Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.

Purge server cache

Contents

Irene Lindh[edit]

Irene Lindh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Irene Lindh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. There is a claim that she won the Eugene O'Neill Award in 2004 but I have been unable to find a reliable source (only mirror sites and Wikia) that this is the case. Quis separabit? 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ann-Marie Wiman[edit]

Ann-Marie Wiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ann-Marie Wiman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 23:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Vomitron[edit]

Vomitron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vomitron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Extensively informed PROD removed with the sheer basis sourced are listed, but these in fact are the person's own websites, certainly not convincing and therefore I still confirm what my PROD said, it's obvious this article has been used for advertising by the band person and there has never been anything suggesting otherwise at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Brian Mathis[edit]

Brian Mathis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brian Mathis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not enough nobility, no sources, and is not linked from any other Wikipedia pages. Therainbowsend (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sunnis (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Sunnis (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sunnis (Dungeons & Dragons)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Archomental. bd2412 T 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Archomental per BD2412, and per WP:ATD-M which the initial !vote does not address. Unfortunately, "sunnis" is the plural of a major division within Islam as well as the adherents of the same, and there's no hope of getting any effective Google searches for it. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Marid (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Marid (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Marid (Dungeons & Dragons)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in that [1] and [2] both cover Marids that appear to be more influenced by D&D's instantiation of them, rather than what we see at Marid, the more traditional Islamic mythological creature, even though neither mentions D&D explicitly. Failing that, merging per BOZ would be acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Klingon Way[edit]

The Klingon Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Klingon Way" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable. WP:TNT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, I was not able to find a single book review that could help with WP:NBOOK. Anything salvageable can be moved to Marc Okrand though without sources there really isn't anything to save. - Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Miss Supranational 2016[edit]

Miss Supranational 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Miss Supranational 2016" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A new annual/year event for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination). Technically not WP:G4 since this article was not part of the discussion, but it sure falls within the spirit. ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

MassWiz[edit]

MassWiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MassWiz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

low notability, not (yet) established in the scientific literature, only 28 citations on google scholar, there are literally dozens of other peptide id softwares that are more widely used and more notable hroest 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuria Log Manager[edit]

Assuria Log Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Assuria Log Manager" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Dubious claims of notability, government link is an internal catalogue link rather than something conferring notability, all that's left is one magazine award. PROD was removed in August with promises of improvement; this hasn't happened. Part of the Assuria apparent spam cluster; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria CyberSense. Suggest salting these names and variants used in the wild. David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and it's not surprising searches are not finding anything, all of the listed information simply goes to specify what it is and what else is involved in its business, there's nothing to suggest independent notability and substance, and that's what we would've needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt per above. Jdcomix (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as "corporate spam", with typical WP:PROMO language. "Salt" too. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, does not pass WP:Corp and has WP:promo problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Kony, Inc.[edit]

Kony, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kony, Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Advertisement for a non-notable software/company completely based on non-neutral sources (or deadlinks). damiens.rf 21:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

MobileFrame[edit]

MobileFrame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MobileFrame" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Profile of a completely non-notable piece of software. damiens.rf 21:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

America/Indiana/Indianapolis[edit]

America/Indiana/Indianapolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "America/Indiana/Indianapolis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

America/Indiana/Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Marengo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Petersburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Tell City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Vevay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Vincennes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
America/Indiana/Winamac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My research failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and as such all of these articles appear to fail the general notability guideline. I am unable to find a more applicable notability policy or precedent for either keeping or deleting articles over time zone database locations, though many other such articles exist, so this is somewhat of a test case. Since they appear to fail the GNG, I recommend deletion or else redirection to either Time in Indiana or their geographic localities (such as Indianapolis, Indiana). Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The list of these tz database time zones is at, appropriately, List of tz database time zones. I'm not sure what to do with the individual listings. The tz database is unquestionably notable. The list of zones it defines, also not a problem. Individual content for each zone? I'm not sure. It seems unlikely that they'll have specific, GNG-passing discussions on their own. But on the other hand, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and surely this is a gazetteer function? For the record, there's this big list of Indiana-specific ones because the tz database tracks regions that have had timezone changes during the Unix epoch, and timezone management in Indiana is a mess. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I totally agree that the database and list of individual zones are notable. I'm just not convinced that the individual zones should have articles themselves (usually). There does not appear (at least with these zones) to be enough depth of coverage to justify each having their own article; what little coverage there is seems to be fleeting at best, and not enough to produce more than a stub or start class article at best. The gazetteer function can be accomplished by a better formatting of the main list article, with the coordinates and associated location for each zone being linked and the list being broken down into more manageable, sortable sections by region (America, Europe, Asia, etc). I would not be opposed to redirecting the zone articles to either "Time in _____" (in this case Time in Indiana), the associated location for the zone, or to the main list of zones in place of deleting the pages if consensus is that retaining the pages would enhance the gazetteer function. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Price of Peace Catholic School[edit]

Price of Peace Catholic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Price of Peace Catholic School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "Prince of Peace Catholic School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable elementary school. Tagged as unreferenced since 2007, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG - even when the typo in the article title is taken into account (should be Prince) Nthep (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rebbing 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Appaserver[edit]

Appaserver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Appaserver" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Advertisement for a non-notable piece of software. damiens.rf 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't even find unreliable sources on this, let alone reliable ones - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Links that the article provides are pretty much advertisements, fails to meet WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and this is exactly the unacceptable materials that were being submitted and accepted before we started taking massive and damaging advertising articles seriously, and this is one of the, it never comes close to actually forming a substantial and significant article, there are, of course, no sources and there are none because it seems there's nothing actually important and convincing to say about this. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Protomap (proteomics)[edit]

Protomap (proteomics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Protomap (proteomics)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This seems to be a rather advertisement-style article about a method that does not seem very relevant. The corresponding paper has 25 citations according to Google scholar hroest 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nepal Mathematical Society Newsletter[edit]

Nepal Mathematical Society Newsletter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nepal Mathematical Society Newsletter" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Small society (according to their own website they don't even have 100 members). No indication of any notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG. Not notable newsletter. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Not sure WP:NJournals applies, but in any case it isn't met. Also fails WP:GNG. (Apologies: earlier I copied the wrong deletion rationale, this is the correct one). Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm not sure whether WP:NJournals applies given that this is a newsletter rather than a research journal. Nevertheless, we have no evidence of notability, neither through NJournals nor through GNG. It might be worth considering also whether Nepali Mathematical Sciences Report is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley[edit]

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The page is nothing but listcruft that lacks any real assertion of significance. Mentioning someone in a song isn't in itself a really noteworthy trait anyway. Since this is not a place for excessive listings per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's best to just delete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this list does prove something - that Presley's influence over music is so profoundly vast that artists of all different genres, from country to hip hop to rock to indie pop, have referenced him in numerous times in their music, and that seventy years after his commercial peak, he is still a huge part of Western culture. P.S. I promise that if this list is left alone that I will add numerous refernces to it! User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There is already Cultural impact of Elvis Presley which discusses that. Anything on his influence over music is best placed either there or in his main bio. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion before and it was decided that it should be left alone. Shouldn't we defer to that decision? User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No. First of all, that ended in "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep", though that wouldn't prevent future AFD nominations regardless. Secondly, just because something was kept before doesn't necessarily it should still be kept. Things can change over time, and that discussion was from 2008. Article standards have substantially changed since then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Steele Band[edit]

Tommy Steele Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tommy Steele Band" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Advertorially toned and almost entirely primary sourced article about a band, whose most substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is reaching #79 on a chart that doesn't satisfy WP:CHARTS (the magazine's Wikipedia article describes its chart as "focused on exposing new music played on secondary market radio stations", which means charting on it isn't noteworthy.) A band with no claim to passing NMUSIC #2-12 could still get an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy NMUSIC #1 (which is essentially "has enough media coverage to satisfy GNG"), but with the sourcing here being virtually all primary that hasn't happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


I don't know all the fancy wiki linking, but this is absurd. This is a real band, real people, and the bio isn't advetorially toned, it's just a plain description. Making the charts is a big deal, and per wiki's policy on WP:CHARTS there are countless band pages on wiki that have no charting or sources to prove charting. Did (talk) bother looking at the sources, which are all well established industry websites which show coverage. Additional media coverage will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talkcontribs) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Incik Boss dan Probe[edit]

Incik Boss dan Probe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Incik Boss dan Probe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable song from the soundtrack of a Malaysian cartoon. Lots of hits on video sites but nothing resembling any significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sujod[edit]

Sujod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sujod" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I have been trying to clean up the villages in southern Lebanon for the last couple of months, but I have still *no* idea as to where this place is located. I cannot find anything even remotely similar mentioned in http://www.localiban.org/rubrique505.html The only source talks about "the mountain of Sujod." If nobody can find this on a map, then I suggest we delete it. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lalithaa Jewellery Mart[edit]

Lalithaa Jewellery Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lalithaa Jewellery Mart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of any notability. References are mostly press releases although two are about the MD buying another company and being awarded an honour. None of these convey any notability. Almost the same article but with a different title Lalithaa jewellery was nominated at AfD with almost identical justification but speedily deleted 2 days later here  Velella  Velella Talk   19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete and salt per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: While a company with turnover of 6000 crore in India should be notable, but I'm not seeing any such evidence. May be it is an exaggerated claim made in a PR article. Anup [Talk] 14:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bolurfrushan family[edit]

Bolurfrushan family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bolurfrushan family" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Vanity bio, fails WP:GNG by absence of independent reliable sources. Brianhe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jakob Tait[edit]

Jakob Tait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jakob Tait" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article seems to be a mix of a hoax, and an article about a person who fails WP:RLN, as he is not notable enough. Full marks for a creative fake photo though. Mattlore (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there even a player named Jakob Tait?? I am confused there is a fake photo and a team that doesn't have a link that I have never heard of. This article does sound kinda legit though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:202F:F800:FD00:EE30:8A1:4F88 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jakob Tait is real! He played in the Jr Trans Tasman for the last two years! I like him because he shares my first name and he seems like a nice bloke. It's not a hoax. I went onto some website and found the photo cause I thought it was funny. Thankyou for the marks on the photo but I didn't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobtheDaddy (talkcontribs) 13:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete (possibly CSD A7 / CSD G11) — Seems to be a mixture of lack of notability, possible self-promotion, or just a pure hoax. The precise mixture of those factors is not particularly important, as it fails to credibly establish the minimum notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Infobox photo appears to be of a real person, with their face and hair changed (and certainly does not look like a 12 year old to me), so probably a copyright violation in the photo. The career section is entirely unsourced and not credible. The random collection of web links, presumably presented as references, include a mixture of unreliable and questionable relevance. Murph9000 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: The article has previously been deleted twice under CSD A7. Murph9000 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Joe Storm[edit]

Joe Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joe Storm" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Doesn't appear notable. Fails WP:RLN, as he has not played in a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations tournament, or the Rugby League European Cup. The Tri-Nations is a lower tier tournament, and is not the European Cup. Mattlore (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nextiva[edit]

Nextiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nextiva" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unbelievable and unwisely accepted from AfC, because I presume the user never examined the history logs, where it has been deleted multiple times, and it also went to Deletion Review not once but twice where it was closed as no restoring; now that the article has been restored, it's basically still an advertisement in that it only shows trivial and unconvincing PR sources as "news" and the information itself is PR also. Also, my own searches are then finding nothing but said PR and trivial mentions. Delete and Salt again please. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Briana Buckmaster[edit]

Briana Buckmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Briana Buckmaster" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I've been watching this article since it began, and the recent PROD was removed (by SPA of course) with the thin and unconvincing basis of "she appears at fan conventions so she can be included here", because her career is not applicably convincing or basically convincing at all, the longest work has been 4 episodes of Supernatural and then 25 as a crewmember for something else. None of this suggests an acceptable article nor are there the signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

