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Neutral for now~~ Keep It looks like he is notable ~~but the article needs sourcing that addresses his pre-case notability and~~ his involvement in the alleged Ponzi scheme must be handled very carefully. ~~I will wait to see how the article evolves for a bit.~~ ~~This is currently a wholely negative BLP that is nearly unsourced and really should not be up. If it is improved I will change my !vote.~~ Also he has not been convicted so there is the matter of WP:BLPCRIME to consider. Jbh ^Talk 10:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbed the article. Looking for some sources that are about him that can be used to source the article that do not focus on the unproven fraud charges. Jbh ^Talk 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the charges - he himeself hasn't been convicted criminally - the case is ongoing. However, in civil court the companies were placed in final liquidation and -his own personal assets- are also under liquidation. In addition, a worker in his fund was recently convicted and sentenced in the criminal case as she placed a guilty plea-bargain plea ([6]). In this regard this case is much-much farther along than where Madoff was in January 2009 for instance - [7].

The fund / rubicon company / and Bramli himself - were all found in civil court to have their assets "tangled". Bramli was the public face of the companies. Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance of the article - the main encyclopedic significance is the alleged Ponzi scheme. His activities as business man are marginal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. In particular please see BLPCRIME. We do not, in general, put indictments and accusations in biographies nor do we tie people indirectly to criminal activity unless they have been convicted. This goes double when it is the only material in a biography. It is possible you could find consensus for this material but I would suggest you bring it up at the BLP Noticeboard to get more input before adding such material. Jbh ^Talk 12:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BLPCRIME issue is complex given the concurrent civil (where there has been some judgements) and criminal proceedings here (where he hasn't been convicted as of yet, co-conspirator had been convicted (plea-bargain)). If the consensus here is that this can't be mentioned - I think I'll wait until there is a final verdict in an Israeli criminal court to write this up here more extensively (with other bio material as well). He is very high profile in Israeli media prior to the case - [8] 313 news items for 2009-2014 (pre-troubles). In short - I will bow to your better judgement. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he has a lot of material pre-case then that can be used to balance out the article to avoid it being wholely negative and not WP:NPOV. Depending on how it is written, the civil case and, maybe, the investigation can be dealt with. BLPCRIME is not always an absolute bar but it requires a strong consensus and delicate/conservative handeling of the issues which is why I suggested discussing it at WP:BLPN. It might also be worthwhile to write separate articles about the case/investigation and funds (assuming they are notable per WP:ILLCON.)Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one sources is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk, ^Talk, talk Please take another look - I redid this more extensively - with plenty of sources, strictly NPOV, and leaving out BLPCRIME (which I did add as a one-liner - unresolved - in a separate edit). I think he should pass GNG - He has 1,100 news items in Israeli media - [9], including hundreds before 2014 (when his liqudity / investigation / etc started becoming an issue) - [10]. Originally my intention was to place a short summary stub in the English wikipedia - but this obviously didn't meet community guidelines on BLP (as this obviously focused on the most interesting bit) - this new more extensive re-edit should. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:GNG - now have 45 references spanning 2012-2016, covering several different topics (from in-depth inteviews with Bramly, to specific issues he was involved with), from a number of sources: Calcalist, Globes (incl. Globes English when available (spotty)), TheMarker - these 3 are the leading Israeli economic papaers. Forbes Israel - probably ranks beneath these three for local finance. Yedioth Ahronoth - One of Israel's leading newspapers. The Times of Israel - English coverage of Israel. Haaretz English (TheMarker is affiliated with Haaretz - is an insert, so most finance stuff is there) - Israel's premier newspaper (roughly locally equivalent to NYT/WP). Israel Securities Authority - public warning against Amir Bramly (mentioned in text several times) and Kela. Israeli News Company - leading TV news in Israel. Bloomberg - mainly for company/executing info. ICE - a media site that covers media affairs in Israel Walla! - one of the leading Israeli news portals. Bizportal - Financial portal. Roughly locally equivalent to MarketWatch in local significance. Net Acre - local Acre newspaper, insignificant - there for color on hometown. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit the original had issues regarding tone and BLP policy. As it now stands (I even linked a Wikipedia:Orphan: Ezbob) - it is neutral tone-wise (if at all - too "pro Bramly"), and is amply-sourced, from all or almost all (and if I left anyone out - omission of mine, they have coverage) major Israeli publications, spanning ~~5+ years from 2012~~10+ years from 2006 (OK - I just added one from 2006, but from Haaretz on a business of his (with a quote from him) moving during to Tel-Aviv during the war). It is possible to source more, if needed, seeing he has over 1000 news items on google-news - [11]. Due to his very high profile(pre-troubles), he is notable beyond his business troubles/ponzi. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Updated: Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please take another look, as the issues causing nomination (tone + BLP policy + sources) were rectified post listing with a major-major rewrite (Jbh- who made the initial PROD (on A7)- changed his vote to keep. Adam9007 changed the initial PROD to AFD, but hasn't looked since. John Pack Lambert - voted on the pre-rewrite stubbified version (and on that version his vote was correct - as it was missing sources that were mostly edited out)). This is a very high-profile individual in the Israeli business scene from before his troubles - and the alleged ponzi scheme and issue surrounding it (raising funds without a prospectus) have causes major ramifications with the local regulation/legislation regarding fund raising from the public. The current article (as opposed to the original) is very well sourced - over 60 sources from all major Israeli news outlets, covering a 10 year span. Some of these sources are in English (where possible - some of the local financial stuff is translated), the rest is in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Top (company)

