Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 April	29 April >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy_"Mama"_Reinhardt

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

Subject seems to fail to meet notability criteria and article does not make clear assertion of subject's notability. BodaciousTattvas (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails GNG, but barely. If a few more external sources can be found, I think that would be enough for notability. South Nashua (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN. Unable to locate significant coverage, including vis WP:Gale Dloh cierekim 02:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:31, 5 May 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. The article does indeed appear to meet the bar of WP:MUSICBIO, to which even the nominator agrees in discussion below. The article does need a bit of cleanup to remove some unsourced info. A Train^talk 10:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Jean Johnson (singer)

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

Non-notable musician. Johnson is a backup and session singer who has had some minor success, but not to the level that rises to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Claims that Johnson was nominated for a Grammy are not supported by reliable sources (and a nomination, without a win, would not meet the criteria anyway). Claims that her "work on [ Sandra Crouch's] album subsequently won the Grammy for Best Gospel Performance, Female" can also not be verified. (Crouch did win the Grammy; what is unverifiable is whether any credit for that win can go to Johnson.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that being nominated for a Grammy would be sufficient for the notability guidelines, as they state "Has won or been nominated for a major music award"(assuming they actually were). 331dot (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, WikiDan is correct that it doesn't seem that this person was, at least according to what I call a reliable source. ~~Unless one is offered I would say delete as not meeting the notability guidelines.~~ 331dot (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Background vocalists are important, but they are not usually notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The article itself is promotional and poorly sourced, which is understandable since sources cannot be found (using the Google searches above). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Grammy nominated singer here https://books.google.com/books?id=tDYftTBTFyEC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&source=bl&ots=eX0yfzcF5X&sig=9k0mYxyfFb1zQICQYDcAtKrOJcs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizodbQyLPTAhWFilQKHflwADUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false

Or what about the ever so popular Jet magazine. Oh wait u may be skeptical of them too - here -'

And here is bill board official newspaper sir https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Billboard magazine linked to above this post, and I did barely make Johnson's name out(under 'Best Soul Gospel Vocal Performance by a duo, group, choir, or chorus'). I'll leave it to others to decide if that is sufficient or not, but it does seem to be there. That doesn't change the other issues with the article itself, as described by Walter above. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article- you would be able to see it if u just hit the zoom in button on google as they put it there for that reason. Here is Jet magazine where she was projected to win... https://books.google.com/books?id=NrMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=jean+johnson+completely+yes+jet&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVx7ip4bPTAhXIqlQKHS4zAzkQ6AEIGjAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Keyonne TalentSupporter1: Taking your points one at a time:
- The book Uncloudy Days (ISBN 9780879308414) notes that Sandra Crouch won a Grammy for her album We Sing Praises. It further notes that Johnson sang lead on one track of that album, "He's Worthy." It does not record that Johnson received any Grammy notice (nomination or win) for her participation in that album.
- The Jet article from January 27, 1986 does verify that Johnson was nominated, along with Sandra Crouch, for "Best Soul Gospel performance by a Duo, Group, Choir or Chorus" for the album Completely Yes. It does not verify that this album was favored to win in any particular way.
- The Billboard article verifies the same information.

At best, we have a singer who was co-nominated, but did not win, a Grammy for a single album. Under WP:BLP1E, I'd say that we might allow a redirect to the Sandra Crouch article, with a mention of Johnson's name as co-nominee for Completely Yes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @WikiDan61: it clearly says official Grammy nominations- you are just being difficult. You are an expert in reading so why can't you see that. I clearly see your point. She was nominated period. maybe if her last name was Streisand she wouldn't have this problem. Even sag Aftra recognizes her as such. https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false

Comment @Keyonne TalentSupporter1: What clearly says "official Grammy nominations"? (Just trying to clarify your point.) As I have said, I have no doubt that Johnson officially received a Grammy nomination. And as such, according to WP:MUSIC, she is presumed notable. But Wikipedia requires reliable sources to verify all of the information in an article. At this time, the only information that we can verify from reliable sources is that Johnson received a Grammy nomination for an album on which she appeared. That's not a lot to build an article on. Wikipedia practice in cases where people are notable only for a single event is to redirect the article to the event for which the person is notable. In this case, I recommend a redirect to Sandra Crouch. I have already expanded that article to include Johnson's co-nomination for the album Completely Yes, using the Jet article as a citation. Unless we can find other published sources that talk about Ms Johnson in more depth, there's not much more to say about her. Any details about her early life should be deleted as unverifiable, and her involvement as a session musician for various other albums do not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Are you blind!?! It says in big bold letters 28th annual Grammy awards final nominations. Get real. You should just retire and get off here. She was nominated whether you like it or not and it constitutes a notable person page. Sorry Charley. She was one of the few blacks that broke pass that wall your people put up :)

Please stop with the baseless racism accusations. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keyonne TalentSupporter1: I'm tapping out here. I've made my points. You've made yours. Any further debate between us would just lead to anger. Let's let others discuss. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:MUSICBIO #8 for her Grammy nomination. The nomination in question was for Best Soul Gospel Performance by a Duo or Group, Choir or Chorus at the 1986 Annual Grammy Awards for Completely Yes.[1] St Anselm (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning an award makes someone notable, not just being nominated for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: As I state above, the notability criteria states that being nominated is sufficient for notability. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen a few delete !votes, and I don't understand why this particular case would be an exception to WP:MUSICBIO. Anyone care to explain? St Anselm (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The OP is mistaken, of course, when it says "and a nomination, without a win, would not meet the criteria anyway". WP:MUSICBIO explicitly states that a Grammy nomination implies notability. St Anselm (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was initially some confusion as to whether this person was nominated, but it has now been cleared up. I can't speak for others, but consider me a 'keep' now. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you probably should strike your delete !vote then. St Anselm (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will, though my delete opinion was conditioned on a lack of further information. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was nominated for a grammy. Despite statements here to the contrary, per WP:Music "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Dloh cierekim 02:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as worthy of recognition for achievements. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:33, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Sánchez De Felipe

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

Youth academy player without a top-level appearance. Fails WP:NFOOTY. May just be too soon for an article, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no information or statistics outside of who he is and which academy he is a part of. There is no reference made as to whether or not he has even participated in matches for Real Madrid's B team. Only sources referenced are WP:PRIMARY sources from Real Madrid's website. Real Madrid has hundreds of academy players who never end up taking the field professionally. At the very least some WP:SECONDARY sources need to be included in order to establish verified notability. This doesn't even take into account the incorrect infobox used and lack of structure, no placement of relevant categories or even WikiProject inclusion so that it can be assessed and improved by other editors. I understand that this article is a stub, but any editor creating content, should be acutely aware of the need to provide enough content to establish the need for it's presence before leaving it for future edits for risk of deletion. I've been down the same road myself, and I learned from it. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 18:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator first vote summaries the arguments nicely. Only Real Madrid Fain sites are provided as references and fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Also falls under WP:TOOSOON, article can easily be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 5 May 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. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is no reliable in-depth sourcing in this BLP. If anyone would like a go at rescuing it, let me know and I'll move the content back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be coverage in some news sources. Mar4d (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the news sources that Mar4d has cited above that both The Dardistan Times and The Express Tribune are being controlled by the sockmaster and his meatpuppets and are COI fluff pieces themselves. This and this are written by blocked meats (check the authorship) and the Dardistan Times may now be sent to RSN as unreliable. Likewise, this piece was authored by a blocked meat and the article subject who supplied the photo. <== The Express Tribune is therefore unreliable and the listing for The International News doesn't have any attribution and looks suspect as unreliable. And the BBC source and two others in your list do not mention him at all. That list is a brilliant argument to Delete.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and everything else. There's not a single reliable source, independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the subject, let alone the multiple such reliable sources that would be required. I can add that before I cleaned/pruned it, it was the worst self-promotional puffery piece, bordering on hagiography, that I have ever seen here on en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your critique on the sources, though I do not agree with your assessment that The Express Tribune is unreliable. ET is one of the two largest English dailies in Pakistan (the other being Dawn) and is a very prominent mainstream source. The subject is covered in detail in the following article also: Khowar language: Keys of preservation. Furthermore, a basic search of the subject's name in Urdu yields some of the following results: Deutsche Welle [2], UrduPoint [3], ARY News [4], Geo Urdu [5] [6], Chitral [7], News Tribe [8] etc. Just putting these forward per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to avoid over-reliance on English sources. I do agree however that the article should be cleansed from anything self-promotional or hagiographic in tone. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Express Tribune failed verification of sources on this article. Note the posted comment in 2014 where sources were requested..."Great work. Is there any source to verify the claims? No doubt it is a great piece of work but we live in a country where water-run car made to TV and print media. I failed to get an authentic verification of a reliable source. Someone?". I'm not judging them for all matters here on WP but for this they fail. Since the article cites The Dardistan Times then there is no reason to treat that as a RS. No comment on the others...yet.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mar4d: I am surprised you citing "geourdu.com" , "timesofchitral.com", and "thenewstribe.com" as a source. I consider all of them as unreliable. By the way, "geourdu.com" and Geo TV are not related to each other. Also, I would never cite "urdupoint.com" as a source on BLP's. On a different note, I hope you are aware that recently the community has banned the usage of the Daily Mail as unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject of unknown (likely limited) notability. WP:PROMO / WP:TNT outweighs any marginal notability the subject might have. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears notable. In addition, this subject has already survived a previous AfD with a Keep. Should not have been brought up for another AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article. Thus, delete. Also, the sources aren't independant/reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SouthernNights. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:12, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Qubbaj

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. His biography seems typical of any university administrator or professor, with no claims to notability. I found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are weak; they're primary, associated with the subject, or don't support the article's claims. Pburka (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He falls below the notability threshold for academics. The coverage is too much from internal university sources to show his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be primarily a university administrator rather than a scholar, but notability is only automatic through WP:PROF for heads of whole universities, a higher level than he has attained. And although it would be possible to attain notability through WP:GNG instead, we don't have evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 5 May 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) 05:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X Sharp

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

~~Lacks even a single reliable source to establish anything whatsoever, never mind notability.~~ Googling and searching also at Amazon, I expected but was not even able to find the usual how-to programming books on the topic. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have since been added, but all are primary and/or self-published as discussed below, still leaving us with nothing to establish WP:Notability under WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sources. There seems to be another product with the same name which is a .NET library based on xBase. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally based directly on the relevant source code of the Cosmos project. COSMOS, a popular platform for building custom operating systems, uses X# primarily for writing snippets of native code that are called when a low-level snippet or program critical on performance needs to be executed.

The X# the deletion proposal above is referring to is a new project that does not bear any resemblance to the programming language that is the subject of this article. I am of the opinion that the overall structure of the article is good and provides basic information on the characteristics of the language, which is useful not only for the developers looking up the language for the first time.

I have notified the COSMOS developers.

FrewCen (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "notify" anyone. That's called WP:CANVASSING. What's needed to keep the article are reliable sources discussing the topic in detail. I don't believe those sources exist and without the sources to demonstrate notability, the article must go, no matter how "useful". For more on how to contribute to an AfD, please read WP:AFD and WP:ATA. Msnicki (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe that there are reliable sources discussing X# in detail. What about the official source code I mentioned above, which defines exactly how the language behaves? There is nothing more reliable and descriptive when it comes to computer programs. I consider it to be a bit strange to point out to a lack of sources and simultaneously categorize calling in the X# developers as canvassing, since it's them who, if no one else, could provide those sources.

Let us turn this constructive - since it has already been proven that X# is a thing while not being related to xBase, and that this article is based on the publicly-available source code, I think that the description "Unable to find sources" doesn't mirror any current problem. What further action would need to be taken in order to emphasize this fact (e. g. adding citations, more pointers to the COSMOS article...)?

FrewCen (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had hoped you'd read the sections of our guidelines to which I provided links. To establish notability requires multiple independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail in reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Each of those words means something here on Wikipedia, as explained in WP:GNG. Basically, the essence of notability is that other people not connected to the subject must discuss it in depth and do it in reliable sources. You don't have that. The code for X# was (obviously) written by the people who invented it. That makes it WP:PRIMARY, meaning it does not contribute to notability. Msnicki (talk)

Good morning I'm one of the Cosmos developers and I can ensure you that indeed X# does exists! We use it daily... I can admit that Cosmos has a "marketing" problem having only a GitHub website and so yes the only other source of X# is our code:

https://github.com/CosmosOS/Cosmos/tree/master/source/XSharp.Compiler

Let me know if you need anything to avoid the deletion of the article.

P.S. The other X# is using the same name but it is not the same thing.

FanoI (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that FanoI (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Firstly, this deletion discussion is about the Cosmos component, not the xBase library. I simply brought that up as the xBase library appears to be better known, and I didn't want people to confuse the two. Secondly, nobody is disputing that X# exists. Finally, please review WP:GNG. If X# hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. books, academic journals, magazines) then it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. It might become notable in the future, but it's not there yet. Pburka (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: when challenging deletion, many editors try to find other articles on Wikipedia which they feel are similar to the one nominated for deletion, and say "what about these pages?". Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF before following that path. If you want this article to be kept, the surest route is to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the policies at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add some external pages that talk of X#: Channel 9 interview of the lead developer of Cosmos: ^[1] Article on Codeplex:^[2]

We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself if you remove it this chance is lost (and so the fact that there are not external sources regarding X# will aggravate), if you want to open the article on the other X# cannot simply add a disambiguation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanoI (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is an WP:INTERVIEW with the the developer talking about his own stuff. That makes it WP:PRIMARY. Your second source appears to be a blog on a WP:USERGENERATED site. That's secondary, but it's not WP:RELIABLE. Neither of these count toward WP:Notability. Re: your other arguments, please consider the advice at WP:HARDWORK, WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO. Then read WP:GNG. We have a fairly technical set of guidelines by which we decide whether to keep pages, so it's helpful to familiarize yourself with those guidelines when formulating your arguments at an AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete thrilled to know the thing exists. Does not have WP:RS from independent sources. Wholly sourced from "Cosmos team", who seemingly swooped into this discussion perform damage control. Quick scan leaves me w/ impression eligible for WP:CSD#G11. To quote from company rep above, "We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself" Reassurances from the people who stand to benefit from the article staying in terms of free advertising fail to reassure me that this is anything but blatant advertising. Dloh cierekim 02:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a lot of sound and noise but not a lot of attention from anyone who isn't involved with the project. How can a neutral encyclopaedic article be written without sources from those who are not a part of the "Cosmos Team"? Does not meet WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:05, 6 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Nusinow

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

Fails WP:NPROF (nor is his skateboarding notable). While his work is interesting, there's no indication that he's more notable than the average scientist. The article may be autobiographical, as it includes details about his personal life and influences which aren't apparent in the sources. Pburka (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although has some highly-cited papers, with an h-index of 14, fails WP:Prof#C1 in a very highly cited field. WP:Too soon as yet. for this over-bloated BLP.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no where near meeting the requirements for notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Too soon —usernamekiran(talk) 22:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - his work on plants' hormonal control of their daily cycles might be revolutionary, but it's just started. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 5 May 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squares in Minsk

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

Indiscriminate, seemingly irrelevant small list. No explanation on notability. Other issues as well. South Nashua (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not at all indiscriminate: it's a list of all the public squares in the city of Minsk. Public squares, or plazas, are usually notable, and it's reasonable to have lists of them, such as List of squares in Malta or List of squares in Copenhagen. (When this discussion is closed, the article's title should be corrected for capitalization.) Pburka (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- List of squares in Malta is not a good example to follow. Almost the entire list consist of redlinks and original research. List of squares in Copenhagen is a better example of what list articles of this nature should be. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with redlinks—in fact redlinks are one of the advantages lists have over categories. However the lack of sources in the Malta page is problematic. Pburka (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, redlinks have their places. Although an entire list of redlinks (apart from two entries) questions WP:LISTN. Anyhow, we are not discussing that article in this debate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the article to use a table, with quite a bit more information. I've also boldly fixed the capitalization, as the page seems likely to survive. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, a perfectly reasonable complement to Category:Squares in Minsk, per WP:CLN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cities are notable and public squares within cities are among the most notable places within cities. So it makes perfect sense to have an article listing the squares of the city. The article would be improved, however, by having short descriptions of the squares. And as noted by User:Pburka, there is a List of squares in Malta or List of squares in Copenhagen. In addition, it would be helpful to expand the Wikipedia Town square article. For example, the BBC has an interesting article on The Violent History of Public Squares. And there is this interesting article too: Designing A New Town Square For Our Crowded Urban Future. It would also be interesting to have a "History of town squares" section. There is material on this topic as well: The Hidden Origin of the Town Square.Knox490 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Squares in Minsk. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough list entries to satisfy WP:LISTN. Needs a bit of polishing up but it's a new page so WP:NOTDUP. Ajf773 (talk)
Keep: I agree with Knox490's reasoning above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 1 May 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) ansh 666 01:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry (The Edge)