FINO (company)[edit]

FINO (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "FINO (company)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 line to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia material. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Merely press releases and promoted written articles on popular media and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - no evidence of notability, I couldn't actually check either source - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and redirect to FINO_PayTech as dupe. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Olive Telecommunications[edit]

Olive Telecommunications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Olive Telecommunications" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing press release on media. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. it is not Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - incredibly blatant advertising, and I note the user who started it was Olivedotme. If this didn't date to 2009 I'd have speedied it - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Another cut-and-paste nomination deletion nom with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage in article; also Wired and The Hindu. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That Wired article is literally a pasing mention, The Hindu is PR coverage if not actually a reprinted press release (which it is written in the style of) - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete instead by all means, notice a similarity with the listed news sources and the information, it all focuses with such blatant company activities and it goes as such a far end to contain pricing and financing information, you know that's an advertisement, and it's still one if a news source publishes it, because it ultimately shows, not only churnalism, but that the company supplied the "news", meaning it's certainly not independent, significant or substantial; they may as well have named it "Company Press Releases", and not even list the newspaper's name. Even considering its age, this would and could in fact be speedy material, because it's simply so blatant, but we would have best with ammunition later because chances are that a staunchly advertising company like this, will attempt to restart, because nearly all cases, that's what happens. Because these articles are then sugarcoated with such blatant fluff and puff, we cannot automatically take them seriously and list them as actual news, especially if that's how cunning the advertising field is, that they will attempt several times and several methods, and that's what we see here with articles. Not only is the article containing clear signs of the company's involvements, but notice the timeline of no actual changes, this could at first suggest they have no current interests, but as other cases have shown, this is a case where they literally think it's currently acceptable, especially since it contains anything and everything a company looking to advertise could ask for. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CCAvenue[edit]

CCAvenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CCAvenue" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. It is not Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Probably they should put Brochure instead. Light2021 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and Salt as this is advertising and this alone, it was deleted once before as advertising, and this is so advert-like, it's tickling quite noticeably at speedy material, as not only is there barely any information (let alone actual substance), it only gives the illusions of what the company would say about itself, which is what it is, the services and other activities and people-groups involved. The listed "news" are clearly attempts of PR in that the company clearly supplied information about itself, because they are only things they themselves would know such as their company partners and clients, and that's what this field is notorious for, anything to sugarcoat PR and that alone. To state the obvious, this was started by an SPA account who only seems to be involving themselves with these exact articles and businesses, suggesting not only paid contributing but blatant advertising of it. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

PepperTap[edit]

PepperTap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "PepperTap" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising alone, the information is advertising what this company is about and then what the services are, every single listed source is also advertising the company with several methods such as showing what their finance and company achievements have been or are going to be, interviews, listing the names of clients, investors or other people and companies; none of it comes close at all for becoming both substantial and non-PR. There's nothing to suggest actual hopes of meaningful improvements therefore, if this only serves as advertising, we delete it lest we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per above - failed startup, when half the article is funding rounds you know they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for stuff to put in their Wikipedia advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm ambivalent about keeping or deleting this article, but I wanted to point out that 1) I almost entirely rewrote it, so I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to the article as the company's "Wikipedia advertisement" or to say "they" were scraping the bottom of the barrel as I, a major contributor to the article in its current form, am entirely unaffiliated with this defunct compny 2) I'm not sure if it's possible for the article to be advertising anything at all since the company no longer exists 3) The article is four paragraphs, and one of the four paragraphs is (partially) about funding. The others are about its history, business model, and demise. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I originally speedied this as yet another semi promotional article about an unremarkable business, but I'm leaning towards the position that the collapse of the company makes it interesting...see [3]TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm, good find. Any more like that and I'll change my opinion - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Grofers[edit]

Grofers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Grofers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Just deleted comment on Talk page. Light2021 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and I would've nearly suggested Salting because this was speedied once before, and this is clearly part of an advertising campaign (see Draft:Saurabh Kumar, Draft:FITSO and Draft:Fitso, as they contain nothing but advertising, which this article itself is, the article is only barely about 3 years old and all of the listed news are about its activities and funding alone, there's no substance from any of those, because they are all advertising the company one method or another, and they are clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients, which is something notorious for not only this field of business, but the entire scope overall. The article itself is overspecific, as are the articles, with things only the company itself would know, and that's not surprising, considering it's been noticeably touched by SPA accounts, and that's not even saying a lot either, considering the article itself has basically stayed the same. Once we begin to at least soften and allow any advertisements, regardless of what sources are listed or how numerous they may seem at first, it still boils to advertising and it's something we should be ever so careful about, lest we start becoming a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep Regardless of intent, this has enough non-trival coverage from reliable sources to easily meet WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Something that we as an encyclopedia choose and are obligated to choose is whether we firmly and clearly say No to any shoehorned attempts at advertising, or we go with a blanket of "If GNG is satisfies, we keep", because it's quite cunning how advertising and its essence becomes so heavily involved and staunch about these articles, that we ultimately have to think differently, lest we become troubled about choosing what actually matters, and this is: Not accepting or being otherwise manipulated by advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: I completely and totally rewrote this article prior to the AFD being filed. The charge that this article contains "clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients" is absurd. In no way is my rewrite intended to help this company obtain investors or clients. I could care less about the company's success, and I'd be awfully surprised if a venture capitalist ever turned to Wikipedia for ideas on where to invest. This article meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which is why I think it should be kept. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - What these improvements actually go to show is worse....in that they emphasize the company information and PR listed worse, in that the sources, again, are PR and PR alone that they blatantly contain information the company is listing about itself, sentences such as " "After a year of rapid growth, Grofers aiming to achieve operational break-even by year end" is something they would only say, because it so clearly states what the company's plans, regardless of where it's listed, because that's the company's PR essence alone. The following articles go to continue containing such blatant sentences like that, another says "Grofers has had a good run so far, aims at....at year end", not only are these 2 different articles, dates and places, but they contain the same exact fluff and puff information, clearly amounting to one involvement, and that's the company alone, because they are the subject and they are the one best connected to the subject itself. The following articles only then go to show what the services are, what the services exactly contain and consist of and everything else, no one else would know that better than the company itself, and not to mention, it's their own business so they of course are going to motivate people publishing it and involved with making it noticed, in this case, republishing and sugarcoating it as "news". Not one part actually becomes both subtantial and non-PR-assesed, that's clearly because the only intents behind this and in itself were to advertise the company itself. To state the obvious, these articles not only contain specific photos and quotes about the company, that's what they largely consist of. Simply because a user uninvolved has now touched and changed the article, is still not removing the ever so noticeable essence of PR, and if the contents are PR-based, there's nothing changing that, so making any amounts of changes or moving, are not removing the PR itself. The claims of investors manipulating Wikipedia being "surprising" are not actually so, because that's what these companies in fact want, but as long we bar those attempts and any sugarcoated attempts, it will not happen; this is a case where we would not allow it to happen, lest we accept this, despite what it actually is, a PR article. Once we at all start softening ourselves and compromise "PR republished news" for the sheer excuses that they come from a news source publishing this, this is no longer an encyclopedia, it's a PR webhost, and that's what companies enjoy seeing and attempting. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: If we don't accept sources such as The Economist, we literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. Perhaps that is what some people want--but it's not in keeping with our current policies. Try to change the policies if you want to, but we can't unilaterally discard available WP:RS because of "PR". Safehaven86 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is established with the consensus of not accepting advertisements and as should be the case of course, then that enables us to remove contents classified and listed as such advertisements. As I've said I including above, and I'll state it again: Merely having a news source is not a basis of keeping, especially if the contents themselves have PR and only information the company wants to says about itself; that exactly fits what the sentence "We remove advertisements regardless of whatever and whoever, at all costs", therefore there is nothing barring us from removing such articles, lest we allow ourselves to become a PR web host. Even then, with this said, we have established a noticeable consensus at AfD with this alone and it's not the end either, because od these same exact articles, therefore there is nothing to change if it's currently happening. To state things even better, the one source above is exactly what the company wants, since it goes to state what the business is, the services and anything else the company and its businesspeople would mention, therefore they have achieved churnalism by hosting it at a new a source. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
On "that is what some people want" to Safehaven86 (talk) If we go by that logic or rule here, Economist, Time or major newspaper get published every day or weekly apart from their online version where they write every kind of article that is possible in huge numbers, Wikipedia will be flooded with such articles who get coverage merely as press or just being influential. Wikipedia will become a content marketing hub like any other blog or tech hub like Techcrunch, Inc., Enterpreneur or similar blog who publishes 1000 of articles for such companies everyday. It will mean we should write each and every article with One Paragraph on wikiepedia, They are already there, what is here to write about? We will lose the Wikipedia for its core essence of notability or things that really matters to the level that every child or person seeks Wikipedia because it stands for highest notability or most credible and transparent Encyclopedia on this planet. Such organizations are simply using this platform for their promotions and nothing else. Being popular or having advertised on various media or get covered by popular media does not make them notable. Even people get their Biography published paying to writers, it does not mean each and every Biography stands for the notability. Or simply it does not mean these media are wrong, they are also commercial in one place, so giving them 1 space in a lifetime does not hurt much. Other than credible media is not interested in any of these organization for their significance, as it is clear the way it is covered by such media. On the other part literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. I disagree, my selection of AfD is definitely not Microsoft, Amazon or Smaller significant ones. So Wikipedia will still have many or thousands of notable as they stands. I am not nominating each and every articles written from Tech world. I had to explain here as I think above comment intend on my AfD selections. I understand we can not make Wikipedia as Newspaper, where such company has nothing to write but one paragraph. Imagine what would happen to Wikipedia if they are publishing 100000000 articles only on such companies. It will become another website for Content Marketing. Complete misuse of Wikipedia and its sole purpose. they are not volunteer who are spending their time to make it better, they come here to publish only such articles and go away, even some of them are getting paid as Wikipedia article writing. You can search Wikipedia Content Writer, many will be there. (Please note that It is not intend to you. It is general statement as we already know) Light2021 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

UrbanClap[edit]

UrbanClap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "UrbanClap" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and I thank the user for renominating, as this was and still is advertising; examining all of the sources listed before, at the AfD and afterwards, show it's all about the following: PR, republished PR, news about funding, partnerships, interviewed information, trivial coverage about other company activities and what they think of themselves. None of it came close at all, it seriously should not have been kept because of the overall questionability. The article currently itself is such an advertisement in that it only contains business-listing information about what the company is, its services and who the damn clients and investors are, none of that is acceptable at all, and what makes it worse is that company clearly is avid and persistent about this article since all contributors have been SPA accounts only focusing and changing this article itself. To make matters worse the 1st AfD of mine itself was swimming in clear attempts of employees or otherwise connected people who never, of course, acknowledged the concerns here because this article serves for only one thing and it's an obvious one: advertising. The other Keep votes themselves then actually at least stated there were in fact concerns, but that "fixing would perhaps help", that's not the philosophy we should keep, especially when the deep damages of such advertising actions cause. The "news" articles goes to blatantly contain such fluff and puffery such as "Time to UrbanClap if you are looking for services!" which then blatantly contain interviewed information and other puffery company achievements, then there's another that contains information about free charity activities the company initiated locally, that serves of no interests but to people who become company clients and investors, and that alone, because that means nothing for independent notability and substance here; another article goes as far to contain another blatantly company puffery of "UrbanClap's focus on local services benefitting both customers and service professionals" which then blatantly contains the life story of the businesspeople and company, yet another thing the company and its involved people would only know, and at that, know best. We seriously cannot kid ourselves that any of this is actually significant, substantial, etc. if it all centralizes to company PR and that alone, because no honest media (especially not one as notoriously pay-for-news as Indian news sources) would genuinely add such advertising puff. One thing we have to telling ourselves is "We should never compromise at all about accepting PR even if it's so sugarcoated and republished", because any forms of that happening damns Wikipedia to being a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Cited sources meet coverage depth and WP:RS requirements to meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: The given sources meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The charge that "all contributors have been SPA accounts" is absolutely false. I rewrote the article prior to its AFD nomination, and I am certainly not a SPA. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given my analysis above, there is no depth or substance, because every source is PR in and of itself, it only contains blatant attempts at the company handing "news" to a source to publish to therefore emulate the "happening of news", the articles thenselcds have the crafted and essence of such methods, because an honest journalist would never care or be interested to go to such specifics about the company, lest either he was paid or persuaded for something, which is again the meaning of churnalism itself and the news world is getting worse because of it, therefore meaning the company is taking advantages of it, which is the conception and finalization of the supposed "news" above. Because churnalism continues and is largely becoming utilized by these companies, we therefore have to be careful what we actuslly call news, especially if it's in fact jacketed PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia[edit]

Everipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Everipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

2nd Nom - We gave it a chance, cleaned up the refs and gave fair weight to the issues, but it still fails GNG. The news refs are PR-blog interviews or Crunchbase-style database entries; no one has independently covered or referenced Everipedia itself. All but one of the PR interviews are in the blog sections of their respective sites. As funny as Everipedia is, this article is (at the very least) WP:TOOSOON. Jergling (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Because I know this is going to come up: Yes, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a WP:RS. No, it is not sufficient for GNG in this case, because it's a local interview with the creators which is about the people, not the product. It has the same issue as the other refs, because the Everipedia staff was directly involved in its creation. Jergling (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Second nomination for no good reason. Article passes WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:SIGCOV This AFD seems to have been opened for WP:POINTy and opened a few days after it was closed as No Consensus [4] . Everipedia is being used by a number of sources as a News Source, thus showing its notability. This included Yahoo [5], CBS Los Angeles [6], Voices of Detroit [7], News.com [8] , The Epoch Times [9] , Slate.com [10] , CBS San Francisco [11] , CBS Tampa Bay [12] and more. Many reasonable arguments were brought by Carrite , Tomwsulcer , Pwolit iets , GoldenSHK , and Connor Behan , BlackAmerican (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't speedy keep. I'll look at this again in more detail later, but I don't see that the nom meets any of the strict SK criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Arguments from previous discussion still apply. How about letting a year go by before re-AfD-ing this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The interviews are not that bad. Some of them, especially the DP one, regularly interject with statements made by an editor at the newspaper. And there is no evidence that Mahbod or other Everipedians had any control over what passages would be written in between quotations they provided. I am generally against the practice of nominating an article many times in a row until the crowd of responders changes enough for the outcome to change. Waiting a few months and saying "no new reliable sources surfaced during this time" if that's the case sounds like a better approach. Connor Behan (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. All cited is PR puffery, and laughable, too. IMO the previous closure was not based on of analysis of relative weight of arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as the 1st AfD had the essence and it ultimately showed this is still not as convincing it would be, especially for substance, and that's of course caused by the fact it's not completely a year old now, therefore it's simply to soon. What was listed as defenses and sources at said past AfD are not actually convincing and are simply attempts to puff the article and mirror differently, something of which can and has been manipulated, and therefore causes troubles. The listed sources and information themselves are then PR-suggestive and that's not surprising, the overall contents suggest enough questionability in that we would be best removing this because there would certainly be troubles aftermath affects from it later, and the claims of speedy keep are entirely unconvincing since an NC is not a basis at all of Keep, since they are contrary, and I would hope it's not simply attempts to keep another nomination from actually analyzing this again, which in that affect is symmetrical with my concerns above. None of this suggests better, and it's quite unlikely anyone can listed any different given what was listed before and, again, the fact it's too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources provided show that it's notable. The same user started this nomination just five days after the last one closed as no consensus. I suggest waiting at least five months before nominating it again. BigGuy88 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Export Development Bank of Iran[edit]

Export Development Bank of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Export Development Bank of Iran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and makes no sense. It claims a governmentally-owned bank is a public company, among other things, including an international reach without indicating a single foreign office. Also, don't confuse this "EDBI" with https://www.edbi.com/, which is the Singaporean company that there are actual news hits on. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a central government bank, and there is a significant probability that because of the systemic regional bias, our editors might have not been able to trawl out regional language sources. From the Central Bank of Iran to scholarly journals, from the National Development Fund of Iran to regional news reports, to Ministry web sites (just search for the bank on Google with site:gov.ir appended at the end), there is considerable material available on the bank. We just need editors to use the regional sources and put it up. Deletion is not the solution. Lourdes 04:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"Systemic bias" is not an excuse or synonym for "lack of usable sources." How many users of English Wikipedia can read Farsi and Russian? If they could, what are they doing here? At some point the lengths one needs to go to in order to overcome "systemic bias" are ridiculous. So, no, that's not really valid. Basically, you've found a lot of random web addresses, and that's all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello MSJapan. Please don't take it otherwise. Have you attempted searching even the English sources for EDBI? I apologize much in advance if this sounds otherwise, but I think if you had, even the English sources go against your contention. All the following have absolutely significant mentions of the Export Development Bank: US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI. My view is that you should not have an absolutely negative deletionist slant against institutions like EDBI which need editorial support to spruce up content. You need to perhaps step back and not ridicule editors attempting to find sources, but rather yourself attempt to search the same before nominating. Thanks. Lourdes 17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I can read Russian, and I take exception to the question of what I am doing here being asked on that basis. Don't you realise that many people can read more than one language? What are you doing here if you think that an encyclopedia should be limited to what has been written about in one language? That is anti-intellectual dumbing down that goes completely against the idea of what an encyclopedia should be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a statutory body, so WP:CORP is not the right measure. That said, we do need good sourcing, else a decent redirect target - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a statutory body - it's an investment bank that happens to be owned by the government. Statutory bodies are like the SEC - they make and enforce rules; they don't engage in transactions. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, as per the US government, and as per an absolutely large number of significant reliable sources ( US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI), it is a state owned body that has been known to engage in transactions. My apologies for repeating the sources, but I feel given the innumerable number of reliable sources available, the article needs to be improved, and not deleted here. Lourdes 17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
How is someone using data taken directly from the bank to write a paper "independent coverage" of the bank, and how does it make the organization notable because somebody used its statistical data? How is interviewing the CEO "independent coverage" when he's talking about the bank he runs? How is publishing a press release "independent coverage" when all it does is delineate a transaction and we generally exclude those from consideration? In short, these sources don't meet WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If you don't wish to accept scholarly research reports that have analyzed the bank's operations, despite our WP:RS guideline mentioning "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources", then that discussion belongs to the talk page of the said article and not in an Afd. If you believe that the US Government's multiple advisories lampooning and castigating the Export Development Bank of Iran is not independent of EDBI, I would suggest you take this issue also up on the talk page of the article. I'm not clear what you're looking for. When you nominated this article, you were quoting WP:CORPDEPTH, without mentioning that EDBI is a Central Government owned bank; you also were not in the know of any of the sources mentioning EDBI. Post that, you refused to consider systemic bias, claiming the same as "ridiculous". Post that, you said that I had searched out "random web addresses". Post that, you have dismissed scholarly sources and US government's advisories as being not independent of EDBI.
And of course, you have chosen to not comment on news reports like those in Teheran Times/Menafn (which notes that EDBI is a "policy bank established by an Act of Parliament in 1991" and "continues to perform an important policy role") and others like Financial Tribune which also I have documented above. Why would you wish to delete this Iranian government policy bank article, with such strong delete assertions? I strongly encourage you to first perform a proper search for sources, before nominating this article again. Lourdes 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added all sources to the article and now have spruced the same up. Lourdes 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not sure what the issue is. It's a state own economic development entity and it's been covered in the English press and by the US government a great deal. The nom's focus on this agency's article being "without indicating a single foreign office" is irrelevant to notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to meet GNG to me. Like Oakshade I'm not sure what all the carry-on is. In the UK non-departmental public bodies have extraordinarily varied constitutions so I wouldn't be at all surprised if this applies in Iran as well. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, per various comments above. I too cannot understand the nominator's position here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like we would keep any such prominent establishment from another significant country. There is indeed lots of room to expand coverage. — JFG talk 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarnal[edit]

Jarnal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jarnal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence nor claim of notability as a product. No third-party sources. Looking through the history, it's been this way since its creation in 2007 and PROD in 2009; no reasonable prospect it will be improved on its own. Very little in Google, nothing in GNews (which is all people named "Jarnal") and Wikipedia reprints in GBooks. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to what David Gerard said, the whole thing is composed of primary sources – it doesn't seem to have actually been covered in-depth by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Squirrel (talkcontribs)
  • Delete as an advertisement considering how specific it is, which is common of course, but it's not suggesting anything otherwise better because of if; the sources themselves are not substantial or significant enough to suggest better at all. Overall, because of this, advertising and no senses of notability are sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

John Basedow[edit]

John Basedow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Basedow" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This was deleted in April 2015, recreated, speedy deleted, and that deletion brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to overturn the G4 and bring it back here for review. The article history is a total mess. I think I've got it restored to a reasonable prior version, but it's possible a different version would make more sense.

In any case, this is an administrative action only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Could you clarify, what is the nomination rationale?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I found this excellent piece of significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, [13], and of the sources linked in the older deletion discussion, did find this little review of his company in The Star. I don't see the source as very reputable, but he also was nominated for some awards recently here. Ordinarily this would make me lean towards a keep vote. However, since I had trouble finding much else, I'm still torn. I suspect there is some material somewhere that could push the page over the edge and into notable territory, but I myself haven't found it. Yvarta (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Yvarta:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DR version.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The B. O. B. (Big Orange Box) says: "(t)his biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies... (it) contains original research... some of (its)... sources may not be reliable.... (it) contain(s) an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience... a major contributor to (it)... appears to have a close connection with its subject.... (and it) contains content that is written like an advertisement..." 'Nuff said. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DRV version. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Despite this article having existed almost continuously since 2004, I haven't been able to find a non-stub-length version that A) is even close to neutral, and B) has lasted more than a week before being replaced with spam. (I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong. This is the draft version that got it to squeak past a G4 endorsement at DRV, but it's no exception.) It's abundantly obvious we can't maintain an article on this person that meets our core content policies. Notability is the wrong question to be asking. Delete. —Cryptic 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic: If there's an issue with spam, then WP:PROTECT (which is is used for other high profilem articles) applies. If the topic meets WP:N, is properly sourced, and neutrality alone is the issue, that can be addressed outside AFD.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your version is neutral. There is no neutral, sourced, non-stub version to revert to and protect. —Cryptic 03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire. Mr Basedow isn't behaving like someone we can work with, so he can promote himself somewhere else.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then WP:PROTECT applies. A lot of these comments reflect WP:IDONTLIKEIT.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, StonefieldBreeze, for all 40 of your edits. I can't help noticing that 31 of them related to John Basedow.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:ADHOM. I'm not really active here anymore. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable fitness figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was just pinged about a new version being uploaded/reverted, and per these three sources, [14], [15], and Exceptional People Magazine, vote keep. I'm not thrilled to be using a publication with the name Exceptional People Magazine as a source, but there are a few others that look ok on there as well. Yvarta (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed[edit]

Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "احمد عمر بن فريد" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)