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run-of-the-mill company that does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There is a huge number of references in the article, none of which does more than mention Over The Top in passing (in some cases there's not even a mention of the company's name). Several of the refs are different copies of the same text, which is not surprising if you look at the authors - a few people have written texts where they briefly quote the company's founder and have then sold the same text to different publishers. I'm sure it is good SEM tactics or whatever, but it doesn't make the company (nor its founder) notable for Wikipedia's purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as I am able to find passing mention of the firm but unable to find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stay- over the top is a recognized company that has been listed on Forbes and spoken about on business.com and other recognised sources. the content might not be detailed enough, but it still deserves a chance on Wikipedia. I believe with time other sources can be added. it deserves a chance on Wikipedia.197.210.25.185 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Recognized by whom? Being recognized is not part of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please see WP:ORG for the criteria. reddogsix (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotion DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
stay - there is nothing promotional about the content, some links have been added and their sources have been retrived. Jamesflare (talk) 21:42, 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eduwamp

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

Almost entirely empty, poorly written, the only source links to the Eduwamp's website, and seems to be highly promotional Terrariola (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, to Institute of Engineering and Technology, DAVV#Start-ups - I was in the process of redirecting this article to the target when I noticed this AfD had appeared. There's no reason for a full discussion process about this. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no useful content so preserving the history is not needed. Optionally redirect name only as suggested, at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:14, 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 redirect to Ninoy Aquino International Airport. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 1

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

Not notable independently from Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Redirect to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (nothing to merge as all of it is unsourced). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. No reason to set this terminal apart from the airport.Glendoremus (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a large important building and so it could have an article, but Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Terminal 1 already covers the entity in detail -- and is sourced, unlike this article. Nothing to merge, as there're no sources. Redirect if you want, but the argument against a redirect is that redirects are use partly to aid searching, and having two links that come up when the reader begins to type "Ninoy Aquino Internati..." in the search box is possibly confusing. Herostratus (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus. FWIW, I've been there. No big whoop. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Take my opinion as redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - An average of 12 page views per day in the life of the article is enough for me. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Described in detail in main article. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for the reasons noted above (unsourced and not independently notable). I actually would prefer to "delete", because a redirect seems a bit silly (one has to type the name of the target article in the Search box before one can type the name of the instant article, so what's the point?). But, I'll 'go with the flow' here and call for a redirect. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:12, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nichari

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

There are no references and a web search doesn't turn up anything to easily show/support notability as an ethnic group. Phil (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brahui people or perhaps Baloch people. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 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 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reason to redirect, personally. As the nominator has stated, this clearly falls well below any notability criteria. We have no solid evidence that this has anything to do with either the Brahui or Baloch people. Spiderone 09:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no problem with deleting, @Sitush: is an experienced contributor on these, perhaps they have a different opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CastleTown Shoppingworld

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

fails WP:GNG. Shopping centres are not inherently notable. 1 gnew hit only. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local shopping centre with next to no significant notable coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looks like quite a large shopping centre - around 1200ft by 400ft, so maybe a redirect with a line or two in the Townsville article? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:09, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse ERP