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

Sourced to game manual and one 'zine review of questionable reliability. WP:BEFORE discloses download sites and some social media, but little else. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What problem do you see with Zzap! 64? After a quick search I found this game also reviewed in Your Commodore.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally recognize that it was a hardcopy, paper publication, so it probably meets the RS requirements, but you can't really blame someone for thinking a source as bizarrely (and seemingly unprofessionally) named "Zzap!64" may not be a reliable source. I mean, that was my gut reaction too, before looking it up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

really, we should somehow SIGNIFICANTLY rise the bar for deletion of content on wikipedia *sigh*, a "gut reaction" is clearly not high enough Shaddim (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely stating that a title like "Zzap!64" doesn't look like a reliable source at an initial glance. It's not an actual word, there's punctuation ("!") in between letters and numbers without a space, etc etc. It looks more like a random online pseudonym than a legit magazine. It was just a passing thought though, I wasn't using it as a reason to delete, nor do I have any idea if that had anything to do with the nominator's actual nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg for pardon, you were not specifically meant- I was somewhat venting my frustration over the waste of time and resources... if instead of deletion pushing some people would work on articles.... Shaddim (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is reception, no need for removal. Shaddim (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which consists of two very short sentences sourced to one reference. You need to prove it meets the WP:GNG, which at the very least requires multiple sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which is no problem if people would spend their time on finding sources instead of focusing on deletion of content. As reminder, the idea is that we create a encyclopedia, not delete it. Shaddim (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this adds up to a valid keep argument. Look I'm not even advocating keep or delete yet, I'm just pointing out that your argument isn't valid in itself. I'm trying to help here. You need to be able to provide evidence for your claims - you can't just make vague allusions about a game's reception, or you get ignored. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which i did, the article is now well referenced. Point is: this is a waste of time, this could and should have done by the asker for deletion. I think making deletion request harder (and improving articles easier) would be really a good thing. Shaddim (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're on the same page now then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaddims source additions. Subjects from the 1980s often have coverage locked away in paper magazines. This appears to be the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I meant to get back to this sooner and add in the Your Commodore ref. I see Shaddim has already done that, but I did tidy it up quite a bit (don't know where he got the 80/100 score from). Anyway, 1980s games can be hard to dig up sources for, but we do seem to have at least the bare minimum needed to confirm notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:04, 21 May 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. Potentially could become notable some day, but right now consensus agrees that is not right now. Can be restored at WP:DRV should that day arrive. — foxj 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Stamper Brown

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

The subject appears to fail the criteria at the relevant notability guideline, WP:JOURNALIST. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject fits the criteria of relevant notability guideline. Was ranked 41st best conservative columnist for 2016. Bill Kristol ^[1]was ranked #42.^[2] Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) The subject fits the criteria at the relevant notability guidelineWP:JOURNALIST based on WP definition ^[3] "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography)." Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) The subject fits the criteria at the relevant notability guideline based on Google search hits on 2017 April 28 at 3,400,000 as compared to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin at 488,000 and leftwing Froma Harrop at 62,500. Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL journalist who does not meet relevant notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is wise to consider that WP loses credibility if bias (left or right wing) influences deletion decisions. Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)— Wikimeeeeeee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim 16:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimeeeeeee:Doubt Wikipedia has any credibility to lose, as I am constantly told how unreliable it is. We discarded google-count or # of G-hits as a measure of notability a decade ago. Dloh cierekim 02:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and per Bonadea. Links to her byline or the outlet she writes for are not reliable sources independent of the subject. Links to her writings ditto. The award is far less significant that it would appear, and does not appear unconnected to the subject. WP:Gale search was unavailing. This looks like a clever promotional piece designed to promote her and her work. it is not referenced to WP:RS. As far as our reputation goes, it suffers when we fail to remove articles about non notable subjects that are promotional by nature. And the hallmark of a correct decision is the cries of "BIAS!" from those who cannot see an article objectively. Dloh cierekim 03:12, 5 May 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. This closure encompasses the parallel AfDs for the articles Alternative Right and AltRight.com, which are both about the same website. Consensus is that we need only one article about it, which I take to be Alternative Right as the more developed version of the article. It is not clear as to whether there is also consensus that the website is notable, or whether the article about it could be merged to the article about its creator Richard B. Spencer. This can continue to be discussed separately. Sandstein 13:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Right

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

Not notable enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Not notable enough" is a very vague argument. Can you explain more precisely why this topic should be deleted? Pburka (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very slim coverage by reliable sources. It's primarily mentioned as a hate website by leftwing sites or by organizations that seek out to identify hate groups (SPLC). If there is wide coverage by numerous reliable sources, it's far far from apparent by reading the Wikipedia article. As it stands, the purpose of the Wikipedia page seems to be to give attention to website and make it seem more notable than it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SPLC, Daily Kos, Notable enough. Riley Cohen (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This account "RileyCohen" has made edits to exactly 3 article pages in its entire history: Memetic engineering, Neil Gorsuch, and Avery Sandberg. He's made a total of 23 edits of any substance and disappears for long stretches in-between fits of activity, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia procedures. If this isn't a sockpuppet, I'm Mickey Mouse. Rockypedia (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) indicates the criteria for notability are: mainly: “If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions, as evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria, it is likely to be notable.” The additional criteria used as a supplementary basis are: 1) The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education 2) The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level. 3) The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society). 4) The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. Other than the left making short jabs at the periodical, there is no significant commentary and the periodical fails to meet all 4 criteria above. In addition, the person behind the journal, Herbert Spencer, is not a prominent figure in the alt-right movement and has a very small following. For example. nobody is arguing the Herbert Spencer played a significant role in getting Trump elected. He is a joke figure who makes a convenient foil for leftists.desmay (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If WP:IDONTLIKEIT was a valid argument for deletion, I'd vote delete. But the fact is that this website has the coverage to justify a short article. Some of the sources may need to be removed (Anyone know if just anyone is allowed to post a blog comment on Daily Kos? If so, that source should be removed) There are additional sources that support notability, including this [www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/24/berkeley_republicans_sue_over_ann_coulter_event.html] at Slate, left-wing, POV publication, but a notable on e and one where the "blogs" are signed by paid staff. If kept, this needs to me Renamed {{Alternative Right (website)]] to avoid the inevitable confusion of mistaking this for an article on Alt-right, for which many more readers will be looking. In fact, I'll make my Keep iVote contingent on Redirecting this title to Alternative right, and leaving a hatnote there pointing readers to this website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of the website in that Slate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Kos diaries that aren't written or explicitly endorsed by their editorial staff should not be considered a source of notability. Comments should never give notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with AltRight.com, probably keep AltRight.com as the article's name and add a "Background" or "History" section containing info on the Alternative Right website. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a political movement, the "Alt Right" is definitely notable, and their use of online forums is definitely a notable part of that movement. I'm not sure that either Alternative Right or AltRight.com are notable on their own (are they the same thing?), perhaps they could be merged into a new section on Alt-right. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree 100% with desmay (above) on this one. No significant stand-alone coverage. There's already info about this site on Spencer's bio page, that's all that's warranted. Rockypedia (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept and AltRight.com should be merged with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, this article should be kept and merged with AltRight.com Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian Just to be clear, this is not 'Alternative Right' (the concept) but 'Alternative Right' (the website). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok thanks very much Snooganssnoogans I was confused. I'll modify my comment Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to AltRight.com per the above. The information is best presented together. bd2412 T 14:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge or redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Artw (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to AltRight.com per above. Neutrality^talk 07:33, 14 May 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 merge to Alternative Right. This closure encompasses the parallel AfDs for the articles Alternative Right and AltRight.com, which are both about the same website. Consensus is that we need only one article about it, which I take to be Alternative Right as the more developed version of the article. It is not clear as to whether there is also consensus that the website is notable, or whether the article about it could be merged to the article about its creator Richard B. Spencer. This can continue to be discussed separately. Sandstein 13:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AltRight.com

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

Not notable enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against: The site is founded by Richard B. Spencer. The sister site Alternative Right, has also been considered notable. AltRight.com has also been covered extensively in the news, but there is a need for expansion. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This "PerfectlyIrrational" account was registered less than one month ago and has made sporadic edits, all of which have been on pages associated with alt-right topics, and the edits have been from a decidedly pro-alt-right POV. Just making a note of that. Rockypedia (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So Richard Spencer has another website. Big frigging whoop. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting his ventures. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in January when it launched: Alexandria Times, The Atlantic, Forward, Slate. Its articles get quoted in other sites: Salon, ThinkProgress, Huffington Post, Forward, Paste Magazine. Riley Cohen (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources just make off-hand remarks to it while covering Spencer or the Alt Right movement as a whole. We don't create specific Wikipedia articles for every single website that happens to earn an off-hand mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account "RileyCohen" has made edits to exactly 3 article pages in its entire history: Memetic engineering, Neil Gorsuch, and Avery Sandberg. He's made a total of 23 edits of any substance and disappears for long stretches in-between fits of activity, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia procedures. If this isn't a sockpuppet, I'm Mickey Mouse. Rockypedia (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alternative Right, probably keep AltRight.com name and add a "Background" or "History" section containing info on Spencer's original website. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per The Vintage Feminist. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this is a re-branding of Alternative Right, which should be merged into this page. I feel that "Richard Spencer's journalistic publication on the alt-right" is inherently notable; the alt-right and Spencer in particular received massive amounts of main-stream coverage in the 2016 election. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the alt-right and Spencer already have articles. Why would that make this site inherently notable? Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Spencer's article or with Alternative Right per The Vintage Feminist, or Delete. All substantial sources I've seen which discuss it do so in reference to Spencer, not as a significant site in its own right. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant stand-alone coverage of this website. Brief mentions in articles about Richard Spencer are not even close to a basis for notability. Any useful info (if there is any!) can easily be moved to the Spencer article. Rockypedia (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising space or business directory. Websites cannot inherit notability from their owners, per WP:NWEB: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner". WP:WEBCRIT states that a website is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organisations". This has clearly not occurred in this case. Media mentions are routine, trivial and passing coverage. Nor has this website won any awards that won contribute towards notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we don't need both Alternative Right and AltRight.com as separate articles. As far as keeping one of them, my argument is that WP:NBOOK applies (as per magazines), this is a periodical publication run by the single person most associated with the "alt-right" movement in the United States. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alternative Right, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Richard Spencer. Artw (talk) 22:16, 13 May 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon TTT Michaels

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The article makes no credible claim of significance. And on that day, no reliable sources were found. - Mr X 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a youtube ref featuring water polo and a very sparse IMDB entry do not make for anything anywhere approaching notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not contain any significant information and does not have any credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've speedy deleted the article as it was created solely to promote an individual and there was no credible significance provided. Normally it would be preferable to let the AfD run its course, but there was no way this article was going to survive this discussion and it's a waste of time to leave it open.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update You can add CSD G5 to the list as the deleted contributions at Brandon T Michaels can attest.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiren Chandra Nath

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

Only claim of notability is being police commissioner of a large city. That's not sufficient per WP:POLITICIAN, the closest specific WP:BIO I could find. Refs seem typical for a non-elected less-than-state-level position, and nothing beyond having this position. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Hasnt done anything notable as a commissioner. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. He is commissioner of the 47th largest city in India. Domdeparis (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discuss the subject in any significant or non-"he was hired" detail. ValarianB (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not senior enough for any inherent notability. WP:POLITICIAN is, of course, irrelevant in this instance, as he isn't one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable police officer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ethereal Plane

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

PROD removed without explanation, after searching for RSes it appears to have no coverage at all. Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also wasn't able to find any WP:RS with in depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE.--Rogerx2 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a hot spirit in the material world, I long for the ethereal. Alas, not this iteration. Oh, wait. "delete per nom" is so clichéd and yet so apt. made the checks. same results. NN no RS Dloh cierekim 03:23, 5 May 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 as the Keep votes have visibly shown this in fact satisfies the applied notability standards here, WP:PROF, and that's what it takes for acceptance; any concerns about primary sources is not applicable by WP:PROF nor relevant, and there is no current promotionalism nor have any evident signs been shown to support this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Smagorinsky

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

The subject of this WP:BLP lacks WP:N. It's mostly developed by the subject or people related to him and doesn't meet WP:NPOV criteria. Distinguished professor is an internal recognition at The University of Georgia. Wikieditor1332 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has only WP:PRIMARY resources and it's likely that it's used for self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.69 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that this person holds a chair, has won notable awards, or has done research that is highly cited/respected in his field. Fails WP:PROF. Although he seems to be the subject of significant press in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I don't see anything other than local coverage. This is an international encyclopedia and local press does not suffice for WP:GNG. Evidence of WP:N is insufficient.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 11 April 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 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "delete", but according to @Necrothesp: being an "internal recognition" does not exempt "distinguished professor" status from WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. So, relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears the nominator and previous contributors have not done any homework. No evidence that he holds a chair? Easy enough to find. Distinguished professor merely internal? Of course. So are most chairs. But it undoubtedly passes WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That link confirms he is a distinguished professor but does not confirm that he holds a chair. Are those the same thing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak Keep I see your point. Our criteria at WP:NACADEMIC is that "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution". I thought he had to have a chair.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any secondary resource for most of this article content. Almost all is referred to the subject's personal webpage at The University of Georgia which doesn't meet the WP:PRIMARY criteria.
Keep as he meets the #5 condition for Academics as evidenced by Necrothesp. The lack of outside sourcing is slightly unsettling, but Find sources:HighBeam negates that for me. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Necrothesp. It meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. --Rogerx2 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is informational but could be used for promotional purposes because it only details the subjects educational history. It does not appear that the subject has made many significant contributions to academia or if they have, it is missing from the article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Necrothesp. It meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. The article can be edited accordingly. AfD is not cleanup. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:46, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant of Hillsboro Bay

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

The sources provides do not meet the requirements for reliability as discussed at WP:RS. Even so, the sources provided do not appear to mention the "Giant of Hillsboro Bay". VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The story of the supposed giant skeletons found in Florida is probably worthy of a Wikipedia page, but the topic of this article, the Hillsboro Bay Giant, is only supported by a angelfire page. I can't find any reliable sources repeating the story. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'ConfirmThis is a folktale, a story of oral tradition that I heard at a cracker folktale festival. By their very nature folktales are not true. Is the debate here whether or not this is true or that it is a folktale? Im just trying to be nice and share something I learned about is not yet included on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't need to be true, but the folktale must be notable to be included in Wikipedia. This means that the folktale has been discussed in reliable sources, such as newspapers, book, or academic journals. Pburka (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the giant skeleton article was published in like 50 newspapers over 5 years, been on television program "In Search of Giants" etc...would you feel better if the page was called Tampa Giant Skeleton? I thought the most interesting part was the legend that I heard at the folktale festival and only could find the angel fire source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a page about the "Tampa giants" (or similar title) would certainly be appropriate, if it were carefully sourced. It could discuss the initial reports, reactions, and the subsequent debunking. However everything would need to be supported by references to WP:reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a related article suggesting that the giant is just a mythic Tampa Tribune a few years ago.... http://www.tbo.com/lifestyle/dont-be-fooled-by-these-old-tampa-myths-387168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fp142: we do understand it is a folk tale; that is not why we are discussing the idea of deleting it. You mention "50 newspapers" above, but I get 0 hits on Google newspapers. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, there is a paucity (love that word ... paucity) of sources available, google brings up nothing, the article presently list 3 references, these are not useable for notability, one is an Angelfire page that anyone can make, 2nd is an academic's blog suggesting that US giant newspaper stories of the 1800s may have been plagiarised from European incidents, good as background but no mention of the Hillsboro giant, and the third a reproduction of a news article which may be okay but some editors may deem it of not enough depth (incidently, not sure why using this reference and not this direct newspaper one), i would be happy with a redirect to an article like "Giants in North American Folklore" if there was one, also happy to change my 'vote' if more sources are provided. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My Florida History instructor failed to mention this Dloh cierekim 03:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I really wanted to keep this. Found nothing in WP:Gale or Florida Historical Society. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 5 May 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. After two relists and no further arguments made to delete, there appears to be no great urgency on the part of the community to remove this article. A Train^talk 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Specialised Translation

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. None of the databases in which the journal claims to be indexed are selective, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "MLA is the most selective index in the field". However, examination of the MLA website makes it clear that this index strives for comprehensiveness within its subject, so that it i snot a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the only journal in its field.[9] Also one of the more significant journals in the broader field of translation studies.[10] St Anselm (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Specialized translation is a very small specialization. It would be amazing if such a small field would be served by multiple journals. The list you link to, "is open for editing; please feel free to add or correct details" and seems to be an exhaustive list of journals in the field of translation studies. Neither of your comments seems to indicate any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page links to another list that is "open for editing". St Anselm (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Lack of indexing in major selective databases does not help in ascertaining compliance with WP:GNG. However, I suspect recognised journals in niché fields might not be much bothered with listings, and considering that Google returns around 670 hits of "specialised translation"+jostrans, I would give it benefit of doubt. Another issue I have is that the article successfully cleared AfC – it will not look serious if we first promote it from draft to mainspace and subsequently delete it. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GHITS? And are you proposing that for journals in niche fields we should "not be bothered" with any considerations of notability (or even independent sources)? And if some editor lets something slip through AFC, that means we have to waive all our usual requirements? (You apparently don't see the AFC-cleared articles that I sometimes see...) You can't be serious. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GHITS in principle, but as regards modern-day academic publishing I venture to say there is a direct correlation between influence (and therefore notability) of an online academic journal and its online presence. If a journal is widely quoted in a number of independent online sources, then we get a hint it may be notable. Do you work in the field of specialised translation? I guess not. Me neither. @StAnselm: above pointed to a published academic book (WP:SECONDARY) that clearly says this journal is an important one in its field. Me, then, I pointed to how widely it is linked to. See, we have been editing on the same subjects for a long time, so I am not going to fight nails and teeth about this article, but in all fairness I think you are mixing up a well-established, 13-years-old journal resulting from international co-operation of several state universities in Europe, albeit in a niche field, with some local initiatives of yesteryear we come across too many. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 28 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. See WP:NPASR should circumstances warrant. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Class-XD Amplifier

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

Fails WP:PROMOTION and mainly uses primary sources. Osarius - Want a chat? 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Neutral, neither support nor oppose) Would this be a good candidate for merging with Cambridge Audio? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Oppose Deletion) I have now added three independent press articles and details of patent granted.