Little indication of notability. Full of WP:PEACOCK language and written as a puff piece. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Mr Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed is a notable figure, activist and writer in South Yemen and he is one of the leaders of the Southern Movement.
Here are several sources to confirm his kidnapping, imprisoning and release by the Yemeni security forces as a political prisoner and also as a writer.
http://www.yemenpost.net/47/LocalNews/20082.htm
http://womenpress.org/oldsite/news_details.php?lng=english&sid=1372
http://protectionline.org/2007/09/04/brigadier-nasser-al-nouba-nasser-al-%C2%91awlaqi-%C2%91abbas-al-%C2%91assal-arrested/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/12/15/name-unity/yemeni-governments-brutal-response-southern-movement-protests
Here's also some of his published articles in Arabic
http://www.sadaaden.uk/read-news/314393
http://adengd.net/news/214646/#.V-W9M_ArLIU
Here are some TV Network interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPl2beVDZvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waHEJZT3enQ
Please keep the page up because there are always people searching to find information about the leaders of the Southern Movement and South Yemeni writers and activists.EDQ 23:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talkcontribs)

  • Comment You created the article and are the main contributor. You're not exactly unbiased.
  • Delete fluffy article about a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

We tried our best not to be biased. We will be grateful if you can please help us improve the page. Tell us what to remove or what to add. Thank you EDQ 23:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talkcontribs)

Sesame Street (season 33)[edit]

Sesame Street (season 33) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sesame Street (season 33)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I looked hard for published sources discussing this season but found nothing. This article appears to be fan-based trivia and original research rather than a summary of reliable sources. There are no other Sesame Street season articles on Wikipedia, and this one isn't any different. It doesn't rise to the level of notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, albeit reluctantly. Unlike the vast number of other long-running shows, there are no episode or season lists for Sesame Street (List of Sesame Street episodes redirects to the main article). I'm aware that at least one of the primary editors in this field strongly objects to the idea of episode lists, and I do agree that sourcing would be challenging (but, on the other hand, the episode names and production ID numbers are trivially easy to source), but that's not an obstacle to inclusion. My personal opinions on the matter aside, this article is a stubby, unsourced little thing about a random season, which is not the way to go about changing the status quo. We're better off with nothing than with just this; anyone looking to develop a sourced season/episode structure here should probably develop it initially outside of mainspace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiplanetary Age[edit]

Multiplanetary Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Multiplanetary Age" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Admittedly made-up terms with no backing from sources. Redirected synonyms should be deleted as well: Extraterrestrial Age, Space Colonization Age, Mars Civilization Age. To the article creator: I understand your enthusiasm but this has no place in an encyclopedia until the subject is seriously studied elsewhere. See WP:My first article and WP:PSTS for hints. — JFG talk 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If something doesn't have a name, does that automatically mean that it's not important? For example: Someone could discover new living organism, but won't know to what category put it in and for that reason won't know how to name it. Does that mean that the living organism isn't worth reading about on Wikipedia? --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is Elon Musk's quote: I think we're at the dawn of a new era and it's-- I think it's going to be very exciting. What we're hoping to do with Space X is to push the envelope and provide a reason for people to be excited and inspired to be human. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pek~enwiki: Nobody said that this perspective is not exciting; SF writers have filled whole libraries with potential stories of space colonization and its implications. Perhaps this is the article you would like to expand? Your new terms for this old concept are being rejected per Wikipedia policy, not per lack of interest about the subject. Please read WP:ENC and WP:NOT to learn about the scope of this encyclopedia, and don't be discouraged of making further contributions! — JFG talk 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well okay, I guess I now agree on the deletion process as well. Maybe we should come back to this subject when people actually land on Mars and start civilization and when online sources start seriously considering this a new era, hopefully even giving the era some name we could use. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! Notice how the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of the Wright brothers in its lengthy Aeronautics article, 8 years after heavier-than-air machines actually flew. Not a word on the jet set age either, obviously… — JFG talk 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (Well, actually early airplanes and aviation pioneers are mentioned in the Britannica Flight and Flying article, which has not been transcribed to Wikisource yet, see wikisource:Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/536) — JFG talk 22:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plenty of deletion causes to choose from here: WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL, or simply the utter absence of sourcing. Reports on Musk's aspiring press conference do not confer notability to a term (or terms...) describing the sociological age or era that would happen if he (or others with similar goals) succeed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MADEUP, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry Pek, it's not notable. Your idea can be real, and I agree with your concept, but WP makes articles to document notable public information, not personal names for concepts. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex Craninx[edit]

Alex Craninx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alex Craninx" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 14:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Viral gastroenteritis[edit]

Viral gastroenteritis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Viral gastroenteritis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Gastroenteritis is already a main article with most of the symptoms with it, viral versions of the disease don't need to be explained further as the specific pathogenic variants generally all act in the same way. Thereby it contravenes WP:GNG, i recommend it be deleted. RuleTheWiki (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Because the contents of the page already appear in Gastroenteritis, it's basically been merged already. Create a redirect from this page to Gastroenteritis. Also, it reads like a guide instead of an article.

Brad J. Lamb[edit]

Brad J. Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brad J. Lamb" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

unremarkable businessman, nothing all that notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Subject is not significantly notable. "Weak" because there are a couple detailed pieces on him. Meatsgains (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources have been added that I believe will refute Nomoskedasticity claims that Brad Lamb is an unremarkable businessman and back up Mr.Lamb's career accomplishments. His page has been the subject of malicious edits in the past. Please advise what else I can do to properly address this page deletion nomination. Thanks! SarahPeru (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


My additional sources were removed so I have re-added them into the body of the biography where I found them to be appropriate to back up my claims. Hope this closes this case on whether or not the write up is credible. If you have any additional ideas on how I can make this bio agreeable to those who contend it, I am all ears. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPeru (talkcontribs) 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The result was procedural close. Article was speedy deleted per both A11 and G4. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Zook Troys[edit]

Zook Troys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zook Troys" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I cannot find any references to the phrase Zook Troys outside of this article. Certainly fails WP:GNG. Sjrct (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, perhaps speedily so, probably as G3 (blatant hoax). Zero presence in reliable sources, and just as little in unreliable sources. The article's introductory passage is copy-pasted from Koobface (including even the bracketed citation numbers!). I suspect that this may also be intended as an A10 attack page; the name is markedly similar to the operator of a legal investigation service in Colorado. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - see SPI investigation - Recreating articles about hoax computer virus Zuke troy... This is just another recreation as can be seen by the copy/paste with reference numbers still included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Padma Shri Awards recipients from sports field[edit]

List of Padma Shri Awards recipients from sports field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Padma Shri Awards recipients from sports field" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

We have decade wise lists for Padma Shri awards like List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–59), List of Padma Shri award recipients (1960–69), List of Padma Shri award recipients (1970–79) etc. Plus, we also have a category Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in sports to list the recipients. I CSD-ed it but got declined. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Caruana[edit]

Anthony Caruana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anthony Caruana" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable blogger and author. References provided are mostly faulty and dead; the remaining reference a single article or work at a publication. I can't find references for this person which demonstrate notability for the subject to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR.

  • Delete He seems to be a very prolific person, but non of his activities make him notable enough to warrant an encyclopaedic entry. He was an author in a lot of magazines but he never did any significant which would allow him to pass the bar WP:AUTHOR. Some of magazines he worked for were also quite minor. He also fails WP:GNG generally, as there is nothing out there which does talk about him. The article was written by User:Arcaruana, so its not surprising that the article reads like an advert or resume of the person. He even links to his own blog and articles as sources. Obviously WP:PROMO applies here. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Impak Finance[edit]

Impak Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Impak Finance" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I previously placed a WP:PROD on this page, with the rationale "An article on a new enterprise preparing for launch, with only propositional coverage at this point. At best, too soon to have demonstrable notability." The Prod notice was removed, and the article has been expanded with more material on what the firm intends to do (with promotional prose about "disruptive financial technologies" and "wishing to change the world", which may suggest WP:G11) and the overall marketplace in which it sees this opportunity, but still lacks sources which can confirm that the firm itself has attained notability. Indeed a previous Blog reference has been removed, leaving only the primary source. I am therefore bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ideally keep

I am sorry for everything and for creating a page in such a clumsy manner. The corporation itself leads to confusion. While it's funding and activities are completed, it is true that the rollout of products is only partially deployed, thus leaving a significant portion of the article to the plans of the company than it's current business practices. I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia. I am well aware that it is not as 'wikipediable' and indeed too subjective to local standards. It's only my second wikipedia page creation (my first in english). I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document. Two have been added since this AfD was updated, other are on their way. I would have wished the open-world of wikipedia to contribute, or at least, edit the flaws of the article to make it up to the standards of Wikipedia. I should keep editing it for the rest of the day and tomorrow. If, unfortunatly, the decision is to delete it, I will accept it (I saved a copy aside) and will return it properly for a (better) second shot. Truly.

Thank you

Et443367 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Et443367: noting your comment, "I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia", it appears you are editing on behalf of another person or entity. Please note the obligation to WP:DISCLOSE. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Noted, thank youEt443367 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

XM.com[edit]

XM.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "XM.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Promotional article. WP:REFBOMB looks good, but is passing mentions, non-RS or promotional. Was deleted previously for the same concerns. See also heavily edited by banned spammer Euclidthalis. David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - No independent sources, page follows typical PR pattern of [Unsourced, oddly-weighted intro -> Pointless history section -> Exhaustive list of non-notable variants of non-notable products -> Exhaustive list of non-notable awards] Jergling (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • At least it didn't have a three-paragraph section detailing their funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- strictly "corporate spam" and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt given the 1st deletion and of which is still closely linked to this one the fact it was restarted and it's still an advertising as it once was; nothing here is actually both substantial and non-PR, certainly nothing of actually meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As a trader I can verify that the page had referrals to trading strategies which are not content that would belong on this sort of a page on Wikipedia (They are specialized strategies which not everyone will understand and moreover could lead to loss of capital if used by novice traders) therefore I have taken the initiative to remove them along with Non Notable Awards which I tend to agree with as noted by David Gerard. I don't agree it is corporate spam as noted by K.e.coffman. XM is a notable trading brand along with FxPro, Plus500 so deleting the page would be unfair in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.119.67 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bappa Lahiri[edit]

Bappa Lahiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bappa Lahiri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Is too non-important to be mentioned in Wikipedia!!! No reliable (if any) source exist about this person!!!! Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The obstacle here is not so much locating sources, but trying to determine which Indian music and celebrity news sources could be considered reliable. There's no shortage of Daily Mail-esque reporting of his wedding (including, literally, by the Daily Mail) but I don't consider that to speak toward notability. This Zee News review seems at first glance to be a reliable source. I'm marginally accepting of this one; on the other hand, it is a bylined article originating with an industry wire service and there are currently quite a few other articles citing the same site's reporting. This short article is less certain still, mostly because I'm unable to determine if the site has any declared editorial staff or policy. Given the background here, I simply cannot imagine that Indian media haven't covered him in greater depth as well, but I'm limited in my ability to search for those sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Deletion is justified-But a strong background is no criterion for a person to exist in an encyclopedia like WIKIPEDIA!!! I have searched a lot for his contributions/notable performance in any field(music etc.)The searches have drawn a blank and the only news available in WP:RS except his songs in "Jai Veeru" are based on his lavish weddings,his background etc, !!!!!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lorna Tan[edit]

Lorna Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lorna Tan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Lorna Tan is not a notable person. This looks like a resume Mohann Jasturba (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of people in similar or higher position than her in Singapore.