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

Non-notable software product. References within the article are a mix of the company's own websites, press releases, or articles about the company not the software. The parent company already has its own article at Epicor so there's no justification for this promotional piece. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The parent company article does not mention Eclipse ERP at all. Also the parent company has nothing to do with the origins of Eclipse ERP. This is a major product that should be in a list with other ERP products already on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_software_packages).--NqcRz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read through Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion#AfD to see how you should be responding, and please remember to sign your posts in the future. Anyway, the argument that other articles exist is one that you should avoid during these discussions (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because this discussion is strictly about this article, not others. Now, as I've outlined above, the three problems with your article are A) the General Notability Guideline does not appear to be met; B) the sources used in this article do not meet the requirement for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources;and C) it has a promotional tone - "PR-speak" sticks out like a sore thumb. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least one of these sources is independent and reliable: mdm.com, reuters.com, infoworld.com, electricaltrends.com, ewweb.com, informationweek.com, asa.net, or finance.yahoo.com. Read through WP:NEWSORG --NqcRz (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to keep this article: Market Share, Size, and Historical Significance.--NqcRz (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The promotional tone can be adjusted. It would be helpful to know which sentences need to be paraphrased in different words to meet the requirement? - NqcRz (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This software is nearly 17 years old, there should be at least few reviews (not only online). NqcRz, your references are mostly about parent companies with only passing mentions (at best) of Eclispe ERP. If you could provide some reviews of this software (eg. in published magazines), it would help your cause. Many companies boast magazine awards/ratings for their software, maybe some of the previous owners had such list on its webpage, which we could use (with the help of web archives) in our hunt for better sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was absurdly promotional , but since it seems to have been a significant product, based on the market price of the company that made it, I decided to remove the promotionalism . Expecting a promotional author to learn to write a non-promotional article is usually unrealistic; if we are going o keep them, we need to revise them ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if the promotional language was my only concern, but as I stated in the nomination rationale, the issue is that the GNG isn't met - there's no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, there's just press releases (which aren't independent, reliable sources), mentions in the websites of the various owners and articles about the company rather than the software product itself. The edits you've made have left all these unreliable sources in place, there's no third-party sources (and I've looked). Exemplo347 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pavlor and DGG, thank you for your input. I added another reference. At one point this software was called Intuit Eclipse DMS, Intuit Eclipse Distribution Management, and Activant Eclipse. --NqcRz (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's another press release. BusinessWire is a PR website - you need to find Reviews - detailed coverage from an unrelated third party. Press releases are never considered reliable sources. Read through WP:RS - don't just keep adding press releases, articles that all say "Company X bought Company Y" and links to the company's own websites. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added two unrelated third party reviews. One review is a positive, the second is negative. --NqcRz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
alas, both of them are a company newsletter from a company whose sole business seem to providing 3rd party paid support for Eclipse. NqcRz, do you even look where your refs are coming from? Or didn't you read it carefully enough to understand the connection? If you don't understand the industry well enough to immediately spot this sort of thing, you shouldn't be writing articles about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I do understand the connection very well, but didn't think its going to be an issue. I am new to writing on wikipedia, so learning the ropes as we go. Thank you for your guidance and patience. --NqcRz (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I wrote in my first comment above, many companies boast their media coverage on their webpage. These are entries from archived original Eclipse webpage: [12] (The Electrical Distributor Magazine (TED) November 2000), [13] (ASA News March/April 1999), [14] (ASA News March/April 1998; passing mentions only). I don´t know these sources, so I can´t say how independent on Eclipse they are. Pavlor (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is similar version of the article directly from ASA.NET.[15] --NqcRz (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References were updated to show Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as described in WP:NEWSORG. There is still work in progress. --NqcRz (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just more and more PR stuff - regurgitated press releases. My personal recommendation is that you should be asking for the article to be moved into Draft space until you've finished finding sources, and then submitting your draft for review before publishing it. Wikipedia articles are meant to be complete, not works-in-progress. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? WP:BEFORE Heading C states that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". Reading further under heading D, it appears that incomplete articles are not to be deleted, but rather improved. I am not referring in any way to the article at hand, merely that AfD is about whether the subject matter is deserving of an article, not a judgment of the quality of the article in its current state. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knew something was not right. Jacona, thank you for pointing out that Exemplo347 is wrong. --NqcRz (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Jacona clearly says, their opinion has no bearing on the current discussion - my reasons for deletion are stated clearly at the top of this discussion and have not been addressed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347 is wrong again. Notability, References, and Parent Company were addressed. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Read through WP:NNC and WP:NPOSSIBLE. --NqcRz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breath. This isn't something to be taking personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NUKEANDPAVE aka delete. The article is still promotional and looks ref bombed. As can been seen from the discussion and the article history, the article's creator is most likely affiliated with the company: Special:Contributions/NqcRz. If the company is indeed notable, then an independent editor would create it some time down the road. There's no rush to achieve this state however. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is hard to find subject matter expert that is not affiliated with the company. This is probably why no article existed on this topic up to this point. In this case the "PR" label does not apply to every source. The article's creator is not affiliated with the company, and there was no intention of making it a promotional piece. However if majority decides to delete, then move it to the Draft space, and someone needs to rewrite it. --NqcRz (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added section on Criticism to discredit any accusation of promotional article. --NqcRz (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned majority above, but I was wrong, the Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Read through WP:CLOSEAFD. --NqcRz (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to quote policies and guidelines to editors who have more experience in these matters than you. This is a routine process, not aimed at any particular editor, a part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures. Deletion of this article wouldn't mean that the article can never exist. It just means that the General Notability Guideline and the Notability Guideline for Software hasn't been satisfied by the sources that exist. Calm yourself down. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article falls into these categories: "software with significant historical or technical importance" and "Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms." --NqcRz (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Why don't we let other editors comment now? Both of us have made our point so there's no need for the endless comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Epicor; while the ERP's notability is in doubt, redirects are cheap and serve the purpose of putting enough information in one place so as to be useful.Jacona (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Be nice to see other editor than the 3 who have !voted chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There are actually comments from five separate editors, but never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable software, Wired has an article about it, dunno why it is not ref'd. Also as noted above, parent article is not inclusive. ~~To all the editors who have commented but haven't voted keep: vote keep.