Could you let me know what else is required. Andburslem (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 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. This article is 99% promotional nonsense. That said, I'm not thrilled about deleting it. Aside from the obvious systemic bias concerns, I think it is not unreasonable to argue that appearing on the Forbes 30 Under 30 List passes the bar of the general notability guideline, however modestly. That said, no editors have seen fit to make such an argument in the discussion below. Combined with the obvious promotional nature of the article (which even includes dates for future speaking engagements), I think it is entirely within policy to delete. No prejudice against the article re-eappearing with a more modest length and encyclopedic tone. A Train^talk 10:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Obinwanne Okeke

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

I've declined a speedy request on this as IMO it's not irredeemable spam, and there do appear to be some sources out there. However, I'm not convinced this is actually salvageable, so bringing it here for further opinions. Procedural AfD so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:PROMO as it is not neutral and praises the subject in the voice of Wikipedia. As he may be notable IMO it would be best for this version to go and a new version started in draftspacee and going through the WP:AFC process Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I partially agree with Atlantic306. A new unbiased, non WP:PROMO version should come through. But it can also be worked on current article without deleting it. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:52, 29 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. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Gel

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

Irreparable failure to meet GNG as its manufacturer also fails. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally tagged G11. Most of the content deleted, but the lead is still questionable. Deprodded by article creator FredEbonk (talk · contribs). Currently the reference link does not show any info about the subject. Unable to find info apart from manufacturer's web page. does not meet WP:GNG. Dloh cierekim 18:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found for the product or the company, so fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Further the subject is covered (and this product is mentioned) in Energy gel. There are many reliable reference sources for the general subject of energy gels, such as this one. But nothing comes up for this specific product other than the manufacturer's website. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:57, 1 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia

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

Not notable. Burning Pillar (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to the Transfermarkt link, he hasn't made his debut Spiderone 10:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only citation in the article is Transfermarkt (which is usually not considered reliable). No indication of passing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 5 May 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Vacancy (OneRepublic song)

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

Article about a song released today. The only sources I could find were mentions in a couple of blogs. Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 18:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - new single by a very notable band. Jdcomix (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOTINHERITED. - Mr X 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dedicated articles from high level, mainstream, reliable sources, like Billboard and People Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73's sources. Pburka (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainstream sources used. More coverage will be coming soon since the song was just released. TheSubmarine (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep single from a notable band. A few reliable sources mentioned the song after the proposal was placed. More sources will obviously come. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. But I reserve the right to change my vote to Delete in a week or two if needed. Yes, this page was created WP:TOOSOON and did not meet criteria at the time of creation. But we all know that once the media machines start their propaganda campaigns, I have no doubts that this song will pass. Kellymoat (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't press you much on this, since there's clearly no consensus for either of the stances you mention, but really? Do you really consider a Billboard article a propaganda campaign? Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - already has coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, per Sergecross73's research. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73's research. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. It already has coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, as already show by Sergecross73's research. The "media machines" and "propaganda campaigns" claims are not appropriate for this discussion; please stick to Wikipedia policy in future AfD discussions and not your personal opinions; otherwise, I would simply suggest to avoid AfD discussions altogether if you do not want to constructively contribute to these types of discussions (especially as I have noticed issues with your contributions to AfD multiple times in the past). Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unais vt

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

Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Only references appear to be from a blog. Blackguard 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references are blogs. does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.--Rogerx2 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not contain any reliable sources and could very well be an article for self promotion. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any reliable sources about this author or his novel. Pburka (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I searched the authors name, all I could find was a LinkedIn page, and a few blogs. No reliable sources found to verify notability. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Same experience as of user XboxGamer22408. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been moved to Unais VT. ansh 666 04:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've re-added the AFD template someone took down. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent reliable sources in the article, and none found. --Finngall ^talk 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 5 May 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. A particularly sound argument by User:Ravenswing. A Train^talk 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers

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

Wikipedia is not a directory on people commentating on sports games. T v x1 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article violates WP:NOTDIR. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly runs afoul of WP:NOT. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way! Say you tune into ESPN Classic or any other outlet that is broadcasting an old sports broadcast (say prior to your birth or from a time in which you were either too young to remember or simply prior to you getting interested in one particular sport in the first place), and that immediately arouses your curiosity over whom exactly did the commentary for said game. Also, it must be stressed that many sportscasts up until about the mid-1970s were erased by the networks (such as the first two Super Bowls and many World Series telecasts) as a means of saving money and tape space. Therefore, it would likely be much harder to "learn" about who, where and how these particular events were covered (sure you could go to the individual articles of said event, but that's isn't exactly as streamlined and concentrated as the former). BornonJune8 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly naive and shallow statement. You're in effect, devaluing the contributions of the respective sports commentators (by that logic, why should we delve deep into such a thing in the first place) and the networks at hand to have broadcast major events like the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, etc. Whether you like it or not, a broadcast (whether it be radio or television) of such an event, is incredibly vital and important to the mass viewing or listening public (especially to those who can't afford to be at the games in person) There are many other various lists that detail/document the historical account of specific entertainment occurrences and the like. In effect, it's just one factor (albeit an important or crucial one none the less) of a much broader spectrum or scope. BornonJune8 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples of these lists? It sounds like some of them may be candidates for deletion under WP:NOTDIR. LAroboGuy (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would quite frankly and simply quickly enter a sort of "slippery slope" territory or perspective if you were to go that particular route! And since I've already been through this sort of thing before, rather than try come up with a quite lengthy retort, here's what I said in better detail (to just give you some better "food for thought") in regards to TVx1's own suggestions/argument several months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESPN_College_Football_on_ABC_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Monday_Night_Football_results_(1990%E2%80%932009)

BornonJune8 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bare in mind that this article was created in the first place, as a "compromise of sorts" for a deleted template on the same subject. I know that I'm not going to immediately sway your opinion into my own favor, but I none the less, feel that somebody should give more time to consider something somebody else said before quickly jumping to conclusions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Template:American_Stanley_Cup_Finals_television_announcers BornonJune8 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons this article was created are, frankly, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is, does this article meet notability guidelines set out in WP:LISTN? Has this list been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? It has not. It also falls squarely in the descriptions of "What Wikipedia is not". Therefore, delete. LAroboGuy (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even create that particular article in the first place, so don't entirely lay it on me if you have such a major issue with it. And yes, I've been trying to "supplement" or flesh out (including sources to "back it up") the article by giving a greater detail for the corresponding lists. It isn't purely a simple "list" per se as it is a point-by-point television broadcasting historical documentation (hence the added material that I just mentioned). There are various statistical lists (for the players) regarding the National Hockey League, so how exactly is the broadcasting portion extremely or radically different? BornonJune8 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 I haven't "laid it on you", as you put it; it doesn't matter who created the article or who maintains it; it's totally irrelevant. #2 See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why your last sentence has no bearing on keeping or deleting this article. LAroboGuy (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of that template should have demonstrated to you that this sort of content doesn't belong here. There was no need to put it somewhere else "as a compromise" at all. If the community decides that something needs to be deleted than that should be respected. Yes, television coverage of sports games has its notability. We have the relevant articles on the coverage of baseball regardless of the existence of this one. Having trivial, indiscriminate lists of commentators on sports games is utterly unnecessary. What matters most of all in sports events is who participates, who wins and how they do, not which exact persons have commentated on them.T v x1 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what, these said sports events aren't broadcast at all? I mean, how are the fans who aren't their in person going to exactly keep a close track on these events in the first place? And you bring up "relevant articles" on the coverage of baseball yet you on the same token seem imply that the coverage as a whole doesn't really matter (since that isn't the "core" issue, which is a rather blase and narrow-minded suggestion to boldly proclaim). You can't just have it both ways. And you may personally think that something like this is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" (it's way more time consuming anyway to look at singular events, one at a time and learn about the announcers and networks to have broadcast them), but you can't act like you personally speak for the majority. For example, please explain these blogs/sites tracking sports broadcasting history if something like this is none the less, dismissive. At this rate, we might as well not have individual articles in general for sports commentators, if we shouldn't be able to better learn about the significant events that they covered during their respective careers:

http://www.classictvsports.com/

http://sabrmedia.org/databases/network-tv-broadcasts/searchable-network-tv-broadcasts/

http://awfulannouncing.com/

BornonJune8 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please actually read what an other user writes. It's quite comical that you come to my talk page to accuse another user of putting words in your mouth only to show that behavior here yourself. I never wrote TV coverage is not important. I just stated that it's less important than the sportive aspect of sports events. We have articles on the sports. We have article on its coverage in the media. Having lists on all people who worked on the broadcast of one sports event is just overkill.T v x1 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am reading what others write, hence why I'm responding in the first place. And I went to your talk page because somebody else was talking about me (behind my back), hence why I felt the need to defend myself. Just because I may not exactly or necessarily agree with what others have to say right off the bat doesn't change that. And the broadcasters (or the lists of said broadcasters) is just one but still none the less, crucial component (like there aren't various other lists of some kind devoted to one particular major sporting event to pick off of) of the actual event or league (or even to be more centered, the network's respective coverage itself). The broadcasting aspect in some respects, go hand in hand with the sports event itself. If we don't have announcers and networks covering it (the list on their own, aren't exactly something decidedly "broad" and/or vague or generic), then we're for all intents and purposes (unless you actually purchase a ticket to go to the event in person) going to be left in the dark. BornonJune8 (talk) x1 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that most of these sport leagues actually predate broadcasting, don't you? Many of the leagues started well before the invention of television and even radio. People were kept informed through after-the-event reporting and through attending games. Those leagues were perfectly able to happen without being broadcast and people certainly were aware of what happened.T v x1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise, you do realize that things evolve over time, especially the way that we keep track of sports? It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to purely see things from the perspective of what predated broadcasting. There was a time in which motion pictures didn't have sound (and either way, were in black and white as well as the early stages of television) to them, so I don't entirely understand that point of view. That's an otherwise, one-note angle to take. And that would be kind of like suggesting that we shouldn't have list devoted to television ratings since there was a point in time in which people didn't watch television (since it wasn't invented yet)! BornonJune8 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a reply to your claim that broadcasting is crucial to sports. The actual reality is that sports have always taken place, with our without broadcasting.T v x1 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Heaven knows I've been branded (with some justification) a deletionist, but I'm failing to see the valid grounds to delete this list beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It meets the requirements of WP:LISTNAME -- the names are overwhelmingly linked to extant articles, the list itself is heavily sourced, it's not at all an open-ended list, and I've seen above the argument for its being encyclopedic. BornonJune8 could stand to have a peek at WP:KEEPCONCISE and be a bit less combative, but the argument's not wrong. Ravenswing 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the "list" has changed considerably since my nomination. When I nominated this it was only a bunch of tables without any form of explanation. Even so, I'm still not convinced of its encyclopedic value. There is certainly enough Wikipedia coverage on the TV broadcasting of this entire sports league. This subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. What's worth mentioning should be put in the already existing articles.T v x1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some vague twists on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really. I've yet to see a legitimate policy ground upon which to delete the article, and that you might not care for it yourself isn't one. Ravenswing 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In it's current state it is clearly not an indiscriminate list with over 70 citations. After carefully going through WP:NOT I cannot find anything that this list violates. Looking at the issue of Wikipedia coverage; at most we usually only give most national broadcasters a mention in one sentence near the bottom of each yearly playoff article, so having all of this information in one place can actually prove to be quite useful. Deadman137 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really an indiscriminate list or a directory. Discusses a notable topic, and really doesn't violate any policies or guidelines, contrary to what nominator states. Smartyllama (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable parent. NotPaper. manageable list w/ limited parameters. Dloh cierekim 03:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing, and specifically WP:LISTNAME. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:24, 6 May 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 Fred Penner. Redirect restored (I know that some search engines sometimes index different capitalizations so it cannot hurt to leave a redirect), BLP vios revdel'd and page protected to prevent future issues. Mifter (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred penner

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

Seems to be a redirect that has taken a life of its own as a duplicate article. The article is also available at Fred Penner, which I presume is what it was moved too. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no point to the redirect either as no articles link to it.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Basic housekeeping task. Seems like I redirected this 13 years ago but I have no memory of it. Deb (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Deb. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The redirect at this title was in place for 13 years. As there may well be external links to this page, it should simply be restored to a redirect. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Fred Penner and permanently protect this redirect. I've blanked it as it contained some serious violations of WP:BLP. Please revdel. This is yet more vandalism from a notorious troll. Sro23 (talk) 23:08, 28 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. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Arton

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

Non notable individual- I see that there are some press releases regarding his company, Arton Capital (well, the one cited in the article), but as ever notability is not automatically passed down to the CEO and there are no third party independent reliable sources that I can find on this person. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on his company went through the ARC process, and was denied. There is even less evidence he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found several possible sources, but they are, to say the least, unflattering, unreliable and highly critical of the subject. The current page is not the full story. I'm not going to link them to avoid WP:BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. No RS. I don't see an assertion of significance. Dloh cierekim 03:52, 5 May 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 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiwot Health Science College

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

Fails GNG, ORG. No external references, couldn't find any after a quick search. South Nashua (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-r0elated deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of universities and colleges in Ethiopia. There are insufficient refs with which to generate an article. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic verifiability from reliable sources. I'd be glad to change my mind if anyone can find a single reliable English-language source online. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and lacking NN Dloh cierekim 03:55, 5 May 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) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inayattullah Altamsh

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find sources demonstrating his notability. Saqib (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb1981 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^delete no entry at goodreads or worldcat. Dloh cierekim 04:06, 5 May 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) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naimatullah Hamdani

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find reliable and independent sources that can demonstrate his notability. Saqib (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:46, 28 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 Keep as sufficient notability.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xian Jun Loh

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

Trimmed lots of stuff poorly sources. Not sure if this person is notable or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous awards, fellowships. Why would you nominate an article for deletion if you think the person might be notable? Pburka (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do student awards make one notable[11]?

I see one hits from google news[12] from 2015. Looks like a nitch publication[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. As it is, you've provided no reason the article should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep. Wikipedia:Anybio says about notability of a person: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.” The article mentions these significant awards/honors: 1) 2011 – Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College 2) 1998 - National Science Talent Search Award Merit Winner 3) 2003 – Singapore National Institute of Chemistry (SNIC) Book Prize. The article also mentions a few other awards/honors but whether they are significant awards is a matter of debate. I do agree with User:Pburka who said: “As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. “ Please avoid causing others unnecessary work. desmay (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum good point. Well I would not consider the student awards as showing notability the "Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College" does.

Will withdraw. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaat-e-Saithal

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

Another in a series of WP:OR articles from User:SKZssZZ. I simply can't find any solid evidence that his many Sayyid/Saithal-related forks exist as he defines them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~this user has made hundreds of edits (albeit all minor) in such a short span that I suspect he's using a bot.~~ Yashovardhan (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to [14] this article has been deleted once before, on April 15, but I can't tell how. Likely a speedy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an A7 (see this). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted elsewhere, he seems to be pulling most or all of his content from his personal website, http://www.sadatesirsi.com/ If so, WP:NOTWEBHOST would certainly apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication original author is using Wikipedia servers as web hosting service. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest to focus on content, not on contributor. Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia just because author has used bots or because he copies the content elsewhere. If anything, WP:OR would perhaps apply unless we are able to identify supporting sources per WP:PRESERVE. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reminder. I've clarified my comment to scratch out the discussion on the creator.