Royganj M.L High School[edit]

Royganj M.L High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Royganj M.L High School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I could find zero independent sources to prove that the high school actually exists. High schools are generally kept but this particular case, I couldn't find anything on the web. This user has uploaded some pictures at commons claiming to be the school but the images doesn't demonstrate the existence of the school. Jim Carter 11:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Benefit of the doubt (AGF). The photo is quite clearly identifiable as a school building in tropical or sub-tropical Asia, it will be unlikely that all schools in developing countries have web sites or even much written about them on he Internet (they certainly don't here in Thailand which is nevertheless more developed than some parts of Europe). High School articles, in so far as they are not blatantly promotional, are hardly toxic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Chester Park, Bristol[edit]

Chester Park, Bristol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chester Park, Bristol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Chester Park is not a recognised area of Bristol, it has no significance and does not warrant such a lengthy page. Trunky (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep How long are pages limited to? How many words per inhabitant are geographical areas restricted to, lest WP run out of server space?
This is not a major area of Bristol. It is a subdivision smaller than an electoral ward. Yet it is a real place, a long-established and well-defined place. There are at least two schools here calling themselves "Chester Park". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Austin Huizenga[edit]

Austin Huizenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Austin Huizenga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable sports individual, viz WP:SPORTCRIT. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Completly irrelevant player in lower tier junior ice hockey leagues. He has not achieved anything notable. He fails WP:SPORTCRIT and specifically WP:NHOCKEY in all points. There are a few passing mentionings on him on some non-notable webpages, but its not enough to pass WP:GNG. Most of the article is pretty much trivia, especially the lead. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails NHOCKY as well as GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Zachary Pincus-Roth[edit]

Zachary Pincus-Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zachary Pincus-Roth" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable journo. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. His citation numbers are trivial.
Last afd was tainted by a bad faithed nomination and sock puppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep The finding from the previous nomination discussion was accurate. What makes you think that his citation numbers are "trivial"? They were not trivial a year ago and have only increased since then. This entry does have room for improvement (citation formatting is the first thing I see) but this clearly meets standards for notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Love Triangle (film)[edit]

Love Triangle (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Love Triangle (film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks full reviews or other coverage. Prod removed with the claim "has reviews" with no indication where these reviews might be. The article has none, IMDB has no critic reviews linked, rotten tomatoes has a single capsule review. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepperfry[edit]

Pepperfry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pepperfry" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A company employee asked me for help about removing the advert tag but, because of the overly noticeable PR and its PR sources, I was certainly not going to remove it; in fact none of the listed sources are both independent of actually containing substance and then non-PR information. The article goes to every single specific there is to talk about the company, from its history, to its business and local activities, to its services and then to its PR partnerships and awards. None of it is improvable beyond convincing, especially if not only the listed sources being said PR also, containing only information about the company's investing, clients and business and financial achievements, my own searches of News and local news media are mirroring this, by having a noticeable amount of PR, republished PR, interviews, financial statuses, named mentions of other companies and people, etc. None of that is acceptable, and I'll even note this was deleted over 4 years ago as advertising, and then afterwards as a housecleaning G7. As always, simply because a major news source is listed means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and that alone, focusing with the one thing mattering to a company's clients and investors: advertising. Something else I will note is that the history shows only one thing and it's quite noticeable: company employees changing it and, in fact changing and adding since the article started in 2012, and that all suggests this is only serving as a business listing and nothing else, which is therefore unacceptable and is not open to comprimising at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - note the source analysis, with which I concur. This article is an excellent example of a WP:REFBOMB - the sources look good until you actualy check them - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep because passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All issues with this article can be fixed by normal community editing. Here are just a few starter sources of the indy/rs/sigcov variety:
Now if this AFD goes like previous ones, the nominator will now respond to this !vote with a long-winded rant that again shows they do not understand what significant coverage is in relation to a company or organization. Go! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks are unlikely to convince. The nominator understands the issues with the sources, as do I, and it appears you do not. Your refbomb doesn't actually convince in any regard - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - It WAS a clear case of WP:REFBOMB, but I do not think it is not notable. A quick search shows us that it definitely satisfies WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It only needed some heavy pruning, which I think I have managed to do. All PR sites were removed and now it only contains links of national dailies and op-eds and interviews. So, I think, it is fixed for now. However, I agree with SwisterTwister's concerns of companies and brands who create articles here just for promotional and advertising purposes. The worse are biographies of clearly non-notable persons. But, I personally feel, that deletion is not always a solution when we are trying to create an encyclopedia. This article, moreover, needs monitoring for at least few weeks for fear of edits by COI and spammers. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This fails to address the problems described in the nomination, i.e. even as revised, these sources are all PR - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "these sources are all PR" does not make sense. In that case, is everything about a company, which is available online and on which Wikipedia partially (and heavily) depends on, PR? I do not think so. In such cases, where the web is infested with PR, it is wiser to be selective and create an article which only mentions it as an entity, as a tiny speck of existing Indian brand. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Adding, if sources like this, this in The Economic Times, this in TechCrunch, and a market report do not point to its notability and rational argument for the article's stay, then I do not know what we are all doing here. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey, I am new at wikipedia. Is there anyway I can help improve this wiki? Tanyeezy7 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Sources are mostly typical PR spam (This section of Times of India looks like the Forbes spam blogs) but if it's actually India's largest online outlet for something, that could be notable. On the other hand, canvasing editors to grow your page points to very little independent interest. Jergling (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The significant concerns here are, 1, the fact the company has blatantly and openly used this article as a business listing and, 2, the fact that I specifically statdd: All sources I found were PR and that alone. It is quite unlikely anything else can be found because it's all fluff and puff, the listed sources above are that alone, and that's because I found then earlier myself. As such, there is not timeset for watching this article because the own company has been using it since the beginning and they even asked me last night to "simply remove the advert tag", now with all honesty, they at least stated how the article can be improved, but that in fact is unlikely because there has never been a clear case of a company actually willing to say no to advertising, worse in this case of course, and the fact of the sources clearly showing it, it's all information the own company wants to you, not what independent people should hear. In this case, also, the fact the quote minimal of all this is in fact both guaranteed as substantial and then non-PR, the company is noticeably eminent with its advertising campaigns. This article itself was, again, deleted as advertising befpre, and that says enough alone. Once we become a PR web host, including with any compromises, this encyclopedia is damned. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your points, but I don't see a constructive solution for this, other than scrounging the web for sources which are non-PR. I found few, which I have stated above, but still, there is all possibility that they could be PR. There's even a report which mentions the brand to be a leader in its niche. There's really no way to know for sure, now is there? It saddens me that the company has explicitly tried to use Wikipedia as a bulletin board and even asked you to do certain things. However, deleting pages because we are sceptical about a brand's sources despite it being a notable entity will result in a repository of information that is continuously losing its content due to the dawn of an era where companies engage in digital marketing. If we begin deleting pages and content like this, then soon we will be doing this for all popular companies, organisations, people... There has to be an alternative; just it's not been found yet. Conclusively, I still feel that the article should be kept as a basic (stub) article with only its primary info on the table. Monitoring pages have always been a battle, and we all know that. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, it looks like 99% or even more sources available for this company is either ROUTINE coverage, or PR or reprint of the same. Still I managed dig out some sources that in my opinion do make a genuine claim of notability for subject under discussion: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Anup [Talk] 17:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The claims of "if we start heavily deleting company articles", we'll then start deleting all major companies, that's too far-fetched, and no one is actually saying that here, because globally major companies would not dare be so blatantly advertising like this one, so they cannot actually be compared. Now, as for the sources, the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs, still not substantial enough; next, the Forbes is in fact the life story of the company and businessperson, so that cannot be fully taken as actual substance, the article itself goes to specifiy where its businesses are located and the specifics about that, that's advertising, because like everything else mentioned in this article, it's all business information only the company would know about itself, so that makes matters worse. The BusinessToday is also rather blatant with advertising intents because it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are, and also then goes to contain interviewed information. The last one, Times, is in fact some sort of advertising analysis about one of their company advertisements, and it's only a few paragraphs long (that's also if you're counting the bulleted information parts), so that's also certainly convincing. The Keep votes, after considering and noting all of this, make no substantiations or other convincing comments how and why we should not consider deleting a blatant advertisement and of which has persistently stayed and been used for exactly that, simply because "improvements may help" or "sources exist". Therefore, these few sources listed above not only come accompanied by the acknowledge all of this is still PR, everything from the article which includes its history, actions and overall essence being advertising, there's enough suggesting this is in fact best deleted, lest we become a compromised PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Well, that's slightly counter-intuitive, when Wikipedia guidelines themselves demand that sources have detailed info about the organization in question. And when it does have, it is mistaken to be PR. Going through your comment, you are contradicting yourself at times. Initially, you are arguing that "...the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs..." and thus cannot be used; your next statement "...it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are..." Isn't the latter what we call extensive coverage by news media about organizations? When a CEO of an organization gives an interview, you call it PR; when there's an independent op-ed about the company, you call it PR; when there's news about funding and investments, you call it PR - branding everything as PR and only that just because someone contacted you to get an advert tag out of the page is "wishful thinking" and not productive. If that is also seen as crooked advertising, then we will never be able to create a page about a corp here on Wikipedia again. In that case, like I replied to David above, everything about the company there is online would be PR, which does not make total sense. You dismiss my concern about deleting all pages about organizations as far-fetched. But, then, what basis do we have about the companies/startups that are coming up right now, which will become notable in the future? When creating articles for them, what sources do we use? Because, as per your claims, any source that mentions "...the life story of the company and businessperson...", "...where its businesses are located and the specifics about that...", and "...the company's thoughts and plans are..." to name a few are blatant advertising. We will never know for sure if a company is slyly engaging in PR and developed advertisement. I understand your angst regarding this article because an employee contacted you, but its fate should not hang upon your mercuric reactions. Again, reading your comments, it also looks like personal vendetta to me as in "how can an employee contact ME?" That is justified, but let's not vent that ire on an article, which is of public interest. I and other editors have already shown enough samples/sources showcasing that the company IS, in fact, notable enough to have an article. I agree that some sources are PR, but can't the article be pillared on those which are reliable and verifiable and ARE not PR. Considering that the ones voting this article to be deleted are only participating in branding each and every source as PR, I do not think that's enough material to delete this page. You are repeatedly using the phrase "a compromised PR webhost" to conclude what would happen. Can't I now tell you that THAT is too far-fetched? Basing your forecast on a one-time event? Finally, and I never use this tone, this discussion looks like an aggravated windbagging by a reputed editor because someone had the nerve to contact him to get a tag removed from a page. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores, and playing with a page (any page) is not a game. We are creating an encyclopedia here. If we give in to the intention of this discussion, I do not know what fate other articles await. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant that all of the sources, although thin, are still unusable because of the contents they could contain which are PR. We ourselves have knowledge of what some of the obvious companies are initiating to have paid advertising and articles here, it's been noticed here at AfD, and thus, allowing such advertisements to stay including by saying they can somehow be improved, is still allowing these said advertisements. We become closer to a PR web host if we therefore allow any of them to stay or anything similar, which is why deletion would be needed. Also, satisfying that that's the expected information and therefore acceptable coverage about a company is in fact not acceptable, because that said information comes from the CEO, who of course is there to advertise the company and that alone, anything he says will of course advert-like and certainly are not words coming from the news source or journalists themselves. Therefore, it is not far-fetched that, each day, these advertisements are submitted and, at times, unfortunately accepted by users who are not experienced, that damages the encyclopedia itself. The claims that this article has in fact PR sources is a factual of course, yes, but we cannot accept it alone with the few acceptable that may exist, because it's still unbalanced weight and would still not be enough, given that nearly over half of the other contents would be nothing but PR, that's not quite an acceptable article therefore. To the "we will never know what PR plans companies have" is exactly why we should minimize and eliminate any PR we find, lest we should find the worst cases of these. Given my analysis above, what still stays is the concerns of unconvincing PR and PR-coated sources, which in fact are not usable because of the questionability. Something that we are noticing deeper and deeper is churnalism and the entire news media has been affected it in that companies are involving themselves in what is supposed to independent coverage, but it's affected by news media cutting budget costs, therefore it becomes company-supplied information. Also, I never said anything at all that I was out to remove this article and there's no need to make any such presumptions, and it's still contrary of what I stated in the AfD nomination above, but if I am out to remove something, it's a blatant advertisement which serves no other purposes than said advertising.SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdul Qodir Jaelani[edit]