~~ Nom tried to speedy it.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an odd comment. Please point out "all the editors" who haven't !Voted. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG? I don't see his vote. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's there and it has been for a while. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to think I just saw the optometrist. Thanks for pointing that Exemplo347 L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:21, 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 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'd be receptive to a Redirect or Merge if it'll wrap this AfD up. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 20 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. Given the concerns raised about recentism it may be appropriate to revisit this outcome in a year or two. Note that the article was moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Not everything the Trump administration does is a "controversy" requiring an article. This is not on par with the Bush dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, this is not unprecedented. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a controversy, nor is the page written from an unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCPlanner (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *sigh* Why must we immediately nominate articles for deletion? This is clearly a notable incident that is receiving significant coverage. Let the article snowball... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we'd be creating articles about all sorts of trivial things and spend most of our time parsing what should be kept and what should be deleted. Really this is WP:TOOSOON to be creating an article. And I have to note that Another Believer is the article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I should have noted that I created the article. Thanks for doing so. I disagree with your reasoning entirely, though. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with Presidency of Donald Trump, I believe this is too trivial and has happened multiple times in the past: see [16], it is not unprecedented; we don't have articles for all of those events (except for the midterm dismissal), it is common for Presidents to dismiss Attorneys once they take office. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This looks like a routine procedure every time a new administration comes in, fashionable anti-Trump hyperventilation notwithstanding. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes notability, plenty of WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources do not guarantee notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – This is not a controversy. Former President Clinton directed the late, former Attorney General Janet Reno to do the exact same thing that Trump had Jeff Sessions do. It is simply part of the tradition of passing the control of government from one President to the next. If it deserves coverage then it should be merged into the article about the Trump Admin or the article about the Justice Department or the article about Presidential transition, etc. But wherever it is moved or merged it needs to have its name changed to something that is not so blatantly a violation of NPOV.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specific speedy delete criteria do you believe applies? Neutrality^talk 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a couple more sources that demonstrate that this is not a "controversy": [17][18] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am open to different page titles, and the article does mention that Sessions' move is not unprecedented. That doesn't change the fact that the move received plenty of coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is lots of coverage, I agree with that. But, most of it is of the WP:SENSATIONAL variety. I think we all have our guards up so high because of Trump and all of the things the Trump administration is doing, and the media is part of it, breathlessly reporting everything in sensational ways. Many things (cough*Muslim ban*cough) deserve it, but asking the U.S. attorneys to resign at the beginning of the administration is not that. The last three presidents did the same exact thing, except they were a bit more deliberate about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, some are sensational, and we can include media's reaction in the article, but many of the sources are also just sharing news. The administration's decision impacts many people and jurisdictions, hence the widespread coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a plenty of coverage, but that fact alone does not support notability of the article. The topic is banal and commonplace. It is worth a mention or two in the Trump article or in the DOJ article, etc. But an article all to itself is not justfied. Also, the name of the article speaks to the fact that it is not deserving of an article topic. The word "controversy" is not really used in the reliable sources. Why the use of the word "controversy" when the Slate magazine article, not a hotbed of conservative thought, calls the whole thing much to do about nothing. It seems a bit like the title is a stretch to justify an article where no one exists. We can't name an article a controvesy when Slate specifically states that it is not a controversy and only the article creator really thinks it is a controversy. It needs to be either merged or moved or fully deleted, but kept as an article? No.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As I mentioned, I'm open to other article titles. I went with the current title based on the name of the 2006-related article. How about just "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys"? I'd move the page but I'm not sure this should be done during an active AfD discussion...? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ABC/AP report: It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that the move is not unprecedented. An event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created a discussion on the article's talk page re: the word "controversy". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump: There is a Trump controversy several times a day and this one happens to occur whenever there is a new administration. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unprecendented press coverage. While the dismissal of attorneys has happened in the past, the amount of controversies does make this particularly notable. Eccekevin (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The forced resignation of Preet Bharara alone is very interesting, since he very effectively prosecuted Wall Street post 2009. Re notability: there are plenty of articles about boats that are only notable because they sank. No clamor there. Tempest in a teapot? time will tell. Twang (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this meets the hurdle, mostly on the Preet Bharara element. It's true that mass dismissals have happened in the past, but as the sources reflect, the specific context and timing of this one make it distinctive. (And, as pointed out above, an event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable). Alternatively — and this would require a lot more work but would be superior and better for the reader — I would suggest a merge/redirect into a future article on United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration, which could cover this and a lot more ground (marijuana policy, crime policy, the Sally Yates dismissal, etc.) without overwhelming another article. Neutrality^talk 23:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has significant media coverage for the surprise of the announcements of the resignations of 46 US Attorneys at once, many were not expected to resign on Friday, and the firing of Preet Bharara is significant in itself as he had been asked to stay on previously and has now been fired, similar to Sally Yates, whose dismissal has its own Wikipedia article. Since Attorney General Janet Reno did something similar in the past, perhaps the article should be moved to "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" as has been mentioned earlier, however this article does not merit deletion as it passes WP:NOTABILITY from media coverage. Zbase4 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the arguments presented, I am changing my vote to keep. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Whether this is unprecedented or not is irrelevant. The point is it has received extensive coverage from reliable sources. I think it's too early to nominate this for deletion, since this is still receiving continuous coverage. Let's wait until this ends, see if it will still deserve an article and then maybe merge it to Presidency of Donald Trump or First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. But for now, I'd say keep it. Also, per other comments, I support removing "controversy" from the title. κατάστασ η 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider removing "controversy" from the title. However I think that might be a discussion for the article talk page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple editors have made this suggestion, and I (article creator) don't object. You can comment on the article's talk page, or if it's not against rules to move an article during an active AfD discussion, that'd be fine. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentrism, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Eric Holder has been quoted as saying in regards to firing attorneys in the past,"Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can."^[1] There is a fake news epidemic in the mainstream media and the "2017 dismissal of attorneys controversy" is a perfect example. Eoswins (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— Eoswins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for now. Let the article evolve on its own, it looks like a good merge candidate after a few days of article development. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