@Shawn in Montreal: I think you could have nominated all the pages together under one afd. This could've simplified discussion as the concern in almost all the articles are same. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, I meant that the article creator has repeatedly been found to be transferring (copyvio) content from his website to this project, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. But no matter: of course the article should be judged on its merits. If anyone can find a coherent, encyclopedic topic in any of his creations I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: How can there be a copyvio when he adds here his own work? Also, you seem to misunderstrand what NOTWEBHOST is all about. Take a look at web hosting service please, it well describes hosting services that WP aims to be not. I say again: I see no indication this editor is using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. Such prohibited use, certainly, did sometimes happen, mainly when users tried to host images or other high-bandwidth content for their websites on Wikipedia. But creating articles in mainspace certainly does not fall under NOTWEBHOST. If anything, the article should be judged against WP:N and WP:OR. — kashmiri ^TALK 10:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste time and space here, but content or articles can indeed be deleted as copyvio when one adds one's own work, if an OTRS ticket has not been acquired, unfortunately. This is a very common occurrence -- and it seems to have happened several times to this editor quite recently, judging by what one sees in the edit history and page log. As for the rest of it, of course, WP:N is at the heart of whether this article gets deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't still get what grounds do you want this article deleted on: technical (copyvio/lack of OTRS ticket, bot use, hosting), notability of article subject, or creator's behaviour? Because discussion seems to be going nowhere. Note that I did not !vote either way - I am only trying to understand what problem do you see with the article or its creator. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll expand on the nomination statement this way: this appears to be another in a series of WP:Walled garden articles from this editor that which a) cannot be verified to exist as he defines it, b) is apparently composed of his own original research claims, c) cannot be found to be notable by any independent reliable sources and d) is such a sprawling mess that I daresay WP:TNT might apply, if there were an encyclopedic topic here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Heavily prune~~ -- We normally regard populated places as notable, but much of it is repeating material that I am voting to delete in other noms. The merge nomination for Sayyid is certainly inappropriate. Some 1300 years after the death of Mohammed, there are thousands of his descendants, who are often prominent among Muslims. That a town was founded by a descendant is hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: if I understand correctly, Sainthal, Uttar Pradesh, linked to in the lead, is the populated place. This is another of the author's family tree forks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case REdirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - and salt. It's already been deleted once on 15 April. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (don't forget Sadaat e Saithal without hyphens). The title suggests this article should be about a family/clan/community, not a populated place like Saithal. A subsubsub branch of an Islamic family is unlikely to be notable among the countless South Asian Muslim families/clans/communities. There are so many sayyids, that being one is hardly a claim of notability anymore. In fact, none of the sources even mention Sadaat-e-Saithal; they are all supporting other marginally related stuff. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:31, 4 May 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) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaat-e-Sirsi

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

It takes a lot for me to bring a places article to Afd but it looks like we have another problem article from User:SKZssZZ, who's become a fixture at AFD with a WP:Walled garden of interlinked WP:OR articles. None of the references on the article seem to verify the existence of this "ancient village." And of course there's a massive coatrack section of near-gibberish, on "Syed Ali Arab Naqvi." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I see it was previously speedied for copyvio. The content comes from http://history.sadatesirsi.com/ which is described as being "owned" by one Syed Nawazish Murtaza Naqvi Sirsivi, (M.Sc. Chem. J.M.I. Univ. New Delhi). His website does cite authors. But his English-language competence -- or lack of -- is such that I daresay WP:TNT may apply, if nothing else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's poorly written, beginning "Most of the Sadat had come India migrating from West Asia in ancient period to get and spread the peace and spirituality. They got the land of India full." The title page ends with the appeal, "I would be very thankful for your valuable suggestions for improvement of this website." I think Wikipedia is being used a kind of webhost. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The copyvio content -- which I daresay was the author's own -- has been removed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Poorly written. Not readable. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the TNT aspect, the cited sources I was able to check don't mention this location, at all. Everything I see online is user-generated which makes me assume this is either a hoax or a locally-known name for somewhere else, which means this is probably a POV-fork of an article already in existence. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily prune leaving a stub. In contrast to related family history articles, this one seems to be on a populated place, something we normally regard as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Could not find it on google maps. Having encountered this sort of thing before, it is likely fork wit an article with a different name. Dloh cierekim 04:13, 5 May 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 This was a hoax, pure and simple. The links in the article did not exist, and the news articles about the subject never existed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. B. Baker

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

This is a very strange article. i came across it by chance when looking for articles with mentions of the American Biographical Institute. And there are so many things that are wrong with this article I think this is a hoax article built around a Walter Mitty kind of guy. It was created and edited by at least half a dozen SPA accounts. Almost none of the links check out. The claims about the MBE are false, the claims about the Golden Jubilee medal are false, the congressional tribute is full of errors here. the international peace prize was last awarded in 1957 when he was 3. the Queen's Jubilee medal is reserved for service personnel of the UK and Canade and not for service to literature. I could find nothing about the "Magistracy Medal of Honor", I could not find the BBC Hall of Fame, the Royal Star and Garter are homes for injured service personnel, the International Medal of Freedom does not seem to exist. He appears nowhere in the lists of honorary MBEs (see talk page). the Reverend Michael Greene-Butler and Lady Marion Brett exist only in his tribute in his books and a very doubtful obituary for Lady Brett. I can find nothing on him on the web either with W. B. Baker or William A Baker or William Allen Baker a part from his books. I could find no reviews for his books a part from Goodreads. This looks like a massive hoax. Regardless of it being a hoax none of the claims are backed up by reliable sources so it fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Juli Endee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only source used in this article is the subject's own official web site, and many of the links to it are broken. If she is notable, independent reliable sources need to be provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 1 May 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. Absent DGG's concerns, consensus is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Resilience Centre

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

The people who run the SRC seem to be notable people, but I can barely find any information about the org itself. Scant news hits, with content mainly being "said XYZ of the SRC." Everything else is just press releases and primary sources. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with this page? Is it a matter of needing to include non-primary sources?

I was told by Primefac that I could create another Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) wikipedia page as long as it abided to the rules of Wikipedia commons. I did just that and formatted the page following a pre-existing wikipedia page for the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) which is an associated organisation (according to wikipedia). I used exactly the same kind of primary sources as can be found on the SEI wikipedia page. It only makes sense that a page for the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) exists.

Why is it that a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) page is able to exist and not one for the SRC in exactly the same format? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Environment_Institute

It would be much appreciated it you could explain and justify your reasoning on this issue.

If you google the Stockholm Resilience Centre you come up with almost 5 420 results. This is not scant sourcing for the validity of the SRC's work. If you type Stockholm Resilience Centre into Google scholar you come up with over 41, 900 results: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=Stockholm+Resilience+Centre&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Here is a brief selection of secondary sources which mention the Stockholm Resilience Centre:

There is plenty of secondary material and links out there to support the validation of this organisations and it's researchers work. Because of their obvious contribution to other wiki pages like Planetary Boundaries it seems to be a worthy organisation of it's own page.

I would like to stress again that the information presented on the page is purely factual information about this organisation, not promotion. If there is anyway to improve it to prevent it being deleted please let me know and I will do my best to improve it GriffithsHR (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, where to start.

Stockholm Environment Institute's existence falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e. just because one page exists doesn't mean we should have a second. Every page is treated on its own merits.
On that point, the SEI page is actually pretty terrible. Not sure if it could be deleted but it could definitely use cleanup.
You might get a lot of hits, but what do those references actually say? Do they talk about the SRC, or just mention it in passing due to the activities of one of its members?
The preceding point is valid for your four references - SRC isn't actually talked about. It is mentioned for hosting an event, defining a word, being in Stockholm, and giving someone a job, respectively.

While none of the coverage you listed is necessarily bad coverage, in order to demonstrate notability we need significant coverage of a group. I couldn't find any, which is why I nominated the page for deletion.

Also, for the record, I never told you to use primary sources. Not sure where you got that idea from. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is as stated above in need of better sourcing. Not deletion. Sources are available.BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, sources like...? Primefac (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eighteen other Wikipedia articles currently link to this article. It a key international sustainability research institution which, as BabbaQ says, needs better sourcing, not deleting. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I think they are likely to be important, and I wish we had sources. Almost all the refsare just to people whowork there or are on the board, etc.; That 's the sort of derived notability that is only an indication, not evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources:

"...highly performing institutions, such as... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... the centre generates new insights and ideas to improve eco-systems management practices and long-term sustainability." – OECD
"...advances the understanding of complex social-ecological systems and generates new and elaborated insights and means for the development of management and governance practices. The Centre advises policymakers from all over the world..." – Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town
"... the study on the future development of EU policies to 2050 by... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... attempt[s] to detect environmental, economic, social and policy challenges that have a crucial meaning for reaching a sustainable path... The Stockholm Resilience Centre is a new international centre that advances transdisciplinary research for governance of social-ecological systems..." – European Sustainable Development Network
"...advances research on the governance of social-ecological systems with a special emphasis on resilience..." – Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
"...leading the charge to put global development on a sustainable footing... It is interdisciplinary, bringing together the expertise of researchers in all disciplines with something to add to research into The centre uses its research to advise policymakers from around the world on ways to put development on a more sustainable footing." – Stockholm University
"...a joint effort of the Stockholm University, the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Stockholm Environment Institute that now pool their competences, international networks and collaborators to further the advancement of interdisciplinary science for sustainability. ...The Stockholm Resilience Centre will continuously advice policy makers nationally, in Europe and internationally, and develop innovative collaboration with relevant actors from local social-ecological systems to the global policy arena." – Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
"... an international interdisciplinary centre for research into socioecological systems, i.e. systems where mankind and nature are studied as an integrated whole. The focus is on the resilience of systems — their ability to cope with change and to be developed further. The aim is to contribute new insights and tools that permit ecosystem service production that is sustainable in the long term, and stronger resilience for human welfare." – Swedish Royal Court

-- Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly important and notable organisation, having organised the Planetary Boundaries group. See also articles such https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-human-activity-has-pushed-earth-beyond-four-of-nine-planetary-boundaries/2015/01/15/f52b61b6-9b5e-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html , https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/earth-has-crossed-several-planetary-boundaries-thresholds-human-induced-environmental-changes However, this is a scientific networking organisation, so the list of members is relevant. --Vigilius (talk) 12:25, 7 May 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) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brogan

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG and i will be bundling a number of other connected subjects Domdeparis (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails NACTOR and GNG at this time, but I'm not sure it can't be fixed. However, I don't think it's likely. If someone can clean it up, I will change my viewpoint. South Nashua (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 May 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ingrid Lyne

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

When this article was nominated for deletion last year, I voted keep due to a small amount of coverage of this as an example of the dangers of meeting people at online dating sites. Although there was one such article recently in local media, I was wrong about notability. We have now passed the 1 year anniversary of this murder, without so much as a 1-year later article in a local paper. Coverage appears to have dried up shortly after the AfD closed as "no consensus." ~~I see nothing beyond the tragedy of an horrific but non-notable murder.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw deletion nomination see explanation below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed on a daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 28. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. This topic met the requirements of our notability guidelines at the time of the last AfD discussion; it still does. Take a look at the references. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. David in DC (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:David in DC, Dave, help me out here. I am striving to apply the standards set out in WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME uniformly, remembering that WP:GNG is, of course, the bottom-line policy that applies to crime pages. I can see that you are familiar with WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and I am never unwilling to be persuaded to change my opinion at AfD. That said, would you be willing to elaborate a little on what makes this one a keeper?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - The title was previously "Ingrid Lyne", right? It was renamed due to WP:NCRIME and WP:BIO1E (not to be confused with WP:BLP1E). However, the event itself ("Death of...") still meets WP:NEVENTS, particularly WP:LASTING and/or WP:COVERAGE. Reading the whole article, seems it is one of online dating incidents gone bad. Well... it's sensational, but the content still has some value. George Ho (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw deletion nomination. I took a closer look, and found teh Chicago Tribune summer 2016 writing that "media outlets across the country closely followed the story of Ingrid Lyne, ..." in a story about the dangers of online dating [15]. Withdrawing my nomination on the grounds that the fact that national media "closely followed" the investigation as it unfolded, and that it was used even in places far form the scene of the crime as an example of the dangers of online dating make it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 28 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 merge to Jacob Sartorius#Tours. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Text World Tour

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

Notability. This is not a notable tour or artist. There are only two sources on the page and none of them are independent which goes along with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wizardofoz30

Delete per Wikipedia guidelines of notability. It fails WP:MUS Wizardofoz30 (talk)
Merge into Jacob Sartorius#Tours. I think it is too soon for this to have its own article. There are sources out there, but this doesn't appear to meet WP:NTOUR or WP:GNG yet. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Jacob Sartorius#Tours or The Last Text EP. Patient Zero^talk 10:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD was never added to log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No case for deletion. Merge this, The Last Text World Tour and The Last Text EP into Jacob Sartorius. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jacob Sartorius#Tours. In a few months we will be in a better position to determine notability as a standalone article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator appears to be referring to vandalism on the article, which he quite rightly removed. However we do not have a valid deletion rationale, per WP:SKCRIT. Vandalism on an article is not a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruairí Deane

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

recentinappropriateactivityandnegativepersonalchanges BP16 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 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 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U-Tech College Of Computer Education Akingam Kashmir

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up no in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The ref's on page seem unrelated to subject. Dloh cierekim 04:18, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monk Giel

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

This article is at heart a violation of not news. The tussel between the Belgian juvenial authorities and this person and his mother was a news incident, not an incident that made him notable. Thus this also violates 1 event issues, but the event is not notable enough for an article. Beyond this, the sourcing is horrendous. At present that article relies on facebook and twitter more than anything else, not reliable sources. The other two sources I can't quite figure out, but they may not be reliable. I was able to find another source that might be reliable, but nothing to show this rises above a news issue for a 15-year-old. Giel is now 18 or 19, but no one seems to have taken note of his actions in the last 3 years. Being a Buddhist monk is not a claim to notability, and the stand off with the Belgian authorities is not enough to create notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the article has been tagged for BLP concerns of not having enough sources for a while. We need to reliably source material in biographies of living people, especially ones who are fairly young and have no strong claim to being public figures, and there is no sign of sourcing here in some cases outside of facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator I'm unable to fully evaluate the 1st article reference. However one source is not sufficient for notability. The other sources are either not reliable or brief. Searching finds nothing significant. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete paucity of RS. Dloh cierekim 04:28, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Attic

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND for lack of reliable sources for anything beyond trivial mentions. - Mr X 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A news search lists this blurp that fails GNG and NMUSIC overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, fails GNG, BAND. South Nashua (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Smith

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

A contested prod. A non-notable minor league baseball player who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N Mattlore (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable minor league player. Dloh cierekim 04:31, 5 May 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) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Baltz

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

A contested prod. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mattlore (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete minor league player not meeting GNG. Dloh cierekim 04:34, 5 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatch Labs

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

The relationship with Tinder is not enough for notability & there is nothing else. It's already mentioned in the Tinder article, so there's nothing worse merging. . DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage of the company in any independent reliable sources. Content could be merged into the Tinder article but not worth keeping on its own. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unremarkable & sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 2 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilmour

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet either GNG or hockey specific inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:55, 28 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ellis (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all elements of WP:NHOCKEY. Lacks the significant independent & reliable coverage needed for WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for hockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 1 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kandaswami

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

Insufficient RS to pass GNG, either cited in article or elsewhere. DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to rehash press releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clear promo. Possibly could've been speedy deleted as the article itself doesn't really assert significance - he's a country manager of a multinational (SAP). Being the 1st black South African (appointed recently) really isn't significant as is not all the "1st in family" etc. A BEFORE does show a potential graft scandal brewing - [16] - but not enough coverage of that either.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. could not find significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 14:04, 5 May 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) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Christie (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all elements of WP:NHOCKEY. Searching found only minor coverage. Lacks the significant independent & reliable coverage needed for WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. routine coverage. as above. Dloh cierekim 14:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A recent AfD had a discussion on whether CIS All-Canadian should be treated as equivalent to US All-American, in which case this subject would meet NSPORT. I don't see any discussion of that in this AfD, but did we ever reach a consensus on that point? Rlendog (talk) 17:41, 5 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Brandimore

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not NHOCKEY. Not GNG. Bereft of coverage. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 5 May 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rajevski

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not played at the highest level of hockey, either for his club or national team, so WP:NHOCKEY is not met. I found no significant independent coverage of him to support any claims that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 7 May 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. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Records and achievements of Usher

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

90% of this information is already repeated on his Discography and bio pages, and 10% is unsourced Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains no useful relevant info that isn't already in other articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopaedic to be useful LA2029 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Beard

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

I can't find any sources/references to verify information and to confirm notability of this person. Career section seems very detailed, almost like CV. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show that he rises to the level of being truly notable. He is head of a company that has existed over 150 years. The company is notable, he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN as above. WP:Gale turned up a Daniel Carter Beard (ancestor?) who has a bronze statue. Dloh cierekim 14:24, 5 May 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. Sandstein 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical and Materials Engineering

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

Article about a journal. No evidence that it passes WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALCRIT. - Mr X 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence that this journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. It's included in Clarivate Analytics's Emerging Sources Citation Index, but that's not good enough for WP:NJOURNAL. — Stringy Acid^talk 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Looks like a well-established journal (22 years history) published by a bona fide academic institution, even if from a non-English speaking country. 1510 citations listed on Google Scholar [17]. Impressive editorial board for such a niche journal [18]. Note that WP:NJOURNAL / WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay and can't be "failed", however it also states that "however, smaller journal can be also be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field." I suggest we keep this discussion open until enough editors with knowledge of this field weigh in. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. The main criteria for WP:NJOURNAL are these three criteria and it only has to meet one of them: 1) The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2) The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources 3) The journal is historically important in its subject area. It likely meets criteria #1 for its small niche given its impressive editorial board filled with very qualified people.[19] (as alluded to by User: kashmiri. Given the small nature of its niche, 1520 citations is notable, so it meets criteria #2. The journal has a 22 year track record which is very respectable, so one could argue that has some historical significance in its field.desmay (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while this initially seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, based on it being indexed nowhere selective with no independent sources provided to establish notability. Editorial boards are of no consequence, likewise for the number of years it's be published. I would have voted !delete based on that, but then I search for the old name of the journal. Under its old name, it was extensively indexed, amongst others Scopus (Emerging Sources Citation Index, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Civil Engineering Abtracts, Compendex, Metadex, Communication Abstracts, DOAJ). Also, according to its very badly written history page, "The magazine has been awarded the Charter for the best IT publication in 2006." and "According to the National Library of Serbia, this journal belongs to the group of M52 (journal of national importance)...". That makes is a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS and thus should be kept. However, I'll ping DGG here to confirm this is not a continuation of the journal, and a new journal that replaced an old one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I now located the home page of Metalurgija [20] and it appears that Metallurgical and Materials Engineering is not "a continuation of Metalurgija", which is published to this day, but an entirely different journal. Please correct me if I am mistaken. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am prepared to accept that being on the Emerging Journals part of the ISI database is enough by itself; what that section of the database does is extend the ISI coverage to match Scopus--Scopus' wider coverage was one of its main selling points, and consequently the two have been leapfrogging each other for years now, with the net result that the journal coverage of both has become wider and contains less important journals. If we accept Scopus, we should accept Emerging Journals. As for continuation, there appear to be two journals titled Metalurgija, the one this title continues, which claims to have been published since 1994 by the Association of Metallurgical Engineers of Serbia (which says it is "financially supported by the Ministry of Science of Republic of Serbia") , and the one published by the Croatian Metallurgical Society (which says it is " non-governmental and non-profit organization."), which claims to have been published since 1962 [21]. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, this would be another casualty of Yugoslavia split? — kashmiri ^TALK 12:52, 8 May 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. The article is a blatant hoax so falls under WP:CSD#G3. Additionally, the sole author of the article requested deletion by adding a {{db-author}} tag. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ròstemwu Palace