Abdul Qodir Jaelani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Abdul Qodir Jaelani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Limited sources. JLOPO (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep The nominator has nominated this article for Afd primarily as his speedy A7 tag was rejected by me. There are innumerable RS on the subject, and the subject presumably easily qualifies on GNG. Of course, the discussion on whether the subject qualifies on GNG can continue in this Afd.Lourdes 07:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable musician who mainly gets attention due to family ties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was created by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked at the time. If not for the significant edits by other users, I would have speedily deleted it per WP:G5. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be nice if a neutral editor can take a look at the article in its current state with 20 or something sources (of course, not all significant, but some are), and take a call. Lourdes 03:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, source analysis needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete I took a neutral look through the English language sources, he would appear to me to be a son of a notable musician, but not notable in his own right XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 19:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Juan Alfonso Abril[edit]

Juan Alfonso Abril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Juan Alfonso Abril" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I'm not sure we really need a separate article on a painter who never existed. A mention in the person the writer meant to refer to would be enough. Katharineamy (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete we do not need articles on textual errors. However, if I read this article right, it seems we lack an article on the actual artist who made the work in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions; is this error notable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Beyond Security[edit]

Beyond Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Beyond Security" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Borderline spam; little to no evidence of notability, and lots of product information. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree that it doesn't seem to have decent sourcing which could be used to improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete spammy, and too many of the claimed references don't even mention the company (when they're not dead links) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Being quoted for a sound bite doesn't count as notable independent coverage. This article looks like it was added at a time when WP had looser enforcement of notability. Jergling (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. To the extent that the company is mentioned in the offered references at all, it is almost exclusively because the article quotes Gadi Evron as a cybersecurity expert. Notability is not inherited, so even if there was deemed sufficiently nontrivial coverage of Evron to make him notable, that wouldn't confer notability on Beyond Security (especially since many of the news agencies are probably interviewing Evron on the basis of his prior position with the Israeli government). I haven't had much luck finding appropriate sources that directly address the company itself. The closely related SecuriTeam article is as problematic, if not more so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ascertia[edit]

Ascertia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ascertia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Borderline spam; no evidence of notability. Cleanup tags unresolved since 2014 re. lack of external sources. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No RS per nom, all self-published or partner-published mentions. Jergling (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, again. The article barely makes even a claim to notability. The "awards" are merely industry certifications, which do not constitute awards by any stretch of the imagination. The PC World article provided as a reference has only the barest mention of the company, and is not significant coverage. Efforts to find other sources were not fruitful, as almost all the apparent hits are to press releases or verbatim copies of press releases. A handful of sources appeared facially interesting, but were authored by Liaquat Khan, the company's technical director, and so are not independent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • SNOW Delete and Salt as not only was this deleted in 2011, but it was speedied twice before, this is advertising and it's still being persistently tossed here; none of the listed information and sources go anywhere else than the expected: company information about what this is, the services, who the clients and funders are; nothing here is both substantial and non-PR, and that's enough to delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Appthority[edit]

Appthority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Appthority" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of notability. The page only says that they are a startup and have a product and some funding, really. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - funding rounds aren't evidence that a company warrants a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete by all means as this is essentially a business listing, mentioning only the company specifics such as who they are, what the services are and who the clients and investors are, along with the sources consisting of exactly this. This is advertising and there's nothing improvable beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim nor evidence of notability, beyond getting what is now (alas) considered very modest funding. Suspect the vanity article on its princaipal Anthony Bettini might also be marginal, but one step at a time. W Nowicki (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Anubisnetworks[edit]

Anubisnetworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anubisnetworks" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of notability, and advert tag in place since Dec. 2014. Most information is unsourced. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - blatant advert and bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- reads like an ad for the company, no substance or indication of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and I quite frankly consider this speedy material because the only nearly significant claims are "best known for....", that's hardly convincing especially when fused with the other blatant information, which is going to specifics about the company and its business, and then the equally PR sourcing. None of this is improvable and nor should it be if it's all PR-based for a company interested with PR. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Predominantly a WP:SPA article on a firm which has now been acquired by another (which has no article, so no redirect target). Apart from the acquisition announcement and a previous PR piece about participating with other firms in a security action, I am finding little beyond a brief mention in a multi-product review [21]. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete tagged as advert for two years, seems enough time. Bitsight might get an article some day, but do not see any worthwhile material here to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Aloaha[edit]

Aloaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aloaha" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of notability is given, and a cursory search doesn't yield any. A notability tag was removed in June without actually showing notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act[edit]

Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points on a non-notable subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this is a bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points. It may be on a notable subject, but if it is notable, it should be covered in an article about the broader topic of Australian Senate elections rather than just about this one section of the law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bullet points appear to be an attempt to complain about the 2016 non-application of the section without any background explanation. A more coherent (but arguably still disproportionate) bullet point has been added to Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by the same user that created this page. A briefer mention in that article would be justified, and also possibly in Double dissolution. -- Alaric004 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


It is still under construction, hence the bullet points. I expect it will be too big for a section on the CEA page. I have expanded the article with some background already. This is going to have legislative outcomes, and I expect we will have a referendum on it some time in the next decade if it is not resolved prior to 2019.

Do we have a broader article about Australian Senate elections? Scott Davis has also suggested an alternative place to host it, but the title he suggested seems a bit cumbersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talkcontribs) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 article has a small section about a range of amendments in 1984 including this one. The section should be expanded to show all that changed. --Scott Davis Talk 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lassana Faye[edit]

Lassana Faye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lassana Faye" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Spelman[edit]

Rebecca Spelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rebecca Spelman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Wholly promotional article. Does not pass GNG. References are not significant. Created just to promote. Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete even if notable, WP:TNT on this - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC) changed, see below
  • Speedy Delete please as this is essentially PR for her works and career, not one piece comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I note that pretty much all the text is by SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: I prodded this last year soon after it was created but it was reverted by the initiating editor and has no improved much since then. However, I was never really happy with its notability per David Gerard. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete fails GNG; obvious advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete Fails GNG and advert. - Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment SlimVirgin has done some editing, so you may want to review your choice. ww2censor (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • hmm, that's vastly improved. SlimVirgin you think she passes notability muster? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • David, it's borderline, but I think she does meet GNG, though there's clearly a strong PR element. She appears fairly regularly in the media when they need a quote from a psychologist (Google news search). There's an interview in The Independent [22]; a mention in the Los Angeles Times of her research for Spotify [23] (I assume based on a press release); a column in The Huffington Post [24]; a couple of BBC radio interviews (e.g. from 01:40:55); and several television appearances. SarahSV (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        • yeah, it's clear one of her most important professional skills is PR. But she's probably actually a known name, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • weak keep SlimVirgin has applied the requisite TNT and the article is now readable and makes its notability point! - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
She is good at getting her name out there but there are still insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. The sources are SPS, directories, or passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the rewrite by SV, I believe that additional discussion is prudent. joe deckertalk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Beat Bully[edit]

The Beat Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Beat Bully" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

It fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO. It clearly lacks the possibility of WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete – Believed to have found to fail WP:MUSICBIO, but not GNG. It only cites trivial sources as well. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Betony Vernon[edit]

Betony Vernon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Betony Vernon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no references, and the "links" do very little to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. purely promotion, written by admitted paid editor,[25] Accomplishments not adequately documented. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral/comment - Hmmm. The article is definitely not great, and whoever did it clearly isn't worth what they're being paid if they can't do it properly - but I'm not so sure that the subject is not notable. There are a great many references to her in various books, magazines and news articles, in various languages. In addition to a number of promising media sources, she was interviewed at length by TIME magazine, which is a pretty good indicator of notability, and there is commentary at the beginning on her career. I am intrigued by all those non-English sources on her - they seem to mostly be in Italian. But searches for the person does indicate that she could possibly pass GNG guidelines, so I can't jump on the delete bandwagon - although I've no objection to the article being deleted and then recreated properly. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has it's issues. Regarding notability there are many articles that have more than trivial mentions. For example [this article] and [book coverage] go well beyond trivial mention. With the large number of sources that go beyond simple mentions of her as an example author/designer/anthropologist it satisfies [WP:BIO] Gab4gab (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep — The article does need work. Between the references recently added to the article (as a list of links, some admittedly not good sources), Mabalu & Gab4gab's cases above, and my own Google searches, it does seem probable that there's at least the minimum level of notability. E.g. NY Times article on her Murph9000 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as the following three pieces clearly satisfy GNG:
It appears there's more, but this is enough. Rebbing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources presented SSTflyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - NYTimes, Time Magazine, Vogue, and the fashion, art, and entertainment worlds disagree with your assertions re: notability. Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Zank(app)[edit]

Zank(app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zank(app)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Creator removed the PROD tag from the article and DGG declined an A7 speedy deletion request. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)



1.zank is famous gay dating app in china ,you may refer these Chinese press release 2.男同社交软件Zank完成数千万元B轮融资 http://money.163.com/16/0525/13/BNTR65LS00253B0H.html 3.New gay dating app Zank denies copying Jack’d format http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-gay-dating-app-zank-denies-copying-jack%E2%80%99d-format030613/ 4.Zank is a Slick Chinese Friend-Finding App for Gays https://www.techinasia.com/zank-slick-chinese-friendfinding-app-weird-users 5.it has iOS app store download link:https://itunes.apple.com/cn/app/zank/id636497016?mt=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talkcontribs) 05:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see how any number of press releases shows notability. Not everything with a ioS download link is notable, The Telecrunch brief notice says explicitly the app was not significant. I declined the A7 because there were apparent references, but I admit I didn't translate the Chinese. From the google translation, it just says they received funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete G11 - no refs, just a link to the website & the itunes download link - that's blatantly an advert. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G11, appears to use external links as sources. Use <ref></ref> in the article 86.22.8.235 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Laura Safran[edit]

Laura Safran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Laura Safran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Minimally sourced article, written far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a lawyer with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:LAWYERS. The referencing here is based entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media, so she has no strong claim to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Palos Verdes Peninsula News[edit]

Palos Verdes Peninsula News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Palos Verdes Peninsula News" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a community newspaper in a small suburb of a larger city. WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all newspapers that exist -- a newspaper still has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because its own self-published website or an online archive of its issues nominally verifies that it existed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find some reliable sourcing about it, but nothing in the article right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence this paper is at all impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with nom. No independent coverage cited nor found. MB 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete  Worthless article given the absence of citations, although a Wikipedia search shows that this article, or a redirect to someplace that discusses the topic, is needed.  Delete as per WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added as WP:V is a core content policy, and our readers deserve articles that satisfy our core content policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to California Digital Newspaper Collection as the subject is mentioned there; Palos Verdes Peninsula News is part of the collection; here's a sample page: link. I cannot find RS at this time for a stand-alone article, but worth redirecting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert, Unscintillating, MB -- what would you guys think about a redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect would be particularly useful since the target doesn't say anything about this paper except that it existed, but I have no objection either. A similar situation came up recently with Bahía del Duque where the AFD result was redirect to a list also (you may remember you voted for this). But User:Doncram turned the list into a table so a sentence or two could be added to each entry. That would be good here too. MB 03:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? SSTflyer 02:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 02:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No redirect as the paper is not covered at all in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