Keep and rename the now vaguely-named article on the similar Bush firing of attorneys called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy to "2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" -- and, in agreement with ErieSwiftByrd, choose another word instead of "controversy" for both articles. cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is most certainly NOT a controversy (note naming already violates Wikipedia NPOV) and is a routine procedure that was done in the past under a number of previous administrations. Wikipedia has no place for the newpaper sensationalism like articles. (see this as well) --CyberXRef^☎ 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment I am inclined to keep per the amount of coverage this topic has received, but would also like to say it is probably to soon to tell as this even happened yesterday and it might take a day or two to see what impact this event will have. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment This event is controversial in large part due to the public blessing that Trump and Sessions gave Preet Bharara during Trump's first days as president elect (as noted by almost every news story). Given the high profile cases that Bharara is investigating and prosecuting, and the fact that Trump's allegations of wire tapping within a jurisdiction Bharara would investigate, elevate this to full controversy, and worthy of its own article. Spawn777 (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. "Routine kinds of news events [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too. HaEr48 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: There are now 2 merge banners at the top of the article. The discussion at Talk:United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration seems unnecessary and should be closed -- the target page is just a redirect, so if we want attorney dismissal content to live there, we could just move this page. Is there an admin who can assist with the closing of this merge discussion? Also, several people have opposed usage of the word "controversy" -- I am fine with removing this word from the article's title, but can the page be moved while there is an ongoing AfD discussion? I'd move the page myself but I want to follow rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out the note re: 2 merge banner, which have been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , although the title may be modified: It is already as a reference in google news...