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

Possible hoax, Bellun and Fuland yields no Google results. Neither does Rostemwu Palace, King Ota II or Cądytći Rołazya architect. Sources are all invalid. lovkal (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the article are not legitimate, as they are photos of other palaces, such as the Palace of Kozłówka. lovkal (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely a hoax. Everything in the article is fake, and the names are apparently invented by someone who is not a native speaker of Polish. c:file:Ròstemwu Palace Front.jpg, uploaded by the same author, should be handled as well – it's a photo of the Kozłówka Palace. I can't access the Flickr to verify its copyright. No such user (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 28 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. Sandstein 12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Haddad

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

I did what I could to remove the promotionalism here, but I can not get the article to a state that is not promotional but still shows notability--the notability is too borderline. His various roles have been most co-founder, co-... which does not make it clear his actual contribution. I left in the awards, but I think the two alumni rewards are utterly useless as far as notability is concerned--a person is not notable because his own university thinks he is. I see no reason to think the Arab Creativity Awards notable, and I would take the MIT award much more seriously if it had been from the university, not the university magazine, and not been under-35; and had not been limited to "pan-Arab". I cannot figure out how many people they called "top innovator" because the link does not work & is not the main university site or the magazine site. . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and made edits to:

- removed what can be "promotional" - added links and citations to all claims - broke down & reorganized information for more clarity - clarified importance of contribution through citations & additional information (notability particularly related to Middle East, youth, entrepreneurship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4880:5771:5D67:7F58:F9F2:A4DC (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- still a promotional CV; Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Achievements / coverage are not substantial to warrant a encyclopedia article. The language such as "nascent entrepreneurship ecosystem" is typical marketing-speak. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The promotional elements have been removed, all that's remaining is appropriate reference to his achievements as required for notability. For contribution, it states he founded Yamli (acquired by Yahoo!), YallaStartup, and Relief Lebanon, besides the others. The MIT award was given through the MIT Technology review which is fully run and published by the MIT university, and also it is important as an award granted to young minority entrepreneurs. The specifications of "under-35" and Arab do not exclude the recipients of the award from being deserving and notable. User:ellco Ellco (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- still highly promotional with copy such as Habib's work in the MENA region is credited with playing a key role in strengthening its entrepreneurship ecosystem. Still nn per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Borderline. I'm leaning for yes due to scarcity of Lebanese high-tech figures (which has also garnered him some coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 3 May 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladik Kreinovich

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale is copied from the talk page verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails notability guidelines. It also doesn't cite any sources. The contents are trivial and in line with non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:3:3F60:F946:E50A:573E:463F (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My personal opinion of fuzzy computing is not high, but his citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The article contents are so minimal (current position and a well-chosen and small sample of his publications) that I don't think the sourcing issues are a big problem; there's nothing contentious here, and nothing that couldn't be sourced to a department faculty roster and library catalog. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations more than adequate for a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There are literally zero independent sources cited (the three books listed that he co-authored cannot technically be considered WP references for an article about their author, and the only other "reference" - a link to his personal page - is by no means an independent source and wouldn't pass a muster of WP standards for secondary sources). So the above-cited WP:PROF#C1 is not applicable. To summarize the list of obvious reasons for deletion:
- Article contents are trivial
- Nothing at all establishes notability of the subject - a mere fact of having scholarly articles or books published is not enough
- There are currently no independent sources justifying any claim for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.117.160 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — 73.194.117.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as highly cited; academics are notable for their work. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PROF requires reliable sources, but not 3rd party sources--Indexes and bibliographic data bases are reliable sources for publications and citation, and so are official CVs--tho we normaly had something external as well. The guideline is deliberately different from GNG, and is one of our least controversial areas. Perhaps some other areas could do similarly and establish standards that fir the subject field. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are not independent. How can we write a reliably neutral biography of this living person without access to sources that are independent of the subject? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Sorry, but the citation counts alone warrant inclusion. Sure the sourcing needs work, but that can be fixed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 8 May 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.

Jonnu Smith

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as WP:1E Smith's notability appears to stem from his inability to continue playing as a result of an altercation with this partner. Nothing in the article goes beyond that event. Mduvekot (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: The 2017 NFL Draft is coming, and it deems that Jonnu Smith is still in top physical shape to play in the big leagues. Slasher405 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the article to address that then, please? Mduvekot (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College football players are rarely notable as such, and no indication that Smith is an exception. A domestic dispute with his girlfriend that injured him is if anything a negative impact on his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with delete. But disagree with assertion -- completely -- that a domestic dispute lessens his notablity. Its just the opposite. Notable does not mean "articles about him compliment him." Notability means "there are sufficient articles about him -- good or bad is not at all relevant." 2604:2000:E016:A700:4817:7C35:95FE:6A92 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards for sports. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage subject has received was on assault. No significant coverage on Smith outside of that. Fails simplest of WP standards of notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re same user who created this, and seems new, can someone please join the conversation here on a lede to avoid an edit war? Thank you.2604:2000:E016:A700:4817:7C35:95FE:6A92 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are there to pass WP:GNG [22][23][24][25][26][27]--Yankees10 18:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep: Things are coming along with many volunteers, but it needs the NFL player template in advance. Slasher405 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should consider the sources found by Yankees10?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drafted in the 3rd round of the 2017 NFL draft by the Tennessee Titans. RobDe68 (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just drafted. Immediately close this AfD. --bender235 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I understand that Smith has been drafted, but he hasn't played yet. I that correct? If so, in what way, specifically, does he meet WP:NGRIDIRON? I'm happy to withdraw the nomination once that's been clarified. Mduvekot (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close: It seems that a few volunteers are helping out contribute to the article. Just waiting for an admin to respond and see what the final bout is here. Slasher405 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's had more than one notable event Mduvekot as he's been drafted and will probably make the roster for the Titans. Why should Deshaun Watson or Patrick Mahomes pages not be taken down then? They've also been drafted and have yet to play a game, same thing applies to ALL NFL draft picks this year. Therefore, page needs to stay up as this is a future NFL player who should make the roster for the team.--Springyboy (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Springyboy Let me get this straight: You agree that Smith does not currently meet our notability criteria, but we should handle this AfD as if he does meet them, because he will likely meet them at some point in the future? Is that right? Mduvekot (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Yankees10's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 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 13:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Walters

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

Three-year-old unsigned rock band from Chicago. All the puffery on Earth doesn't make this group notable. Calton | Talk 06:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the upmost respect, I disagree most emphatically. While they may be an unsigned band, my understanding of the guidelines for music notability suggest that the fact the Walters have "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" makes them notable. I posit that we should move away from some of the conventional methods of determining an artist's notability, such as putting so much weight on being signed to a recording label. In the modern musical climate, it is quite possible to achieve notability without one. Perhaps more consideration should be put into the fact that the band has charted on Spotify's "United States Viral Top 50", a list that regularly features artist who are unquestionably deserved of Wikipedia entries. As music is often consumed through streaming services such as Spotify (statistics compiled by Nielsen suggest 317 billion songs were streamed in 2015), the significance of this feat should not be overlooked. I would also like to strongly reject the assertion that the article is filled with "puffery", and while I revere your dedication to Wikipedia and I appreciate your criticism, I intend to remove the deletion tag. As I have taken steps to meet the guidelines for notability, I feel a consensus should be reached if this article is to be deleted. Thanks --Zachrom (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "non-trivial coverage" would you be referring to? From "Medium"? It's a blogging platform. From the Columbia Chronicle? It's a local college's student newspaper. The Vice posting? It's a music-video release announcement. And your attempts to rewrite notability standards notwithstanding, nobody outside of Chicago -- and apparently not much within Chicago, either -- has said much at all about this band. --Calton | Talk 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned up the article some for flow and tone, so that angle has been covered. I do share concerns for the sourcing, though. They have received a review from Consequence of Sound for their single and I'd consider the Noisey post a review as well, since they do comment on the music itself. The question, however, is whether or not Noisey/Vice would be considered a reliable source or not. I know that Vice itself is typically not considered a reliable source because they engage in guerrilla journalism, however I do see Noisey used as a RS fairly frequently so I don't know if they would be included on that. Several of the sources are local. They appear to be fairly in-depth, but local sources are almost always depreciated on Wikipedia because local sources are more likely to cover local people/groups/events.

I'm uncertain about the source by Ben Niespodziany (These Days). The name seems incredibly familiar for some reason and I can't put my finger on why. I'd like to say that I've seen him writing for RS in the past, which may give These Days some credibility, but without pinpointing that I can't rely on that to help the sourcing out. The site does have a staff and doesn't seem to solicit user submitted content, which is good, but they also don't have anything about their editorial process and from what I can find, the site was launched in 2015. There's not a lot out there, so I'd lean towards this being a self-published source and not really a notability giving WP:RS right now. Medium.com would also be considered a non-RS SPS in this situation. They do have a staff that writes content, but they also accept user submitted content - and this looks to be a user submitted article from what I can see. Staff content might be usable, though. As far as the college newspapers go, a select few can be considered usable. Those are usually the ones who have won very major, notable journalism awards, however these are relatively few and far between. I'm not as familiar with journalism awards to tell whether or not the ones that this paper has received would count. Other than that, the sources are all primary.

Offhand this looks like it's a band that has gotten some decent press and are inching closer to passing NBAND, but haven't quite passed it yet. NBAND can be fairly hard to meet for indie and local bands as far as notability guidelines go, partially because so much of the coverage can be local and based on press releases. My recommendation would be for you (or any other interested editor) to incubate the article and see if they gain more coverage after appearing in Lollapalooza, as that's a fairly major festival. Zachrom, don't let this discourage you - right now the best thing to do would be to continue looking for sourcing and if necessary, incubate the article until more coverage becomes available. I can help you with this even after classes end, if you like. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They are on a legitimate national tour (often as an opening act) at the present time [28] . If they do perform at Lollapalooza in August, they may get reliable coverage. That said, I'm not convinced they meet NBAND today. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Because of what they are doing now and what is expected in the near future I was thinking it was WP:TOSOON but I then fell on the side of waiting. - Pmedema (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on what can be said about them right at the moment, they don't meet notability. It's entirely possible that they might do so at some point sooner or later, and there'd be no obstacle to re-creating the article when and if that occurs. Saying that they may achieve notability and should therefore have an article sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse. I'm also going to go on record to the first commenter that the word is "utmost", rather than "upmost". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep borderline, but just enough references to justify a weak keep... Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Both Pmemeda and Power~enwiki highlight concerns about WP:TOOSOON, and point out that more coverage may emerge after Lollapalooza. Why not draftify until then? If more coverage emerges, great, we add it in and move it back to mainspace. If not, then the article can exist as a draft for at least 6 months, which is a reasonable amount of time to see if any other coverage emerges. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 26 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Ryan

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. No awards, just nominations. No significant independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources and award recognition makes the article not notable enough at this point, possibly more edits may change this.Wiki Cell (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable porno actress, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 5 May 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. There's basically only one usable "delete" opinion here, by DGG. The others are so peremptory as to be near invalid. Sandstein 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microtek

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Microtek

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

No Citations and Extrenal References Achintgupta2017 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 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 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Saxenian, AnnaLee (2006). The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 164–167. ISBN 0674025660. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The book notes:
  