QuantGlass[edit]

QuantGlass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "QuantGlass" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article is almost completely unsourced and not much else out there to verify page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Simple Life Records[edit]

Simple Life Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Simple Life Records" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Label has some length of history, but it does not have a significant past or present roster of notable artists, so it can not be established that the label has had any level of cultural impact. It then follows the label does not meet NMUSIC#5. It also does not meet GNG. I couldn't find anything reliable/independent in a search for sources. There are two independent sources, Bloomberg, which is only a passing mention and even then is somewhat ROUTINE, and HipHopNews, a dead link, but even assuming this was a beautifully written in-depth piece by an independent journalist, would not help meet GNG because it would be only a single instance of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage of the topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hardekar Manjappa[edit]

Hardekar Manjappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hardekar Manjappa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is this 222-page book about the subject published by a university press. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Given the time-period during which subject lived, majority of sources are supposed to be available in print. Still, in addition to book linked above by IP user, there are quite a few more books available on Gbooks and some English-language sources here. Anup [Talk] 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Gino DiSimone[edit]

Gino DiSimone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gino DiSimone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. There's very little substance, with the entire article consisting of three sentences summarizing his campaign planks — and as for the sourcing, two of the references are to a patents directory, one's to Ballotpedia and the rest are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. While it seems that one campaign plank got him a bit of wider media attention than anything else did, a sentence or two about that campaign plank in Nevada gubernatorial election, 2010 is all that's really needed — there's just not enough meat here for a standalone BLP of him to be warranted separately from the election article. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete There are a few news blurbs on him regarding his "pay to drive faster" program, but its nots very substantial (mostly non RS blogs) and can be classified as WP:SINGLEEVENT. Other than his failed candidacy there is nothing on him out there (including his "inventions", having a patent dos not make one notable) and he fails WP:GNG directly. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Victor Chaltiel[edit]

Victor Chaltiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Victor Chaltiel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Biographical article, tagged for notability since 2011 with no substantive improvement, of a person whose main claim of notability is that he was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor. This is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL, but there's very little substance here to claim that he's notable for anything else -- and the sourcing here is all either deadlinked or local coverage about his death. This is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Anders Ibsen[edit]

Anders Ibsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anders Ibsen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:GNG (that distinction only goes to major, internationally famous global cities, not to places on the order of Tacoma.) This is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, like his own profile on the city's website and a set of committee meeting minutes -- there's just one piece of actual media coverage here, and it's an overview article of the entire city council election in an alt-weekly. So it's not a source that can carry a city councillor over GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Roman Ships[edit]

Roman Ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Roman Ships" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Band with questionable notability-no reliable sources either Wgolf (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and that article could be something ya know, roman potentially. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is my band. See [1]
[2] [3][4] I am in the process of setting up the page. Is there a problem with what is up so far? 21-gattinara-24 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Thank you for contributing and engaging in discussion, 21-gattinara-24. Wikipedia policy requires that subjects have received substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject. For bands, that really means that recognized sources of reporting in the music industry need to have written about the band before this project will retain an article about it. I've done some cursory searching, but cannot find anything that satisfies that requirement; indeed, because there's also no credible claim of significance made here, this could be subject to the project's rapid-deletion policy at the discretion of the administrators (WP:CSD#A7). Should this ultimately be deleted, creation of a redirect to Roman navy would be a matter of editorial discretion, as Roman ships currently redirects to that target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Here are few things, possibly helpful. The previous incarnation of this band had more press / notoriety etc. Sinkingsteps Risingeyes. [5] [6] 21-gattinara-24 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Dorrier[edit]

Lindsay Dorrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lindsay Dorrier" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable mainly as a county supervisor and as a government bureaucrat. The county supervisor role is not one that gets him over WP:NPOL, so his includability is entirely dependent on sourcing him over WP:GNG for the bureaucratic job -- but there are just two sources here, they're both stacked on the county supervisor role, and they're both deadlinks. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Simply being a county supervisor is not enough to qualify for notability, especially when there is no significant coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Brad Blanton[edit]

Brad Blanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brad Blanton" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for office. This is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL; if you cannot show and source credible evidence that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because election. But literally all we have for sourcing here is primary sources, like his own campaign site, his own press releases about his own campaign, and his profile on the website of a directly affiliated organization. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Frasers Property[edit]

Frasers Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Frasers Property" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • keep lots of coverage in gnews search including in mainstream Australian press. meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I see their name a lot, but what specific sources were you thinking of that contain any WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
sure: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
it seems some of the above articles are subscription only but I could view them via gnews search. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
urbandeveloper piece reads like a reprinted press release, others are corporate ownership coverage ... do the News Corp sources talk about the company in terms other than who owns which bits of what? -David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
some of them talk about the company itself eg its plans for expansion and ownership structure rather than sites they're developing. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
good, good ... they're a huge company, the sort of thing you'd expect to have been talked about - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Apprentice (video game)[edit]

Apprentice (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Apprentice (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing and Nobody[edit]

Nothing and Nobody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nothing and Nobody" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, doesn't really make WP:NMUSIC. Is there a suitable redirect target? - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hansanarayan Bhattacharya[edit]

Hansanarayan Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hansanarayan Bhattacharya" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Note that the article fails WP:BLP; if the decision is keep or no consensus, reliable sources must be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Subject lacks any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. After the edits by Lourdes I believe that the article passes WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Looky Looky[edit]

Looky Looky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Looky Looky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to Giorgio Moroder, song does not have enough notability to justify it's own entry, the Moroder article basically has the same content about this song, the text is accurate for gold disc, and I added sources to verify the content since it was unsourced.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is now better sourced and it explains that the work is both important to Moroder's career as well as distinct in sound from the rest of his works. --Bensin (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli[edit]

Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

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

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

it remains true that the translated book is almost totally unknown, and I don't think has any reviews. Even if we accept that all the works are not self published, she still is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
comment The 'International Thriller Writers' organization membership requirements do not categorically bar self-published authors from full membership. At the organization's website their position is summed up with
"Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status."
Neonorange (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to have coverage in Italian, especially if you search on variations of her names. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Vivian 'Jaws' Wright[edit]

Vivian 'Jaws' Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vivian 'Jaws' Wright" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

  • Merge/Redirect - I don't care which of the two articles becomes the main one. AfD is not necessary regardless. It looks like this "Jaws" article has a little more information than the non-jaws version, so if making this the redirect, merge it first. You can always redirect without an AfD, you know. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Skilljar[edit]

Skilljar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Skilljar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Seattle Times article is a good start[36], but needs at least 1 more significant writeup in a non-trade magazine, which I'm not finding in my searches yet. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is WP:TOOSOON; virtually every source is just about them raising money to do things that might make them notable later. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Tilottama Majumdar[edit]

Tilottama Majumdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tilottama Majumdar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No indication of notability. WP:MILL Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Harper and the Moths[edit]

Harper and the Moths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Harper and the Moths" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Has some coverage, but not sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Qazvin Tramway[edit]

Qazvin Tramway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Qazvin Tramway" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No sources. No verifiability. Probably WP:TOOSOON as well. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, I cannot find any notable sources relating to the tramway. Possible WP:HOAX? Nordic Nightfury 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Njord (band)[edit]

Njord (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Njord (band)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:BAND. No evidence of notability presented, all coverage appears to be promotional. Smartyllama (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Is there a single worthwhile source anywhere? RunnyAmigatalk 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Fish Baby TV[edit]

Blue Fish Baby TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Blue Fish Baby TV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:WEB. Just some random YouTube channel, no evidence of notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Delete Per nom, non-noteable Youtube channel. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tyr (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tyr (Forgotten Realms)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as there are multiple valid merge targets: Týr, into which it could become an IPC section, or List of Forgotten Realms deities#Faerûnian pantheon. This is a longstanding option currently codified in WP:MUSICBIO point 6. (...and one of the reasons that N is not a policy, FWIW) Merging to either one would create a situation where the other potential merge target was inappropriately shorted. Tyr, the Norse god, is unquestionably notable, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What is even the point of this argument? Merge to both or neither. It doesn't really matter. If we're in agreement to merge/redirect to some potential target, I'll gladly withdraw it. TTN (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The point is that N is not absolute, and "multiple independent merge targets" is one reason. If Fred has been a part of Band X and Band Y, but is not himself notable, we can't have his name as a redirect to either one, because hatnotes on elements of an article and 2-item DAB pages are something we avoid. So, Fred gets his own article, even though there's maybe NO independent significant RS covering him apart from either band. This is an analogous situation. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I figured that's what you were saying, but it's so frankly asinine that I hoped it wasn't the case. You're basically trying to turn a non-issue into a big issue through wikilawyering. Your example of Fred has no bearing on this at all. You have the mythological figure and the character that takes basically only the name of that mythological figure. It's not even just a fictionalized interpretation of the character, just the namesake and maybe light inspiration. The character is its own entity, and the mythology article, if it mentions the character, can link to the article (if notability is established) or the redirect that links to the character list (if notability is not established). There is absolutely no logic in your reasoning beyond trying to force this article to stay through a very convoluted and unnecessary method. TTN (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually just noticed that it is supposed to be a fictionalized version, at least in the original conception of the character, but that honestly doesn't really change anything to make the argument valid. TTN (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, ALL of the deities in the D&D game system were fictionalized versions of mythological entities in the first place. Tyr, Thor, Zeus... so I'm not sure what your intent in highlighting this is. Pretty much the same as the mythological creatures which formed the core monsters. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Steffi Sidney[edit]

Steffi Sidney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Steffi Sidney" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Despite her role in Rebel Without a Cause, she doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. I suspect her obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and Variety[38] were more out of respect to her father, Hollywood columnist Sidney Skolsky. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CKYZ-FM[edit]

CKYZ-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CKYZ-FM" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which began airing a test signal in 2016, but which is not properly sourceable as having officially launched its permanent signal as of today. Per WP:NMEDIA, however, a radio station does not get an article as long as it's still only planned or testing -- the time for an article is once reliable sources can be added which confirm that the station has officially and permanently taken to the airwaves, not the moment it gets a license or starts testing. (The testing phase can, for example, reveal unforeseen problems, such as interference with another station or with radio communication infrastructure at the airport — see CHNO-FM if you don't believe me on that one — which complicate or postpone or completely kibosh the real launch.) No prejudice against recreation if and when it's properly sourceable as having permanently launched, but radio stations that are still only in the testing phase don't get advance articles on Wikipedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Seun Kentebe[edit]

Seun Kentebe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Seun Kentebe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

this subject fails WP:GNG Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep actor in film WP:NFOE. Article has incoming links to it Eightnisan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightnisan (talkcontribs) 16:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete the film he is mentioned as appearing in he did not actually have a lead role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri[edit]

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

fails WP:GNG, can't find any reliable source discussing this subject in detail Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable non-profit foundation developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lynkhab[edit]

Lynkhab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lynkhab" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to list of demon lords and protect the redirect. The article was recreated without any evidence of notability being provided after a previous AfD closed as a merge. That's irritating. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge per J Milburn but protection seems a bit over the top, as the IP address waited 3.5 years since the previous AfD to "work on it", and I do note that one primary source had been published in the interim, so it's hard to state unequivocally that this was done in bad faith, even though I agree it should be merged at the present time. We have TTN to bring such things to our attention, so I don't see the harm in leaving such a de-redirected article unprotected until and unless there is specific disruption. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per above, and agree with Jclemens about protection being premature. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt Whitman[edit]