Keep. Obvious WP:GNG pass. The actual text of NOTNEWS says to treat recent news like any other article. There is more than enough notability for this. The only quibble I have with it is that I want a title without "controversy" - for example, by amputating the unneeded word at the end of the title. It's a notable dismissal of US attorneys even if there were not a single person arguing about it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I agree with Wnt on all counts. So I suggest changing title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:EVENT, this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States. There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented. It just has to be notable. At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on. No strong preference on the title. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "presumed". That means it's not a guarantee.
Keep - Keep per more than sufficient coverage and WP:LASTING. The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is WP:Verifiable.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How is WP:LASTING demonstrated? This hasn't led to anything further than the dismissal of the attorneys. There's no indication this will be investigated, because it's the prerogative of the POTUS/DOJ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear this won't be deleted. I won't withdraw, though. If this isn't merged, I may renominate for deletion in a year or so, when the recentism has faded, because I think that's clouding the judgment of many of these votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a routine event. Every president asks U.S. Attorneys appointed by the previous administrations to resign. Bill Clinton asked 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign. Articles like this dilute the credibility of Wikipedia. To maintain its reputation Wikipedia needs to refrain from publishing subjective material. The only news worthy element of this routine event is Preet Bharara's refusal to resign like the other 44 and the 93 who resigned at Clinton's request. But is grandstanding by someone who is widely known to have political ambitions worthy of a Wikipedia article? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.226.211.67 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 93.226.211.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree with the above comment - every president does this - Clinton, Bush, Obama did it. Because news groups are blowing it out of proportion for political reasons does NOT make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.38 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 165.156.40.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This is a routine non-event. Janet Reno and Eric Holder both did it. Or move to Preet Bharara page as he drove any ostensible controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrichardn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- while I understand the motivation for delete, I also think there is merit in documenting the people from the previous administration that a president fires in the first 100 days. Why are we stopping with lawyers though... I think eventually if this article is to pass the Ten Year Test it should document EVERYONE that was let go from the Obama-to-Trump transition, not just lawyers. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's a pretty good idea for a list, imo. I wonder if we could find any comprehensive sources for that. Orser67 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seconding suggestions to move 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and move Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. -Apocheir (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This event has inspired controversy, so it is controversial. However, I am not certain if it is sufficiently notable. (To put it another way, will the average well-informed American remember this in 12 months?) Usually the USAs are dismissed at the start of a new administration, but not usually in this fashion. The last 2 presidents did not repeat the mass purge that Janet Reno did at the start of the Clinton administration, but requested resignations as replacements were appointed. Some of these firings and resignations were under somewhat unusual circumstances. The situation with the Manhattan USA is somewhat unusual, but by itself that could be on his page rather than requiring its own page. I think someone may have slightly jumped the gun on posting this article, but that's debatable. I would not jump to deleting it so quickly, but if the turmoil turns out to be little more than it seems so far, then the information on this page can be added to other pages and the article deleted. If this controversy turns out to be bigger then the page is warranted. At the time that it first emerged, nobody thought that Whitewater would take 8 years to resolve.--AlanK (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fairly glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly fails WP:10YT and WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice – Given numerous comments along these lines, I have boldly shortened the title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, per consensus and WP:NPOVTITLE. No prejudice about the AfD outcome. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! I went ahead and marked two talk page discussions re: the word "controversy" as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to wikinews, which is what stuff like this is meant for. If no consensus to get rid of this article, at least get rid of the "controversy" title which is not justified unless we are going to add it to every article title for a government action criticized by the opposition. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NPalgan2: "Controversy" had already been removed from the article's title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oops, I forgot that the AfD title wouldn't update. But if this incident does not clear the bar of being called a controversy, what's the point of a stand-alone article? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the people who are stating that it is not controversial really mean that it should not be controversial. In fact, it is getting significant press coverage and merits coverage here. However, getting rid of the word "controversy" in the title was a good move. History will determine what lasting effect, if any, it has.
Keep Removing the word "controversy" was helpful and should be done retroactively for the 2006 article and housekeeping done to assure that Wikilinks are preserved. Those earlier removals, in the middle of the second GWB term, seven on Pearl Harbor Day a decade ago, were extremely controversial and memorable, some clearly done with palpable and specific political motivations (i.e., to effect the illegal major suppression of voting rights, for instance, and in possible retaliation for the prosecutions of corrupt Republican officeholders such as the just recently released Rick Renzi), and involved extensive congressional hearings and the arguably perjurious testimony by the sitting U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales and DOJ officials Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling. Cleaning house in a more orderly fashion, but done largely for reasons of political patronage is radically different than simultaneous cashiering a notable number of such officeholders mainly effectuated to cover up actual or intended criminality, or involving intended black-letter DOJ policy violations. The firing of David Iglesias, Carol Lam, Bud Cummins, Todd Graves and Paul Charlton, all Republicans, were particularly notable and sordid, yet most were given months to "clean out their desks." Preet Bharara is not the only USAAG in the midst of important prosecutions, but i.e., so is the USAAG for the Southern District of Mississippi who is handling a wide ranging ongoing political corruption case, apparently with yet undisclosed indictments. Activist (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that about 20 out of 30 editors support keeping the article at this point with no one opposed to dropping the word "controversy" from the title. Activist (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The changing of the guard is normal, dismissal with immediate effect is absolutely unprecedented. Even Reno's resignation request order had a grace period (granted, one that not all elected to take). Wholesale removal of half of the US Attorneys is not exactly normal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Satisfies WP:GNG; made global headlines, was unprecedented in the approach that was taken. —MelbourneStar☆^talk
Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The bold change of title is welcome. Not all reporting of the event is sensational. Not-unprecedented isn't an argument: the fact it isn't unprecedented is covered in the article and anyway, because of the Jeff Sessions Russia (controversy?) thing, significant actions of his are more like to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Right now, this is news coverage. If it later proves to have enduring notability, then we could revisit. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the removal of the unnecessary word "controversy" from the title, and also with the suggestion to rename Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys for disambiguation. This does not seem to be a routine action, at least not in the way it was done, so it is notable historically as well as by the extensive media coverage. It raises questions about the independence of U.S. attorneys (as do dismissals by earlier presidents on both sides of politics), which we cannot discuss as WP:OR but could cite from secondary sources and academic publications. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was treated in the global news media as a notable and highly noteworthy event. Mothmothmoth (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions: 1) Can an admin close this discussion already? Clearly, this article should be kept. 2) Many editors have expressed the need to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. However, this move impacts other articles, too: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary, as well as Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. Does a separate discussion need to take place specifically for these articles (and category), or is an admin willing to move all of these pages together? I'm not sure how this works, but there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article for disambiguation purposes and consistency. FYI, one editor has questioned if "U.S. attorneys" should be replaced with "United States attorneys" in the articles' titles, so that's another thing to keep in mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to consider merging, and definitely not follow that example this time! For Pete's sake! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "keep" consensus. I agree with Octoberwoodland below that it looks more like no consensus to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Afd should be closed as "no consensus". From the current votes, it's clear the article should be kept for now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd say this is an overwhelming vote to keep the article, but I'll let a closing admin decide. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a no consensus, which has the same effect as a keep, but this isn't overwhelming at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I anticipate renominating this for deletion in several months or a year, when the WP:RECENTISM has faded. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the second unnecessary deletion discussion, but you do you. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh I'm not seeing new news coverage on this topic or any suggestion it has WP:LASTING notability, so again we disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- most of those dismissed are notable individuals. Separately, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy exists and is not at AfD. I would support a move to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys as more factual. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the 2006 U.S. Attorney firing was unprecedented. A new administration often (see Clinton, Bush, and Obama) cleans house of the USA's appointed by the last president. They don't do it in the middle of the administration because of politics. Also, the fact that many of these USA's are notable does not make their dismissal a notable event of its own, it means their bios can cover the content adequately. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 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 delete. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Mendelson