  Taiwan imported its scanner industry from the United States. The founders of Microelectronics Technology (Microtek) were U.S.-educated Chinese engineers who worked together in the 1970s on document engineering, laser printers, and scanners at Xerox. They were also among Taiwan's earliest returning entrepreneurs: they established Microtek International in Hsinchu in 1980 with a liaison office, Microtek Lab, in California. Microtek's first products were in-circuit microprocessor emulators, which sold well and won a prize for the best product at Wescom (a computer industry trade show) in 1981. The founders soon recruited additional returnees from Xerox and by 1983 had broadened the product line to include scanners. Microtek went on to produce the world's first 300-dpi black-and-white sheet-fed scanner in 1985 and remained an industry leader throughout the 1990s by introducing affordable scanners using innovative software and design.
  One of Microtek's biggest initial challenges was the absence of capable suppliers for manufacturing scanners in Taiwan—an especially pressing problem because their main competitors were Japanese firms that had access to a sophisticated domestic infrastructure. Founder Robert Hsieh and his fellow organizers decided to nurture the development of local subcontractors and suppliers. They located a local company that was making low-end lenses and helped it upgrade its capabilities, first by developing a Microtek lens design and then transferring the technology to the firm (one Microtek founder holds fifteen patents in lens design). Over time, they helped to create an independent, world-class lens manufacturer. Similarly, there was no high-precision machining available in Taiwan in the early 1980s, so Microtek's founders worked closely with local machine shops to manually upgrade their capabilities. Hsieh reports that they couldn't initially hold them to U.S. standards, but they worked out ways to jointly develop products with lower tolerances that still achieved high performance levels. As a result, Microtek was the first company to be awarded ISO 9001 certification for its scanners.
  By 1988, when Microtek went public in one of the first technology IPOs in Taiwan (soon after Acer), the firm had helped to create a sophisticated domestic scanner infrastructure. The only components that were not locally available were charge-coupled devices, but the large numbers of competitors in the sector ensured continued supply for Taiwanese producers.
  ...
  Microtek alone accounts for over 20 percent of the world scanner market, and it has diversified into related digital image processing products such as digital cameras, LCD flat-panel monitors, LCD projectors, and PDAs. The firm's commitment to advancing technology is evident in its two R&D labs (one in California and one in Taiwan), which have facilities dedicated to optics design, mechanical and electronic engineering, software development, and product quality. ...
3. Costello, D. (1998-12-01). "Taiwan Is the Tiger". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Some of the building blocks of the economy are on display at the Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park, a few hours drive south-west of Taipei. Microtek International, a maker of desktop image scanners and digital cameras, is typical of a successful Taiwanese company. It is compact, with 1200 employees and paid-in capital of $US109 million, but it has international reach with subsidiaries in the US and Europe and market presence with more than 12 percent of worldwide market share for desktop image scanners.
  Microtek is a product leader and in 1984 introduced the world's first image scanner for personal computing. But there is no room for complacency in a changing market, with the company experiencing a drastic fall in prices for scanners and computer monitors.
4. Read, Richard (1993-05-17). "Taiwan's Business Presence in Oregon Remains Dull". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  When a booming high-technology company in Taiwan called Microtek acquired a Hillsboro firm in 1990, Oregon pundits predicted a wave of Taiwanese investment.
  But the wave, expected as Japanese investment ebbed, never hit the Northwest. Taiwanese firms were too busy surging the other direction -- into mainland China, which suddenly opened for business.
  That doesn't mean that Microtek regrets acquiring Microcosm Inc., a spin-off of Tektronix Inc. and Intel Corp. ...
  A group of Taiwanese entrepreneurs with U.S. business and engineering degrees founded Microtek in 1980. The firm became one of the first occupants of Hsinchu Science Park, a landscaped oasis south of Taipei established by the government as a Taiwanese Silicon Valley.
  The start-up challenged Intel, developing in-circuit emulators for a fraction of the cost of those sold by the semiconductor firm. The emulators allow engineers to test and correct problems in computers and other electronics designed around chips made by Intel and other firms.
  Microtek opened offices in Los Angeles and Dusseldorf, Germany. Then the company acquired Microcosm for its expertise in emulating chips developed by Intel in Hillsboro.
5. Murray, Geoffrey (1982-06-30). "How Taiwan plans to leap from shoes into software". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Once upon a time, there were seven extremely bright young Chinese computer specialists holding well-paying jobs with the Xerox Corporation in California.
  But all of them dreamed of returning home to develop their own company. So one day they quit Xerox and did just that. Now they are being hailed here as pioneers of a trend that could eventually plug the longstanding "brain drain."
  In 1980, the seven formed Microtek International Corporation, based in the new Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park. In the first full year of operation (1981) they earned around $700,000. This year the prediction is $2.5 million.
  Ten products have already been marketed, and 16 more are planned this year. Microtek's biggest success has been with a micro in-circuit emulator (MICE), which enables computer engineers to develop and evaluate hardware and software programs for microprocessor-based products
6. Smith, Elliot Blair (1984-11-09). "Microtek puts chips on table". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Looking ahead, tiny Microtek Lab of Gardena thinks its new desk-top image scanner could play a big role in the burgeoning computer peripherals market.
  The MS-200 -- which enables the personal computer to grasp an outside image, whether photograph or chart, and merge it with internal text -- did not hit the chalkboard until last February.
  The first prototype was not rolled out until June.
  But Microtek will debut its image scanner at the Comdex trade show in Las Vegas next week.
  And among those who have already expressed an interest in the product are International Business Machines Corp. and Apple Computer.
  ...
  The four-year-old electronics firm, with only 25 employees in Gardena and about 20 more sales representatives nationwide, admits it could not muster a broad marketing campaign of its own.
  In fact, Hsieh -- pronounced "Shay" -- is one of just a handful of American-trained electronics engineers from Taiwan who are the nucleus of Microtek Lab in Gardena, and its corporate parent, Microtek International, in Taiwan.
  Several of the engineers, including Hsieh, worked together at Xerox Corp. in El Segundo and at other Southern California electronics concerns before the founding of Microtek in 1980.
7. "Federal grand jury indicts high-tech company on Iran trade embargo charges". Associated Press. 1999-07-16. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  A high-tech company that makes equipment to diagnose computer problems has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges it violated a 1995 Clinton administration trade embargo on selling computer equipment to Iran.
  Microtek International Development Systems, a division of Microtek International of Taiwan, manufactures computer-processor emulators, which mimic the operation of computer chips at a slower speed so operators can troubleshoot problems.
8. "First Chinese foreign issuer stock application withdrawn". Taiwan News. 2014-07-04. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  The Securities and Futures Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission has suddenly tightened foreign issuer stock policies. According to reports, this situation is rooted in the ongoing tug of war over Taiwan issuer stock negotiations in the cross-strait service trade agreement. China insists Chinese IPOs employ a “mainland” intermediary. Taiwan has refused to concede this issue leading to deadlocked negotiations. The fallout caused Microtek to withdraw from Taiwan to list in South Korea.
  Currently there has not been easing in foreign issuer stock policy. A number of other mainland issuers have also filed to withdraw their listing applications. According to reports, Microtek will list on the Korea Exchange and others are looking to the Hong Kong Exchange.
9. Funabiki, Jon (1987-05-15). "Technology seen as the answer - The question being, what will extend the economic boom?". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Here, you will meet people like Bobo Wang, 40, a UCLA-trained computer expert who left a promising career at the Xerox Corp. in El Segundo, in the Los Angeles area, to co-found Microtek electronics. Started only six years ago, the company now designs and builds state-of-the-art computer-programming equipment, image scanners and computerized factory devices that are sold around the world.
  ...
  The science park made sense to Wang and his four Microtek partners -- all of them native Taiwanese who received graduate degrees in the United States.
  In addition, the Microtek partners were able to start the company on a $1 million investment borrowed from the father of one of the partners. Wang said they would have needed three to four times that amount to set up shop in California's Silicon Valley.
  "The money was planned to carry us through for two to three years with 20 engineers," said Wang. "The costs were lower here, and the chances of success were better."
10. Lohr, Steve (1982-09-06). "Taiwan Developing High Technology". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Microtek International Inc. is the best example of Taiwan-born engineers who came home to set up shop in Sinchu. Of the five who founded the company in 1980, three had been senior engineers for the Xerox Corporation.
  Bobo Wang, the 36-year-old president of Microtek, explained why he came back. The seed money of $1 million goes a lot further in Taiwan than it would in the United States, he explained. Today Microtek's main product is a device used to develop microcomputer systems.
  Together, Microtek and a spinoff company that does the final assembly of specialized numerically controlled machines employ 75 workers. More than 50 of them are research and development engineers. "We could never put together a staff of this size and quality for so little money in America," Mr. Wang said.
11. Sanger, David E. (1988-10-01). "Taipei Journal; Fishing for the Ones That Got Away". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  But unlike the vast majority of Taiwan's "overseas Chinese," Mr. Wang returned seven years ago, at the Government's behest. With four colleagues he founded a small computer company in the Government's high-tech industrial park in Hsinchu, an hour's drive from Taipei. In the next few weeks that company, Microtek, will go public and its founders and a few of its 400 employees will probably become overnight millionaires.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Microtek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does AnnaLee Saxenian's Harvard University Press-published book The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy not pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? The book covers Microtek on four pages. How does that not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline?
Cunard (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. for violation of NOT ADVOCACY. The article is essentially advertising. Advertising should be deleted, not fixed, when the article has no clean version.--it's particular folly to encourage it by trying to find reasons for keeping it when the notability is also marginal. Any gross violation of NOT is grounds for removal of an article regardless of other considerations. The rule for this is G11, and it should have been used. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article. "Advertising should be deleted, not fixed, when the article has no clean version." – I disagree. Notable subjects should always be rewritten if possible, not deleted.
Microtek is not a "marginally notable" company. It is covered in detail on four pages of a Harvard University Press book:
- Saxenian, AnnaLee (2006). The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 164–167. ISBN 0674025660. Retrieved 2017-04-28.
The book says, "Microtek alone accounts for over 20 percent of the world scanner market". A company with such a significant portion of the worldwide image scanner market has made a significant impact on the world and is clearly notable, not marginally notable.
Cunard (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – From the above, appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH on a weaker level (can't access several of the sources above), and per WP:HEY per the article being entirely rewritten. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Microtek seems to be a very important company that has had a significant influence on Taiwan's electronics industry. This would be like wanting to delete the article on Acer. This requires more Wikipedians to help rewrite and properly document the company's important contributions to Taiwan's industry and impact on the world. I am not experienced in writing articles but just now I read that in the year 1995 alone, Taiwan was responsible for making 60 percent of the entire world's scanners and Microtek alone accounted for 20% of that share so it seems important enough to warrant an article. Also Microtek helped establish Ulead Systems which is the first software company in Taiwan to be publically listed. Should Ulead Systems article be deleted as well since it is a stub article? I'm sure there are many more noteworthy details to be found about Microtek but maybe nobody is interested to contribute to the article. That would be a shame. — Czgsq (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to a notable player in the 1980-90's computer scanning industry. This and this are two book sources detailing its work. Fuebaey (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per Fuebaey and Cunard above. Although many of Cunard's do not meet the criteria, the two listed by Fuebaey are good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 5 May 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) 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Aura on an Angel

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

Searching shows that this film fails WP:NFILM. This article is a recreation of a page previously deleted via WP:PROD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching I did find a couple reviews of uncertain reliability: [29] [30] Not enough to satisfy WP:NFILM but if better is found I'd reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could use more information and credible sources. I think its worth keeping if someone wants to include these things. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. I agree with Bmbaker88: this would be an article worth keeping if sources could be found, but that doesn't seem likely. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 29 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Havers

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

~~Not notable IMO, no sources. This is a character in a book, belongs on the book's page (if there is one) if anywhere.~~ Endercase (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Book and BBC show. Endercase (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The_Inspector_Lynley_Mysteries is a good place for a merge IMO if it is merged and not deleted or improved. I will notify that talk page too. Endercase (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom, per my above notability (uncited) argument. Endercase (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, sorry about this. Still learning, I guess the availability of sources counts as notable and encyclopedic even if not cited. I was blocked from editing or I would have withdraw earlier. I'm glad more experienced users commented on this. Endercase (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some potentially useful sources on the character: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. It appears to me that this should be kept as it has received coverage, but I will leave that up to other more experienced users. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: If you add those sources to the article I would likely change my !vote to move or merge. As it is I don't think we should have an article for every character in a notable series or book, particularly when those articles are not cited. A long time ago sub-pages were used for such things. I also have a issue with the current article name as it suggest this is a BLP or historical person. I would suggest if kept on it's own it be moved to Barbara Havers (The Inspector Lynley Mysteries series) or something similar. Additionally, the article if kept should internally link to both the TV show and the Book series IMO. Endercase (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: I unfortunately do not have the time to add these sources to the article. If you believe that these sources prove notability enough to change your vote, then I should not have to add the sources to the article for you to change your vote as I have already contributed the links to the discussion for the future use by other editors. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to move the page to a different title. If there is no other article named Barbara Havers, then the article title is appropriate as it currently stands. There are plenty of articles about fictional characters that do not have a disambiguation (for instance, here is an article that I spent a lot of time working on Eve Russell.) The lead should immediately clarify that this character is a work of fiction to avoid the issue that you raise above. Again, I will leave this up to more experienced users as I am going to focus more on article creation and expansion and slowly phase out of participating in AfD discussions. Thank you for your response! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found by Aoba47 seem sufficient, I just looked at first 3 and the second one seems to be an entire entry (at least half a page, then preview ends) in 'Mystery Women, Volume Two (Revised): An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction: 1980-1992'. If she is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia, plus other sources seem to be the literary analysis, meaning it is not just in-universe fictional biography, she is good enough for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My cursory search also turns up a lot of sources, GNG clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 3 May 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) f e minist 05:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Century Record Manufacturing Company

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

Small company in business for just 18 years. No claim to notability indicated. Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient coverage in RS. MB 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; no indications of significance nor why Wikipedia should have a page on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was, in my estimation, the largest custom record label of its time, and perhaps of any time. As a collector, I very frequently run across the products, seems like 80% of all high schools used this company at one time or another between 1960 and 1975 for their band and choir. Not sure if I can make this meet GNG or not, but I'd like to be careful before deleting this one. PS, 18 years isn't shabby bad by record label standards.78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mindful that the article itself is weak, the label, in a general sense, seems notable, if for no other reason, for the fact that it was used by institutions of higher learning. Among other things, its discography chronicles a boat-load of 20th and 21st century works – many by U.S. composers – mostly performed by a wide array of universities. To that end, the label is a source for educators and researchers – including musicologists. For that crowd, the topic helps bibliographers. The label also chronicles the levels of music education at American institutions. In particular, the entire inventory of recordings represents a "sound history" of the level of performances reached by American intuitions. Incidentally, if you do a search on WorldCat under keywords, "Century" and "Saugus" (screening for "sound recordings"), you might get about 966 hits. In other words, its notability, or the possibility of any perceived notability, might better be ascertained by composers and music oriented academicians. The subject is obviously esoteric. Yet, I am suggesting that criteria for notability is, in this case, nuanced. I posted the article while researching a composer whose works were found on the label. Amplifying a point (see above) made by User:78.26, the lifespan of record labels – particularly those of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s – are akin to dog years. Eighteen years is an eternity for an independent label, particularly one that served a niche, non-profit sector – albeit a large sector that extended from coast to coast. For me, looking at a label can be frustrating when nothing is known, namely, among other things, whether it is dead or alive or custom or commercial. – Eurodog (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source, while not all online, seem to help the subject meet at least WP:COMPANY if not WP:GNG. Thanks to Eurodog for finding them and improving the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a different sort of record label. There aren't any signed artists, you gave Century a wad of cash, you got a record made. However, the affect on the record industry by Century was significant. It is therefore an encyclopedic topic. Thanks to Eurodog for finding some sources so we can verify the statements in the article. I believe this now meets GNG guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG as only one of the references passes the required criteria. I've examined the references in the context of the requirements set out for acceptable sources that establishes notability and except for one Billboard article the sources provided fall short:

This obituary of Bud Keysor fails WP:ORGIND and is neither critical nor intellectually independent. The information and data appears to come from his relatives and therefore WP:PRIMARY sources and the obituary is about the person Bud Keysor and not the topic of this article (which is mentioned in passing). Finally, the source itself appears to be a regional source and describes itself as a "nonprofit community service organization that operates the Sata Clarita Valley's public television channel)".

This obituary of Jim Keysor (son of Bud) only mentions the company in passing and is insufficient to assist establishing notability.

This Billboard article and especially the opening paragraphs appear sufficiently intellectually independent when discussing the industry as a whole and therefore meets the criteria. Although most of the Century Record information comes from a company officer and would therefore fail WP:ORGIND as a WP:PRIMARY source, I believe the opening paragraphs are good.

This next Billboard article fails the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH as it appear to be a simple PR announcement of the opening of a new facility.

The Signal article headlined "Company's woes still plague SCV" is from a regional newspaper called "The Signal" who self-describe as "a community newspaper serving the Santa Clarita Valley" which "covers local news, sports and community activities". In my opinion, this source fails as a reliable source "with a reputation for fact checking". Also, some of the information comes from the unverified and unsubstantiated memories of "Betty", a "former employee" who wished to remain anonymous but is obviously worried about her health.

There are two sources that I am unable to find as they do not appear online and perhaps those sources may meet the guidelines - if anyone could be kind enough to post a snippet, it may swing my !vote. Those sources are the "Music Journal Annual Anthology, pg. 171 (1959)" and the article from "Valley News". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as well documented as can be expected for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Do "esoteric" subjects need less coverage to meet GNG? The description of what this company did seems rather mundane and not surprisingly unnotable. If someone can propose some article on the record industry where this company can be mentioned, then there could be a minor merge and redirect. MB 05:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to meet GNG with those external references. I'd be fine with some cleanup, however. South Nashua (talk) 18:13, 12 May 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 deleted per A7 . Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rijon Khan

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

Other than being autobiographical (violates guidelines of WP:COI), article's single reference is to a web page at Reverb Nation where you can hear the subject perform (i.e., it is not "coverage"). Google search turns up the usual social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) but no substantive discussion in reliable, independent, verifiable sources. There is no corresponding article in the Bengali Wikipedia. KDS4444 (talk) 02:34, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Avermaet

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Non-notable basketball who has never played in any professional league nor international competition necessary for notability. Article is unsourced and only contains a link to his Facebook page. A Google search provides nothing but the Wiki article or mirrors of it. CBS527^Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) CBS527^Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the league the subject most recently played in, much less his team. The article fails to clearly assert notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:01, 30 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 University of Sheffield. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Clifford Dental Hospital

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable. the coverage is rather routine and local for Sheffield. let's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. a directory entry. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are very few specialist dental hospitals in the UK. This is one of the best-known and the teaching hospital for a notable university dentistry department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual evidence of being "best known ". LibStar (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally keep but at least merge/redirect. There seems to be quite a lot of coverage in old books judging by GBooks but without available access. Even if the hospital itself is potentially not notable, it's part of notable entities, such as Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Sheffield, two possible targets for redirecting/merging. Per WP:ATD there is certainly no reason to delete this page completely. Regards So Why 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the search results of searching google books is not a valid AfD argument. Those could be all passing mentions. There needs to be multiple sources with signfiicant discussion of the subject, so that we can have an actual WP article and not a directory entry. See WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the policy, thank you very much. That's why I wrote "ideally", hoping that someone with more access to such books can find the required coverage. However, I think we can both agree that per WP:ATD-R deletion is not a valid outcome if the article title would make a useful redirect, can we not? Regards So Why 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Either target would suffice, but I think University of Sheffield is slightly more appropriate. That way, the history is kept if someone wants to develop the article further. Clearly, as it stands it does not appear to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Sheffield. Insufficient sources for notability. Sandstein 13:59, 26 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daegwang Elementary School

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

fails WP:ORG. elementary schoools have no inherent notability. this one looks like WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. it was marked for notability and being uncited in June 2013. the Korean version of this article is poorly sourced too. LEt's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is intended to provide information about this elementary school in Korea. It could be improved with more content and additional sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All articles are to provide information about their subjects; that's neither here nor there. Are there independent sources to show that it meets notability requirements? LadyofShalott 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary schools have no inherent notability as per WP:NSCHOOL. Since this issue comes up repeatedly as far as AfDs, Wikipedia should emphasize in WP:NSCHOOL that schools have no inherent notability because the issue of elementary/High school notability is a reoccurring source of AfDs. Wikipedia should emphasize the "no inherent notability" criteria for schools or change the rules on school notability and make schools with a certain enrollment size or other obvious means of demarcation have automatic notability. Knox490 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the independent reliable coverage needed to satisfy both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Knox490. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 18:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On it's own it doesn't meet established guidelines for WP:ORGSIG notability. There exists, however, some precedent for small schools to be referenced in articles about larger and more notable organizations in which they are a part of. For example, my elementary school does not have an article, but the school district does and it is listed there. I would suggest you explore that route if you feel that this school needs to be referenced in some manner, but it doesn't warrant it's own article. Good luck. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 19:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Conventionally we accept most secondary schools as notable, but Primary (and below) as NN, though they may be merged/redirected in Education in <place, school board, local authority>. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn per se. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 5 May 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. Sandstein 12:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Minority Studies

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the name of the journal is actually Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

clear delete unusually doesn't come up on gscholar which means no one has even cited this journal. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: You obviously didn't search for "Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen" as Cordless Larry mentioned two weeks ago. I see 1290 hits on Google Scholar. St Anselm (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage and the journal isn't indexed. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The delete !votes seem to miss that this journal is usually listed as "Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen". It is definitely listed in Linguistic Bibliography ([31]) and the International Bibliography of Periodical Literature ([32]). So it does seem to pass WP:NJOURNALS. St Anselm (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per StAnselm above. prokaryotes (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StA. Dloh cierekim 14:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Randykitty: would you please comment on the observation from StAnselm? EdChem (talk) 01:37, 6 May 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) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman

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

Doesn't pass Wikipedia:POLITICIAN criteria. bio created and expanded by the subject himself. one sources is cited which is not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. the subject holding a position within a political party's staff which is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass. Saqib (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holding a legislative position only is not the automatic ticket to notability, in fact many politicians meet WP:GNG due to their activism or political work without ever being elected. I see the subject being mentioned in multiple sources. Mar4d (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited few sources but most of the references quote him (name checking) instead of discussing his life or work. --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because he exists, and neither the volume nor the depth of sourcing being cited here are enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — as noted, three of the four sources just namecheck his existence in coverage of other things while failing to be substantively about him, and the one source that is actually about him is just a blurb which isn't substantive enough to carry a GNG pass all by itself. I'm willing to reconsider this if further sourcing can be added to strengthen his claim to clearing GNG, but what's here right now just isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to not meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOL standard. The Wikipedia article on Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman states: "Hafiz Naeem Ur Rehman (Urdu: حافظ نعیم الرحمن‎) is a Pakistani politician who is currently the chief of Jamaat-e-Islami in Karachi". Wikipedia's Jamaat-e-Islami article indicates: "Jamaat-e-Islami (Urdu: جماعتِ اسلامی) is an Islamic political organisation and social conservative movement founded in 1941 in British India by the Islamist theologian and socio-political philosopher, Abul Ala Maududi." So he currently holds no government position. And he previously was a politician at the district level - not the national/statewide/provincewide level. Knox490 (talk) 03:06, 28 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lansing Field

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

Non notable sports field only mentioned in small local newspapers where there are always slow news days.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable. The page doesn't cite sources, but that doesn't mean they're not out there.[33][34][35][36] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

those are small local newspapers where nothing noteworthy happens. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former minor league baseball stadium. Minor league baseball stadiums in organized baseball, which this was, are notable. I agree the article could be better written, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is informational even though there are no sources. Their Facebook page has been active recently with pictures and scheduled games, which demonstrates this place exists, making it notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These local newspapers aren't enough(WP:NOTNEWS).Burning Pillar (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Smartyllama comments, by long custom we maintain articles for the ballparks of teams in organized baseball; it's encyclopedic information and the completeness of this coverage is essential to its value. Moreover, plenty of reliable sources are apparent, including non-local ones, and the subject passes GNG easily. I've added a few sources to the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 2 May 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) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eversheds Sutherland

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

Article about a firm which has a very large advertising component. If the advertising was removed there would one sentence left. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as reputable international publications discuss the firm, however many are press releases under the surface. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 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, 28 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Sawayama

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

Non notable supposed artist and model. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete some sources are reliable. The article can be trimmed. Man she looks odd. —usernamekiran[talk] 09:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 20 April 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, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources included in the article. Passes WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 02:42, 29 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 keep. So Why 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Within the Wires

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

Not my field, but notability seems doubtful. Huffington is not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been reviewed on IndieWire, and is part of the same "Network" as Welcome to Night Vale. Fireheart14 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also CBC Radio if that means anything). Fireheart14 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Most of the sources only mention the podcast in passing, though there are enough RS to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I added a few more sources with mentions and highlights from sources such as Wired and Vulture.) Fireheart14 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions have nothing to do with notability , no matter how many there are. What they are useful for is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant it in the sense that they may hold more weight in terms of RS than some of the previous ones like Huffington Post. ("Mentions" might not be the best descriptor tbh, since I didn't bother including articles that namedropped and moved on since they don't actually provide any info.) Fireheart14 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient coverage to establish notability. Artw (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NBOOK Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOK quite specifically refers to books, not other intellectual productions. Read it. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy." Power~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly has coverage in independent secondary sources. I see no reason to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not entirely sure about the article as is. However, CBC Radio is unambiguously a reliable source, and that plus other bits of coverage (even, admittedly, from more questionable publications) seems to make the podcast qualify under general notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 22 May 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. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are in effect advertising and should be disregarded for notability purposes, or not. Sandstein 12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grana (fashion company)

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

no evidence of notability -- references are only press releases and notices of funding DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company; sources are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cerini, Marianna (2017-02-03). "The Hong Kong Brand Making Quality Basics Under $100". Racked.com (Vox Media). Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  At Grana’s Fitting Room, the brand’s flagship showroom in central Hong Kong, crewneck cashmere sweaters and silk joggers hang alongside poplin button-down shirts with mother of pearl buttons, nipped and tucked in all the right places. This is not a new scene — plenty of clothing brands sell nice things next to each other in specially-outfitted showrooms — but only few can keep the prices of every single item under $100.
  That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers with comparable — if not better — quality.
  ...
  Grana clothing can be described as a more affordable and less serious Everlane, or an upgraded boutique version of Uniqlo. It fulfills the needs of a growing millennial market seeking a casual luxe look. Items are simple with small functional details, like inverted pleats designed to enhance fit. Fabrics and materials span Peruvian pima cotton and Japanese denim, French poplin and Italian Merino. Everything feels soft, and sleek, and super neat. “Expensive,” suggests Grana (the person). “Except it’s not.”
2. "Back to Basics: The Hong Kong start-up taking on fashion giants". CTV Television Network. Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-19. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Luke Grana arrived in Hong Kong with no contacts, cold-calling 'angel investors' he'd found on LinkedIn armed with only his CV, a business plan, and some big ideas to overhaul fashion.
  In little more than two years, his eponymous clothing store amassed $6 million in seed funding and has become the go-to shop for under-35s seeking quality staples for their wardrobe.
  ...
  Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk from Huzhou or Peruvian Pima cotton, sourced from the same mills that work with luxury brands such as Ralph Lauren and Lacoste.
  ...
  The firm is now has backing by big name investors including BlueBell Group, distributors for the likes of Christian Dior in Asia, and Golden Gate Ventures, a leading backer of start-ups in the region.
3. Traill-Nash, Glynis (2014-12-06). "Luke Grana goes from T-shirts in Peru to Hong Kong-based clothing start-up". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  GREAT business ideas can come from the most unlikely places. For Luke Grana, it was Peru.
  While there visiting his brother, Grana was impressed by the quality of the local pima cotton. After buying up T-shirts that remarkably kept their shape and vigour after being put through the wringer, an idea started formulating. What if you could offer fashion basics in the world’s best fabrics at disruptive prices?
  And so, the 30-year-old entrepreneur launched Grana.
  ...
  The Grana formula has garnered the attention of investors. A test run in May, where 2000 T-shirts sold out in three weeks to customers in eight countries, proved to investors that the model worked and that customers were keen on multiple purchases.
  First on board was multinational retailer Bluebell Group, based across Asia, which markets, franchises and distributes luxury brands across the region, including Jimmy Choo, Paul Smith and Carven.
  Another 28 angel investors from Australia and Hong Kong followed. In September the company closed a $US1 million ($1.19m) funding round.
4. Soo, Zen (2015-09-17). "As more online shoppers complain of clothes that don't fit, Hong Kongs Grana tests hybrid try-before-you-buy approach at first store". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  E-commerce fashion store Grana launched a flagship brick-and-mortar store in Hong Kong over the weekend as part of its strategy to drive sales online by letting customers try on clothing before committing to making a purchase via the web using in-store computers.
  This tackles a growing problem amid China's recent e-commerce boom: many shoppers complain that the product they receive looks different out of the box from the image they saw online; others find the shoes, clothing or accessory they have just shelled out on doesn't actually fit them.
  Grana’s first store is located in trendy Sheung Wan district. It has a full product range in various sizes and colours, and a couple of dressing rooms so that customers can try before they buy.
5. Kaiser, Amanda (2016-07-27). "Hong Kongs Grana Launches Swimwear". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Grana’s business model is similar to that of Bonobos or Everlane — it uses the Internet to cut out the middleman and passes the savings onto the consumer. Founded in 2014, the start-up retailer ships to 12 countries, including the U.S., Singapore, Australia and much of Europe. The brand claims to travel the world to source the best materials, like Irish linen, Japanese denim, Mongolian cashmere, Chinese silk and Peruvian pima cotton.
6. Salamat, Rishaad (2015-09-01). "The Hong Kong Clothing Retailer Revolutionizing Shopping". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The video notes:
  
  Grana founder and CEO Luke Grana discusses his e-commerce luxury fashion brand, how the company is employing an offline-to-online retail strategy and where he sees growth. He speaks to Bloomberg's Rishaad Salamat on "Trending Business." (Source: Bloomberg)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grana to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That a Hong Kong-based startup received significant coverage in international sources like Racked.com's Vox Media (United States), Agence France-Presse (France), and The Australian (Australia) strongly establishes that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, per a review of available sources about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the sources above and yet only found such promotionalism as "While there visiting his brother, Grana was impressed by the quality of the local pima cotton", "Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk", "more affordable or an upgraded boutiqe version", "That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers", "silk joggers hang alongside poplin button-down shirts with mother of pearl buttons, nipped and tucked" and such material is not "informative in encyclopedias", "his store....seeking quality staples" are a few, since it violates our main policy WP:What Wikipedia is not which states "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". If anyone actually looked at the sources carefully as we should, they would see such material is not at all independent since a company's labeled pricing list is never the case at all. What WP:GNG actually says is "Wikipedia articles must have significant and independent coverage of the primary subject". The publications themselves are hosted in its "business attention" section which instantly violates WP:CORPIND. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Are we being asked to believe that an article containing "That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers with comparable — if not better — quality." is a reliable source for anything--let alone notability? DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is published by Vox Media's fashion website Racked.com. The article is a review of the company Grana and its products. It is not surprising that a journalist for a fashion website did a price comparison between Grana and similar companies and reported her findings to her readers. The article also says, "In terms of price and style, Grana falls somewhere in between Uniqlo and Everlane." The journalist indicated that Uniqlo is cheaper than Grana, which is exactly what an independent journalist would do. A non-independent journalist would not include that information because that information does not promote Grana.
Cunard (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is explicitly an advertisement: it says in effect, shop at Grana. . And Loooking at the next reference "Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk from Huzhou or Peruvian Pima cotton, sourced from the same mills that work with luxury brands such as Ralph Lauren and Lacoste." That's not investigation, that's copying their advertising. It doesn't matter who publishes it, an article advocating the store is an advertorial at best. Even a supposedly reputable publication publishing such ads is not longer a reliable source for that material. True fashion journalism describes, not urges to shop at a particular store. What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. – I do not believe traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content. That the journalist's review of the company and its products is very favorable does not make the source non-independent or advertising.

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable, independent sources. Sources that promote subjects this way are not independant, and DEFINITELY not reliable enough if they advertise like that.Burning Pillar (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No undisclosed advertisements are being run in the very reputable sources Agence France-Presse, The Australian, South China Morning Post, which all provide international significant coverage of Grana.

Burning Pillar's account is very new. Burning Pillar's deletion review request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24#Timeline of Amazon.com was closed as, "Administrative close. We're not doing a DRV from a WP:SPA created two days ago."

Cunard (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources and without exception, they are all advertorials complete with interviews with the CEO. The references fail as they rely on PRIMARY sources for their data and are not objective articles. Cunard lists this WDD article as an example of a source that meets the criteria to establish notability. In my opinion, the article is a thinly disguised advertorial written to announce the company branching into swimwear, complete with photos featuring models posing in the new swimwear, an explanation of Grana and their business model, an extolment of the "high quality textiles and affordable retail prices" and a final mention of the latest round of VC finance. Reading the other references yield the same conclusions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Agence France-Presse, The Australian, and South China Morning Post interviewed the CEO and included quotes from the CEO is good journalistic practice. This does not make the articles primary sources. All journalists attempt to interview and include quotes from the article subjects. There is no evidence that Agence France-Presse, The Australian, and South China Morning Post did not research and independently verify the information they included in their articles. Researching and independently verifying information is what journalists from reputable publications do.
Cunard (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a source (such as the ones you mention) extensively quotes a company exec and builds an entire article around what that exec says (and nothing more) that the article is not objective and fails to be an *intellectually independent* source. There's no criticism in any of those articles and no quotes from independent sources and nothing to indicate that any independent verification took place. It is misplaced to take these sources as "independent" journalism and I don't believe for one second that the sources intend to promote these pieces as independent. It is literally the definition of an advertorial which is an increasingly common method for company marketing execs to "communicate" their corporate message. If this company was truly notable, sources that do not follow this pattern would exist. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've certainly disagreed with DGG in the past on matters like this, where significant coverage in reliable sources is to be disregarded because it is subjectively judged to be insufficiently critical and tarred with the label "advertorial" when there is no evidence at all that that's the case. We have more than sufficient coverage on the article and in Cunard's list to pass GNG. As for the above "I don't believe for one second that the sources intend to promote these pieces as independent" -- that's obviously an entirely subjective belief that you're entitled to. But it doesn't sway me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 5 May 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. Substantial debate on both sides by experienced editors after the relist suggesting that we're not close to coming to consensus on this one. A Train^talk 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLabs

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

no wvidence for notability -- just lists and brief notices DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normally I would consider the references in the article as routine announcements common with startups, but they are rather in-depth like this one which was written by the editor in chief of Entrepreneur Middle East. So they are not just the normal "they launched" but actually go into detail about it. This one from Arabian Business is also in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is actually in the current article so it's no different and therefore because it existed before, it was analyzed as part of the original AfD. How are we ever differently viewing WP:N if we're not actually paying attention in the article has and not? SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where your logic is going. Are you saying that since "that one source" (not sure what one you are referring to) is already in the article that it is not notable since the article was recommended for deletion with that reference already there? I also wouldn't be accusing editors of "not actually paying attention." If you focus purely on the article and what is there, then you are doing something wrong. You need to look beyond what is on the actual pages of Wikipedia sometimes to determine if references exist to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources linked above are routine launch publicity, as in:

"Muhammed Mekki and Louis Lebbos, co-founders of AstroLabs, warmly welcome more than 300 guests at their new co-working space."

Just a tech startup going about its business; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. after considering further comments. Yes, an "aspirational tone" is exactly what is meant by advocacy, and the rule about that is our fundamental NOT ADVOCACY. The arguments here are essentially: it advocates for something we all want, so let's keep it. A more obvious rejection of NPOV is hard to imagine. NOT ADVOCACY is more important than considerations of borderline notability . Accepting or rejecting borderline notability articles may damage the encyclopedia ,a little, but accepting advocacy destroys it. If people want to do that, it's easy enough to start a new wiki outside the Foundation. I have learned to be especially careful about advocacy I would support--it takesconscious effort to reject one's own biases. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) ;[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See source examples below. Some of the sources include interview content, but they are not comprised solely of interviews, and also contain critical analysis and overviews about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete as I examined the sources above and, not only are they clear advertising but they actually (visibly) consist of the ones currently here in the article such as The National, Entrepreneur and all of them have clear statements of either "The company says", "The company announces", "The company's employees announced", etc. and none of that satisfies WP:GNG since it explicitly says "Coverage must be significant and independent" which something having "The company's announcements said today" would not met our criteria. As usual, if the best that can be offered is the article's own current sourcing, there's absolutely nothing to examine. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations. A company reaches out to the press with information and the press decides to run with the story or not. That doesn't mean it's promotional. There is a difference between press that is paid for and press that is influenced by PR. Most publications don't knock on the doors of companies and ask them if they have a good story to tell. It all starts with PR. Some companies do better at it because they can afford while others don't. I don't see how these references - unless you can point out otherwise - were paid advertisements. Would this (and the many others based on the same announcement) be considered promotional since the headline reads "SpaceX Announces?" --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which by the way, the Fortune example above is a brief announcement. Compare that to the references I cited in my keep !vote and you will see a major difference. The ones published on AstroLabs are beyond brief mentions and general announcements. They are very in-depth and meet WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Northamerica1000 clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no evidence that The National or Entrepreneur is publishing advertising. Both are reliable sources independent of the subject that have written substantial articles about AstroLabs.
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in an attempt defending the article, an editor just above said "Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations". They are perfectly correct. Many articles in the press do indeed start that way, and getting them written is indeed part of the profession of public relations. That's exactly why we cannot use such sources for notability and why their reliability is suspect for any other purpose also. They're not independent. The profession of public relations can contribute to society by getting the word out about new ventures. There is nothing wrong with doing that in a fair way in appropriate media. When I want to find out about new things that are not yet notable, I look for press releases on Google and everyone in the world knows to do that also. . But it is not our role here. If the venture succeeds to a noteworthy extent, then there will be independent articles about it. And then, and only then, can we justifiably have an article in an encyclopedia. When I look in an encyclopedia , that's what I expect to find. And people do know that, which is why the PR people like to try to convince us that their client is sufficiently notable to have an article in our encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, my reply to SwisterTwister above was not an attempt to defend the article, but an attempt to defend the references about the article topic. Also, I am NOT advocating for the use of press releases for notability - I am not sure how anyone could advocate for using a press release for notability. When I say “PR” I am referring to the profession of “public relations,” not the term “press release.” The point to my response above is that the majority of press is influenced by public relations in some form, which sometimes does include a press release. Now, simply reprinting a press release is churnalism and involves no fact-checking and is unacceptable. However, if a publication writes a story that contains quotes from a press release, this does not automatically make it churnalism, nor should it be discounted just because they quote from the press release. If we disregard any reference that was somehow sparked by the effort of public relations, we would actually need to discount the majority of press out there. Each source needs to be weighed individually and I don’t see how the ones cited above are advertorials (paid for by the company) or simple reprints of press releases. They contain independent information and come from reliable sources. They are also in-depth which in my opinion, satisfy what is needed to establish WP:GNG. But again, that’s just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point that CNMall41 is making. The fact is that Press Releases do spark interest in a subject or topic. Then journalists pick up on it. If the journalist in a reliable source has used as their starting point of interest a Press Release, that's not bad journalism. That's just the starting point. I seriously doubt any of the above references like the Wall Street Journal are just "reprinting" a press release. They probably saw a buzz of interest and chose to write about it. Are we really going to deconstruct every article to determine just how much PR is involved? Do we need to phone up every journalist and have them give us citations? Is this really the direction we want to go with articles just so that we can discredit enough sources in a an AfD to get the result we desire? Determining somehow (through magic?) that an article is PR just because we feel like it is, isn't Wiki policy, nor good practice in an AfD. I'll be commenting later on the article, because there are other sources out there to add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I agree we have to excercise our judgement here. I have read those articles and I side with the camp that they read too much like rewritten press releases - they seem to promotional, and the coverage doesn't seem much better than that for any other minor start up (they exist, yay!... Google connection, cool!). Sorry, for me that's not enough to make them warrant a page in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, please don't be flip. I said above that I would be commenting later because I found more references on HighBeam, etc. I've added them to the article. The point of finding and discussing more sources is to establish GNG, not to show that I know how to use Google. I appreciate you assuming good faith. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I am sorry we have a misunderstanding; I always assume AGF and I didn't meant to put any words into your mouth. When I wrote the 'cool' sentence, I didn't mean to imply it was your attitude, but that it was the attitude of the sources discussed (that's how I read them). I am sure you know how to use google, and implying otherwise was not my intention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it very much. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references provided are all, without exception, WP:PRIMARY sources and rely on the company or company officers for information and data, often repeated verbatim. None of the references are objective or can be rightly regarded as being unrelated from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail WP:CORPDEPTH and IMO doesn't pass WP:NOTPROMOTION (what Wikipedia is not). The source don't meet the standard for notability of being Reliable and Independent and contain significant coverage. Some seem to meet 2 of the requirements but I don't see any that appear to meet all 3 necessary to establish notability.