Matt Whitman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Matt Whitman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. WP:BLP, based solely on a single primary source of a person notable only as deputy mayor of a municipality not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors or deputy mayors under WP:NPOL. This distinction only counts as notability in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London -- in any place outside of that range, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be reliably sourced as notable beyond the purely local for far more than just existing. Also possible conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Matlantivex". Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Waye Mason[edit]

Waye Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Waye Mason" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor in a municipality not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. City councillors get a presumption of notability only in major international global cities on the order of Toronto, New York City or London -- in any place outside of that range, a municipal councillor gets an article only if he can be well-sourced as more than just locally notable for more than just existing as a city councillor. In addition, this actually misrepresents some of its sourcing -- while three of the links claim to be from the Toronto Star (and would therefore demonstrate that he was getting nationalized coverage), in reality they're not: all three of them are actually in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the same publication as most of the other sources. Plus fully a quarter of the sourcing here is sitting on primary sources like his own website and his own LinkedIn and a WordPress blog he was the writer of. And even the ones that are reliable sources mostly aren't about him, but merely namecheck his existence in coverage of events. So none of this is enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sheila Fougere[edit]

Sheila Fougere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sheila Fougere" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Single-sourced BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor and non-winning mayoral candidate in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:NPOL. As always, city councillors are not automatically granted a presumption of notability just because they exist -- outside the very narrow range of internationally famous global cities, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if she can be extremely well-sourced as more than just locally notable for more than just the fact of existing as a city councillor. But with just one source here, which is local coverage in the context of announcing her unsuccessful run for mayor, that standard has not been satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete too low a level politician to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Meagan McGrath[edit]

Meagan McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Meagan McGrath" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. WP:BLP of a mountaineer, who has a potentially valid claim of notability but isn't sourced even close to well enough to support it properly -- of the three sources here, two are primary ones that cannot carry notability at all, and the one that is real media coverage just makes her a WP:BLP1E. As always, a person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she could qualify for an article if she could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, but one piece of media coverage doesn't accomplish that. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Duvalier Malone[edit]

Duvalier Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Duvalier Malone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. He certainly seems like a kind person, but I was only able to locate one reliable secondary source [39]. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuria CyberSense[edit]

Assuria CyberSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Assuria CyberSense" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This software does not meet WP:GNG. This source in the article is essentially based entirely upon a press release, and this source does not appear to be reliable per Wikipedia's standards. The company PDF press release in the article also does not confer notability. The Softpedia article provides some information and is bylined, but source searches are providing no additional significant coverage in reliable sources. North America1000 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lucien Smith (attorney)[edit]

Lucien Smith (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lucien Smith (attorney)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, an election candidate is not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles because candidate -- if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to become eligible for one. But what we have here for sourcing is two primary sources (his own campaign website and a press release), two dead links and just one news article about the launch of his campaign -- and one news article is not enough coverage to get him over GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Farswal[edit]

Farswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Farswal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Kethwal[edit]

Kethwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kethwal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It is certainly a name and also apparently translates as slap but I can find nothing but passing mentions in reliable sources. Those mentions are not remotely clear about the caste claims and that also makes a redirect implausible. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Manjotha[edit]

Manjotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Manjotha" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they are notable Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the unreliable Horace Rose (Glossary of the Tribes and Castes), I haven't been able to find anything that even discusses this community. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dasti (tribe)[edit]

Dasti (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dasti (tribe)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
*Keep another tribe mentioned several times historically. This looks like a really good source (1863, British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers)Memo on the Dashtee tribe. Also mentioned in Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan(as part of an alliance fighting against the British, Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern <- also mentions the Nutkani (see deletion discussion below) on the same page. Fraenir (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fraenir: you've done a similar rationale at the AfD for the Nutkani article in the last hour or so. For the record, again, by long-standing consensus British Raj sources are not reliable, and nor are books published by Gyan. That pretty much covers your entire list here. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: - To further my education, do you have a link to a relevant discussion on why British Raj sources are not reliable, and Gyan in particular as well? I'd like to see where consensus was formed, and why. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just want to learn something new, and my attempts at searching for this discussion have so far failed. Fieari (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: - Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Gyan (being a circular reference). With the British Raj, however, the idea seems to be that the idiots of that period made shit up to justify their rule (and is therefor unreliable). Would it be fair to say that they would be acceptable for providing notability towards an idea that is false or non-standard? In terms of this article, for instance, could British Raj sources be used to make an article that said something to the paraphrased effect of "Dasti is a made up fake tribe created by the British Raj in order to justify their imperialism." The reason I ask is that if these British Raj sources are mentioning this thing, it might be useful to a student doing research to find a Wikipedia article explaining why the thing is BS. Fieari (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They didn't do it to "justify their rule" per se. It was far more complex and indeed they saw it as a way to better understand the native people of their colonies. The Victorian era, in particular, was one of remarkable inquisitiveness. Beyond that, I think we're drifting too far away from relevant discussion here. And whether something is sufficiently notable to justify an article - such as one on a "false or non-standard" idea or even a fake or hoax- is entirely related to WP:GNG. I did it for Census of India prior to independence but we already have articles for Scientific racism etc and would have to beware of synthesising sources for the issue you suggest. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nutkani[edit]

Nutkani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nutkani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • None of those sources are reliable. By long-standing consensus, we do not use stuff from the British Raj era. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Jasgam[edit]

Jasgam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jasgam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no source that discuss this community other than the unreliable H. A. Rose, reprints of his efforts and mirrors of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Jattak[edit]

Jattak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jattak" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no reliable sources that discuss this community and we have no articles for people who bear the name. - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dogar[edit]

Dogar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dogar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Prigorje-Zagreb Party[edit]

Democratic Prigorje-Zagreb Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Democratic Prigorje-Zagreb Party" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A very minor non-parliamentary party. Very little information can be extracted from sources, does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete no significant coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Poswal[edit]

Poswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Poswal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I couldn't establish that they are notable. Possibly worth merge/redirect to Arabs in Pakistan#Tribes with Arabic heritage. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no reliable sources, I am unconvinced that the one source present is reliable and we have no articles for people who use the word as their name. A redirect to Arabs in Pakistan#Tribes with Arabic heritage doesn't seem particularly useful - that article section is dreadfully sourced and, again, there seems to be nothing else out there that relates to it. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough sources to establish notability. utcursch | talk 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sein Lyan Tun[edit]

Sein Lyan Tun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sein Lyan Tun" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The page creator whose username suggests WP:COI has admitted that he is not notable in their edit summary.

And he has not received any media coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sein Lyan Tun may not be Google News but He is somehow well-known as award winning documentary filmmaker in Myanmar. Here you may want to see some of his news.

Media Coverage in Myanmar On Myanmar Time Newspaper (Yangon, Myanmar) About his award winning documentary film http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/lifestyle/18709-new-documentary-calls-for-justice-for-disabled-rape-victim.html

On Malaysia Media, http://majalahjom.com/2016/09/13/unsilent-potato-perjuangan-menegakkan-hak-wanita/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PS Films (talkcontribs) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete As of 2016, he is not a notable filmmaker in Myanmar. He has not directed any direct-to-videos or big screen movies. As Sein Lyan Tun is the managing director of PS Films [41], it is likely the COI editing. Phyo WP (message) 16:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm verging on keep, currently undecided. This source in the Myanmar Times is actually quite fantastic coverage, focused on him and his work, and pointing out that his previous films are "award-winning," although it doesn't clarify which awards. I at first assumed this was a run-on-of-the-mill student film-maker, but I sometimes forget that there are entire film festival circuits dedicated just to short films, and that their awards are as legitimate as awards for feature-length works as well. I am not personally familiar with the awards he has won, however, so I don't feel comfortable assessing how much that helps with notability in this case. Also some mentions of his work at this location. But I think he might pass 4 of WP:FILMMAKER, and possibly number 3 if more reviews are found (possibly not in English?) Yvarta (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Packer (software)[edit]

Packer (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Packer (software)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

While this page was undeleted by @Georgewilliamherbert in April of 2015, I feel that the concerns he mentioned on the talk page (most especially notability) have not been adequately addressed since then. The only sources are tied to the developers (HashiCorp), and I was unable to find much in the way of potential sources that weren't.

My first thought would be a redirect to either Vagrant, as Packer is apparently closely tied to it functionality, or HashiCorp, perhaps with the addition there of a section on it. WikiPuppies bark dig 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't got more reliable sources, but my consulting company has 3 top-25 web company clients using it now, so it's somewhat popular... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We're a top 10 Bank and we're using it. This is serious stuff. The debate needs to be clearer about why this is better than puppet and chef, because the debate often ends there. This page is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.130.230 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems to be widely used. It is an important part of "infrastructure as code". Covered in this book: [42] --146.140.210.15 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Praful Bidwai Memorial Award[edit]

Praful Bidwai Memorial Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Praful Bidwai Memorial Award" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Praful Bidwai is a notable person, but this award is not notable. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Harry Welty[edit]

Harry Welty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Harry Welty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school board trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office. The only marginal claim of "more notable than the norm for unelected candidates" here is that he was the first-ever candidate of a shortlived new political party that never really had any electoral success -- but that's not an inclusion criterion that passes WP:NPOL, so his eligibility for a Wikipedia article would depend entirely on being sourced well enough to get over WP:GNG. But none of the sourcing here accomplishes that; apart from two local news articles about being elected to and resigning from the school board, the only other sources we have here are a self-published article on his own blog and three dead links of raw election results. This is not the kind of coverage that it takes to make a school board trustee or an unelected candidate for office notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. My edit of 20:59, 11 November 2006‎, was "(moved Harry Welty to Minnesota 8th congressional district election, 2006: Moving to campaign article per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, because individual is non-notable per WP:BIO - failed candidacy.)" However, the article about that specific district election is gone, and is now just a redirect to Minnesota's 8th congressional district (Back in 2006, we had fantasies of having one article for every House of Representatives election for every year; in 2016, all we have is one section in one article for all the elections of a district.) So there no longer is room to even include minor parties in the relevant, existing Wikipedia article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Melvin Coombs[edit]

Melvin Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Melvin Coombs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails ONEVENT; all identifiable sources for this name deal either with the subject's death, or another person entirely. —swpbT 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Two sources in the article are now 404s but the other describes him as stated and is neutral, third-party coverage. There is a legitimate question if this is a BIO1E situation or if his notability as a Native American is enough, at least along with his murder. I'll do a bit more digging and see what else is found. Montanabw(talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Follow up: I added "+Wampanoag" to the search and got better results. I think this one is a keeper, though it needs more work and sourcing. He appears to have had respect as a modern Wampanoag person who worked to preserve cultural traditions. Here is what I am finding:
  1. http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/19970909/news01/309099806 News coverage discussing his impact in the area and his importance to his people.
  2. newspaper coverage of the murder
  3. http://www.wldwind.com/qf.htm solid obit, describes his accomplishments
  4. Tribal newsletter notes a memorial competition named after him: here, also noted here, and here.
  5. http://www.wickedlocal.com/x1098996353/PRESERVATION-PERSPECTIVE-The-wonders-of-wampum Local press coverage noting something he did in the course of his cultural education work prior to his death.
  6. Minor stuff: noted in list of people representing ethnic groups in his area, art depiction in traditional regalia.
    • In short, I'm pretty well convinced
  • Keep - per improvements made with sources. also WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.initrecords.net
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Init_Records
  3. ^ https://initrecords.bandcamp.com/
  4. ^ https://www.facebook.com/initrecords/
  5. ^ https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2013/04/10-south-dakota-bands-you-should-listen-to-now.html
  6. ^ http://openmindsaturatedbrain.blogspot.com/2015/12/sinking-stepsrising-eyes.html