AfDs for this article:

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

One book which is not a best-seller is insufficient notability under WP:UTHOR, and there is nothing else. The ed. who created it has since been banned for using WP for advertisements, DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of coverage does not justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Just from references currently in the article, meets gng. CNN did a 9 paragraph piece on him [19]. TimesUnion offers an in-depth [20]. Orlando Sentinel did another in-depth story [21]. And there's more. This nomination goes beyond failing to do WP:BEFORE, this is a ludicrous nomination.Jacona (talk) 19:17, 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 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article is explicitly about Twitterers who are in the top 200, but not well known. We've previous had cases where claims to notability have been ased on references that say the subject is not notable; I consider that a peculiarly over-literal use of the GNG. the other two are human interest personality pieces that are part of his publicity campaign. He travels around to get just such notices for his very worthy cause of cancer detection. The newspapers apparently want to help his cause by reprinting his publicity, but thats not the what an encyclopedia does. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When CNN does a 9 paragraph story on a "star you've never heard of", they are definitely building a case that you should have heard of them. It is definitely an assertion of notability. As far as the newspapers, it sounds like you don't like them. They're still there. Jacona (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'should have heard of them is another of the synonyms for ought to be notable DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 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 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- overly promotional and the sourcing is not convincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 31 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gritt

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

self-referential tracklist. No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable WP:NALBUM Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM, and no in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skytorrents

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

This search engine may not have enough notability to be a wiki- although it may have search engine hits, most of them are to itself or to comment pages. Also, the entire article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 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 00:39, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Fun Pack

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

This YouTube channel is not notable. Just because it only has a few references to reliable sources doesn't mean it should have its own article. The subscribers are probably just little kids who accidentally hit the subscribe button. Alsamrudo (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails GNG, you'd think a channel with 4 million subscribers would have more external references. South Nashua (talk) 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, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 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 00:39, 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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Cabiles

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. See http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs_cr_00014206.htm Hergilei (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 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 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomEssence

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

Very thin sources as to actual notability -- most sources are links to trademark databases and similar general info that don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. There are a couple articles that mention the existence of the company (hiring new employees, being awarded a minor R&D grant) but nothing that adds up to WP:ORG. A Google search doesn't reveal any major press that isn't already listed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:26, 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 00:38, 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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creative License

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

No real notability. There is one significant article in the Boston Globe but it is mainy a bit of colour about taking something local to New York fringe festival. Awards it was nominated for are not notable. Boneymau (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:30, 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 08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 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 redirect to Real-time computing. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time control

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

This page is empty of content. "Popular" -- with whom? "A certain class" -- what class? "For effective digital control..." is dubious, and the last sentence makes no sense without context. Those three short sentences are the whole article.

If "real time control" means anything (besides the "Real-time Control System", which is a specific thing produced by NIST that has its own substantial Wikipedia page), it can only mean "control carried out in real time". But all control systems work in "real time". The humble room thermostat keeps the room temperature constant "in real time", the quoted phrase adding nothing to the sentence. A Google search of "real time control" does not turn up anything referring to a generic sense of the phrase. "Real time" means something in relation to software: software that must keep up with some external process, as opposed to software that can take however long it takes to produce its result. But a controller must keep up with the system it is controlling; all control systems are real time.