The purpose of "Public Relations" is to create a favorable impression of a company or individual. Press releases are a vehicle to do this and certainly do not convey a NPOV. Unfortunately in the rush to provide instant information, press releases from the organizations are often used by publications with minimal change. There is no requirement that a publication needs to disclose the information comes from a press release. The same information that is contained in an advertisement may be found in a press release. The main difference is one is paid for the other is not. Just because a source is not paid for doesn't necessarily make it more credible.

Press Releases, by definition, are primary sources and generally not suitable for establishing notability as they are not independent and in many cases may not be reliable. Many of our subject specific notability criteria exclude press releases and our WP:VERIFY policy considers press releases as self published, hence, primary sources. CBS527^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have considered the references, but even the best ones (thenational, etc.) read like rewritten press-releases. We need to toughen up our guidelines on WP:CORPSPAM. Getting 1-2 articles about business-as-usual-look-at-us-we-are cool should not steer us into WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES territory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only does this entity clearly meet GNG, but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. The standard is "substantial coverage in third party sources independent of the subject." There are major outlets covering this company. Per the concerns of Piotrus, if the wording looks like some of it was cribbed from company materials, that is, my friends, the state of the press today -- we could say much the same about the coverage of most modern politicians (once a meme gets started, everyone repeats it). For that matter, run earwig on older WP articles and they will flag as copyvio because later press articles mirror WP with close paraphrasing. Not only can substantial coverage consist of lazy writing, we also have to remember that some publications in Third World nations where English is not a first language may use less sophisticated writing and style. Montanabw^(talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above by Northamerica1000 and ones that I added to the article are in-depth, occur over time and are about the subject of the article. That's the standard for GNG.

Editors who are stating that these references are blatantly promotional and rewrites of press-releases are making some assertions that they need to defend:

That they know that these are rewrites of Press releases. How do they know that? Do they have copies of the PR to compare?
The articles they are trying to discredit as advertising or press-releases are, in fact, written as advertising. You can't just say that it "feels" like advertising. You have to show me that it's advertising. Otherwise I'm not convinced.

Article clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl - I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider these sources that you added contain "in-depth" coverage of the subject.

The sources you added

1. "Omani Entrepreneur Seeks to Replicate Dubai Success with Shopping Website in Sultanate". Times of Oman. 29 November 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help), (original article can be found "Here".) - just a one sentence mention
2. Krishnamurthy, Krithika (5 January 2015). "Nasscom to Get More Vertical Legs for Its Startups This Year". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via The Times Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) (original article can be found "Here".) - just a one sentence mention and does not verify the statement you added. It was actually 10,000 Startups that received over 9,000 applications and 150 startups not AstroLabs.
3. "Gitex Technology Week to Host Global Start-Up Meet". Khaleej Times. 7 January 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) (original article can be found "Here".) - a 3 sentence mention. CBS527^Talk 02:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment -- I still do not see how this topic is encyclopedically relevant. To start with, it's associated with a nn Google For Entrepreneurs which we don't really know anything about. Even with the new sources the content is:

AstroLabs was founded in 2012 by Louis Lebbos & Muhammed Mekki, the founders of [nn] Namshi.com.[6][7] In 2016, AstroLabs hosted the the Women in STEM (WiSTEM) Hackathon.[2] As of 2015, AstroLabs has received over 9,000 applications for startup businesses.[9] Etc.

All of the article's copy can be just as successfully housed on the company's web site. Thus, the existence of this article does not serve the readers, but instead (by necessity) is promotion for the company, which Wikiepedia does not do. In this case, WP:NOT overrides any marginal newsworthiness the company might have (because it's effective at PR). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG, per Montanabw and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. It is encyclopedically relevant because per Forbes "Dubai is investing in billions to make the emirate an innovation hub for global technology businesses and entrepreneurs". Coverage then, of organizations like AstroLabs explain how that is happening and why. [37], [38] To make our coverage of such initiatives encyclopedic, by definition articles must be comprehensive. To be comprehensive then, they must include relevant (not minute nor promotional) detail, covered in RS over time. For all the reasons stated above by @Northamerica1000, Montanabw, and Megalibrarygirl: SusunW (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ", but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. " is a classic example of the unacceptable reason for keeping an article: " It's important to society". Keeping an article for that purpose is a direct violation of WP:ADVOCACY. This applies no matter how generally accepted the cause. In fact, it's an argument that shows up here only when the cause is in fact generally accepted, especially when it's a cause of particular strong and merited concern to WPedians. (Nobody sensible would use the argument for a cause that most people here would reject). The question is not whether it is trying to do something excellent and much-needed, but whether its work in doing this is notable. Once it is, there will be sources uncontaminated with PR efforts. Using sources so contaminated is almost as bad as ourselves using WP to promote our own causes--and an argument like that comes to doing exactly that. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think first you have to adequately show that the references are "contaminated" with PR before you can dismiss them. So far, editors !voting delete are relying on how an article "feels" or "seems." That is not how we decide we should delete. The subject of the article passes GNG... unless you decide that the sources feel or seem like PR. That's unacceptable until you can adequately prove that the articles in reliable sources are indeed only advertising. Other factors brought up as "it adds to society" are indeed tangential to the question of GNG. The fact is that the article passes GNG... unless we are changing the rules for this article and allowing feelings to trump facts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources from User:Northamerica1000. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the sources offered by Northamerica are all that great. For example, one headline proclaims: "For Entrepreneurs, By Entrepreneurs: AstroLabs Sets Out To Vitalize MENA Tech Startup Ecosystem" -- this is clearly aspirational and such "vitalizing" has yet to occur. This coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; there's no transformational analysis or indications why this subject is significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Sadly, it seems some editors are mesmerized by the cool factors (Google-connected lab in Middle East supports women!) and ignore the fact that the sources we have read like slightly rewritten press releases :( If we had an independent source, analyzing the impact of this company on women's lives and careers in the region, not based on company's marketing materials, I'd be very happy to vote keep. As it is, I am afraid I see this entry as too promotional and based on too unreliable (marketing) sources to be encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to jump in here, too. You need to prove that these articles are promotional, beyond how you feel about it. K.e.coffman brings up a good example, calling an article "clearly aspirational." Does that make it advertising because it has a positive tone? We can't automatically assign positive-toned articles to unequivocally equal advertising. Many articles about places and people are positive without being advertising. Piotrus brings up marketing materials. How do you know, Piotrus, that the articles are based on the marketing materials solely? Can you demonstrate this? If those saying the references are too promotional can prove that all the above references are advertising beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll reconsider my !vote. But it has to be based on facts, not feelings. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have already given clear reasons why many of the references display the signs of a press release. Press releases do not have to be available online.

The only thing I can add is -

if a large part of "the source" contains direct quotes from a company official or someone associated with the company with no evidence that the writer has communicated with that person, (ie: conversation, email, etc.) then it's very likely it came from a press release and not independent from the topic regardless where it is published.
Is "the source" about an announcement of something? - this type of information almost universally is disseminated through a press release. The source may be useful for verifying material in the article, but is not useful for establishing notability.

Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exists, not on content, not on inherent notability or whether "like it/don't like".

The guideline, WP:GNG is not a free pass for inclusion. Even if an article appears to meet this minimum standard, the article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia per WP:GNG. When a guideline and policy conflict, the policy takes precedence. A number of the editors, myself included, feel this article violates our core policy WP:What Wikipedia is not for the reasons stated. It's fine if others disagree after all that's why we are having this discussion. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm confident the closer of this AFD will give appropriate weight to each of the comments. CBS527^Talk 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cbs527, yes, plenty of editors have claimed they somehow know that the reliable sources above are "clearly" PR. I disagree that the articles are PR and have invited them to definitively show that their claims are valid. GNG is a standard for inclusion, period--no one is saying the article should get a free pass. The sources used in the article (most of which are in-depth), show that Astrolabs has been covered over time. We don't get to change the criteria for GNG just because we feel like it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've included commentary of each source and why it fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability by directly referencing the relevant policy/guidelines below. You say that some editors have claimed they "somehow know" that the "reliable sources above are clearly PR". My position is easy to understand. A source must be "intellectually independent" in order to establish notability. That means that the journalist or publication has fact checked the data and stands over their work (or has voiced a personal opinion based on some other work) and doesn't blindly accept positively spun messaging from an organization. When a journalist uses extensive quotations and/or attributes data to other people or surveys, the only integrity that the article has is that the included quotations are accurate and that the people/organizations/surveys quoted said what was quoted. They don't stand over the content of the quotation, just the fact that the quotation was provided. For me, that's the Big Red Flag. Each of the sources provided to date follow this (lazy non-journalistic) pattern. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it's nice to want an article to meet inclusion criteria, it's pretty clear that the sourcing for this particular subject is clearly based on public relations. DGG's, Swister's, and particularly CBS527's are spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already !voted Delete above but I notice that some Keep !voters are simply saying "meets GNG" or "as per references posted by X" with no further explanations or rebuttals to other discussions. I've examined each and every source and I'm using a variety of policy and notability guidelines to assess those sources (but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND).

Bloomberg articles can sometimes be thinly disguised "advertorials" - that is, an article that poses as an informative independent article but in fact relies completely on the company providing the information. Bloomberg articles that follow the formula of "describe problem -> how the idea/company was born -> photos of founder -> quotes from company officers/founders/CEO -> funding/customer wins/awards" are easy to spot and I consider them to be advertorials. This is one of those articles. There are no criticisms and nothing negative is written about the company or their "opportunity" and there is a lot of hopeful forward-looking aspirational statements. It is not "intellectually independent". This article fails to establish notability because it uses "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:ORGIND because the content is "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization".
The Gitex Technology Week reference provided is by subscription only. Here's one that isn't. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement for GITEX that mentioned Astrolabs in passing (the co-founder will be a judge for one of the competitions) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization".
The National article is another advertorial and if you have read the Bloomberg article previously, this article is eerily similar - even uses the same quotes from various people. For the same reasons, this article fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent.
The WSJ source fails because it is a blog and is therefore not considered a reliable source.
The Entrepeneur article is another advertorial and follows the same formula including "problem -> idea -> photo -> quotes -> solution". It relies completely on company quotations and cannot be considered "intellectually independent". It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
The Wamda article is also an advertorial. Follows the same formula. Relies on quotations from company officers and data provided by the company. It even profiles two of the startups starting there but they *gush* about Astrolabs with comments like "Enthusiastic to become a member of AstroLabs Dubai", "We were impressed by the organized speed of growth ... We are also convinced that AstroLabs Dubai is the suitable platform for such growth", "We are impressed by the division of work-stations. In other words, AstroLabs is greatly aware of the needs of startups". The article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
The Video at DMCC is missing and returns Page Not Found
The Google page cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent since Google is one of AstroLab's partners.
The Times of Oman article (also available without requiring a subscription here) is a profile on a founder of shoponclick.me and AstroLabs is mentioned in passing. Since the article is 1) An advertorial 2) About a different topic and 3) Only mentioned AstroLabs in passing, this article cannot be used to establish notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Times of India article is a Press Release about a different topic (Nasscom) and mentioned AstroLabs in passing. Notwithstanding that Press releases cannot be used to establish notability, there is no depth of coverage and therefore the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

An article requires "multiple" sources to meet the criteria for notability and this topic does not even have a single source that clearly and unequivocally meets the criteria. If this topic was truly notable we would be able to find a reference that was intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have removed the two sentence in the article that were referenced by the Times of India article as well as this source.("Here".) The statements were counter-factual to what was contained in the source. CBS527^Talk 00:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Grandma

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

This article cites two sources which I consider generally WP:RS - The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. However - one citation is dated November 01, 2016; the other two are undated, but were retrieved on October 23, 2015 and March 15, 2017; whereas, the series which the article is about debuted on March 22, 2017. I cite WP:GNG, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERT.

I am also concerned about the other bluelinked articles in Template:YouTube Red. I haven't gone into them in any detail, but I get a smell of WP:SPAM for a subscription service. Narky Blert (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include: [39], [40], [41], [42]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:03, 28 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. One month open and only two participants -- there's no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train^talk 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 2.0

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. This phrase is closely related to Web 2.0 and always appears in the same context. The phrase was originally coined by Jaokar and Fish (2006), or by Holmquist (2007). See this and this. There is simply not enough academic papers or other in-depth sources that discuss the phrase. In comparison, we do not have an article for Learning 2.0, but we do have one for Library 2.0.

Redirectifying or merging to Web 2.0 would be satisfactory results too. However, I am not sure if this phrase is notable enough to even be mentioned in that article. Ceosad (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. An entire 617-page book has been written about the topic, and other sources provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete - a member of the subset of WP:NEO that involves throwing 2.0 after a thing and seeing an actual concept sticks. Not seeing it happening here - possibly a redirect to Web 2.0? Artw (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted...", but this topic has received significant coverage and usage in reliable sources. As such, this is not actually a "member of the subset of WP:NEO". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otley Run

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article on non-notable pub crawl consisting almost entirely of original research, with the sourcing comprised of blogs such as this and promotional websites. Interestingly this article in the Telegraph, listed as a source, focuses on the pubs of Otley yet it does not mention the "Otley Run." Article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago resulting in no consensus. No discernible improvement in sourcing and article weaknesses since then. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

- The Otley run is the best known pub crawl in England. It is undertaken in a specified order (which should be reinstated to the article) by thousands of people from across the Yorkshire region and further abroad each weekend. Hundreds of thousands across each year.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick google search establishes that the subject is notable and that reliable sources are available. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:01, 28 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. A Train^talk 22:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection UK releases

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

Not independently notable. Doesn't add anything that can't be included at List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases simply by adding a footnote for all the releases that have also had a UK release. (Also, the spine numbers are incorrect, but that isn't a reason to delete!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. It appears the spine numbers are in fact the same as the North American releases. It would be trivial to add a column or footnotes to indicate a UK release. There's no benefit to having a separate article. Reach Out to the Truth 17:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everything in the article can be merged with List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. Numbering, however, is not by spine number (even though that would have been useful in the UK article too) but instead by the order of release in the UK marketplace; and this in itself is useful info, and should be included in case the two articles are merged. The same goes for having the information on announced, upcoming UK releases (many of which are already released in the US). As a result, I would not use footnotes but instead create a new column in the table for the UK releases (i.e. the title of the column would be "UK release" and the lines list either a date or nothing (or a colour-coded date for an upcoming release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teehex (talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK numbering is WP:SYNTH. There were six releases on the same day (numbered 1 to 6), but they have been arbitrarily numbered here. The US Criterion release dates aren't mentioned, so it would give WP:UNDUE weight to the UK release dates if we included them. A footnote with "also released in the UK" (or similar) should suffice. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:LISTNAME. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a naming guideline. Which part do you feel applies to this deletion discussion? Reach Out to the Truth 23:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major media distributor--we have similar list of notable works distributed or broadcast -- it's an accepted part of the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per criteria 1 (nominator withdrawals nomination) (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trichy Teppakulam

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

Proper information is not given at all. Trichy Teppakulam, the article is. But nothing refer about it and describes about surrounding areas. It must be cleared or expanded with the description about the topic alone and not any other. wiki tamil 100 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator should clarify whether the article should be cleaned up or deleted. As such, it is not a hoax and articles on places definitely fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it-Let it be. Don't want to be deleted. But must be cleaned up. The information must be about the temple tank only.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, nominator does not want article deleted and as WP:NOTCLEANUP... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 29 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.

[1] ttps://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/On-NET/Chad-Z-Hower-aka-Kudzu-Cosmos

[2] ttps://www.codeproject.com/Articles/220076/Csharp-Open-Source-Managed-Operating-System-Intro

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

[4] ttp://rightwingnews.com/column-2/326270/

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]