In short, there is nothing for this article to be about. The article has had no substantial revision since it was created in 2004.

RichardKennaway (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control theory. Real time control is now going to be digital, but it was once analog. It's a sensible redirect but it adds nothing to the existing article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. "Real-time control" does not mean the same scope as control theory, although that's strongly implied by the current content. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would a redirect to Real-time computing ~~be more relevant?~~

Note to RichardKennaway: "real time" is used both strictly and loosely in computing; the strict definition is relevant to control systems and basically means guaranteed response time. There are plenty of control systems, such as the thermostat you mentioned, that don't (need to) meet this criterion. --pmj (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect based on general approval from MadScientistX11. --pmj (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Or redirect to Real-time computing. But I would vote for just delete. As far as I can tell this is really about a certain type of digital controller and so could be an additional section in the article Digital control. But there is essentially nothing but a definition in the article now and this is not Wiktionary. I also agree that Real time control is not the same as control theory (any more than Real-time computing is the same as computing). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:58, 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) 01:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Real-time computing, per above. Deletion is also an option, but WP:CHEAP... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:26, 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) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Poole

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

No evidence of notability. Some of the places he worked and some of the games he worked on are notable, but that does not mean that every employee who worked on those games is also notable. Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as nominator. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Neiltonks (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poole is well known in the industry and was a significant contributor to many classic games, as well as supplying this insight into the rise and fall of Ion Storm — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldSchoolVideoGames (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Do you have any sources that meet those requirements? -Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Vague anecdotes usually aren't worth much in these discussions. Do you have any third party sources that discuss him in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 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 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost entirely unsourced BLP. Even if sources are found, a WP:TNT would probably be in order, as the article in no way resembles an encyclopedic article. For starters, over half of the article consists of a direct quote from him from a messageboard... Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the comments by Serge. GamerPro64 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 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 redirect to Unwed Sailor. Procedural merge. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firecracker EP

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

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep/Merge/Procedural Close. This is the wrong venue for the action the nominator is attempting to accomplish. He first redirected the article to the artist page; I reverted and suggested a merge to the artist article or to a unified discography article, since the current article is composed of encyclopedic discographical information, even if it's probably not enough to merit a stand-alone article (under current consensus rules). Rather than support a merge, the nominator moved on to PROD and now AfD the article. But deletion isn't a sensible action to take; even if the content is merged, it would still be desirable to leave a redirect to the artist discography. Chubbles (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote on my talk page, when you moved the discussion from your talk page to mine against the edit notice on my page, you're welcome to move the unsourced content to wherever you want. The deletion discussions don't preclude that. What's not sensible is keeping an article that fails notability guidelines around just so someone can some day merge the content somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - From whence this "move it or lose it" demand? I fail to see why the nominator feels justified in making demands of me as a volunteer under threat of deletion. I don't feel compelled to execute the merge myself, though he is welcome to do it. In any case, deletion is not a legitimate course of action to take here even if the article is judged non-notable; merging is, in that case. Chubbles (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to find an AllMusic review, so its very existence can be sourced at least. I can't find anything else yet, so I can't warrant a "keep" yet, but I'd be against a "Delete" as well - its a plausible search term and has a source to verify some very basic info, so worst case scenario should be a redirect/merge scenario - it'd be easy to write a sentence or two about the release in the band's article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unwed Sailor. Unless more coverage can be found, there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I mentioned above, I couldn't find enough to meet the WP:GNG, but its a plausible search term (its the band's first release) and there are some passing-mention Allmusic sources that can verify a few basic sentences about it at the band's article. Against outright deletion though. ("Page views" aren't a valid deletion rationale anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:16, 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 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unwed Sailor per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged to the content to Unwed Sailor and the new page Unwed Sailor discography. If the nominator has no objections, we can close this AfD and redirect this title to the discography page. Chubbles (talk) 01:30, 21 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. I'm afraid I only see promotional sources. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Tosin Adekeye

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

The Biography of this person has questionable notability. TopCipher 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep Article meets WP:GNG requirements and also the sources to the person in question are properly cited.Tobi19 (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:RS as no sources were found on GNEWS. Zazzysa (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Trivial mentions in reliable sources, promotional interviews in semi-reliable sources plus the possibility of COI makes me tend towards deletion. Unilag F.M isn't a major radio station, so being an OAP for them counts for nothing. But there are reliable sources on her, not just significant enough for inclusion IMO. Darreg (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darreg. The subject has not been discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets notability requirements, however some peacock terms were used such as describing her tweetchat as "the most popular tweet chat in Nigeria". I have reviewed the article and removed the unverifiable claims. I believe it should be kept. Ps: UnilagFm is a notable radio station in Lagos, Nigeria. The sources for most of the information on the subject are reliable. Pastorflex (talk) 10:22, 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.

[1] ttp://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

[1]