The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost a speedy deletion candidate but I suppose there are claims of importance. Nevertheless, the subject isn't notable enough and some of the claims of the article are highly dubious (such as him being a cousin of Snoop Dogg). As an athlete, he has only competed at the high school level. As a musician, there's no indication that he's released any music other than a few remixes on his YouTube page. Pichpich (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious question look at this Wrestler Sasha Banks there is no edvidance that she is related to Snoop Dogg she says he is her first cousin where is the proof go to her page plus a fan can't make a page for a new artist and the other names were taken like shabazz sallier so I used his middle name in the middle if you need more sources just say it but here is Sasha Banks the person who created this artiticle has left no proof that she is his first cousin I would never say that unless I have proof his first cousin pretty suspicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Banks ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by littledoggymack (talk • contribs)
Now if you search or do you research you will know AAU Track and USATF is not High school sports but I just updated it to make it clear which a link that takes it straight to the Wiki page where those can be found! Now you guys can always moved the article to page called Shabazz Sallier that way it makes all the sense but it says that page is locked or something I am just throwing out all ideas for anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by littledoggymack (talk • contribs)
delete not notable by WP standards. Also the user is trying to add spam urls. Identified by log/spamblacklist. I don't like games. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add I just had Microsoft check my system and what I was doing and they found no spam things trying to be added once so ever if spam was being added it was not me unless it was someone else or you guys got hacked and plus my windows 7 and 10 computer would of told me if anything was spam I have the latest computer make sure you guys have your computers up to date because sometime old computers will say spam is popping up and stuff. I vote for stay and show proof of the spam or anything that needs to be fixed or violated . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledoggymack (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this information about what is meant by spam on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the computer used to edit, nor with popup windows. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from being full of irrelevant fluffy and promotional text, there is no claim to notability per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ATHLETE, much less WP:GNG. I have not been able to find any secondary sources. The article has been deleted many times and create protected at Shabazz Sallier, but that was a couple of years ago so no harm in letting this discussion run its course. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious question Bonadea what do you mean when you say this "
so no harm in letting this discussion run its course" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledoggymack (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the article could probably be deleted immediately by an administrator, like it has been deleted before; there's no rush though, and we might as well discuss it as it has been a while since those deletions. A deletion discussion (as opposed to a speedy deletion) normally takes about a week, though not always. (I would not object to a speedy deletion but I am not going to suggest it.) --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's good it is not in a speedy thing but I can tell you one thing I know nothing about them past deletions and where I got my information and my knowledge is completely different then any past thing I can assure you of that I bet any one can go back in the past and see which I can't that my article might not be perfect but it is way different than those apparently deleted because you said some were deleted . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:D00:7D10:145F:200E:4FE7:F37F (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely silly comments of some !voters; Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow I guess Bearian never been to college before because if he did he would know this person is not just another video guy. I mean how dumb does that sound and that is actually a hate crime because I called my local police department and they said it can be charged as a hate crime and as a target to that person and King County Police actually laughed when they saw this post and they told me "why don't they just let this page be because we all know wiki can't be trusted anyways so who cares if this new guy gets a page or not wiki is based off of unreliable sources." You guys should watch out what you say because the government and police do monitor everything you do. His real name is Shabazz Sundiata Sallier but if you search Google for Shabazz Sallier if he was a regular guy why is his information on the right side of google like any other famous person so the name Shabazz Sallier was locked and as a fan I just added his middle name but videos guys don't have their info on the right side of Google and if you Bing Shabazz Sallier Kira Kosarin from the hit Nickelodeon TV Show The Thundermans pops up as related searches why because he is a new famous upcoming pop star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledoggymack (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is about the Wikipedia article and not about the participants. The user has been warned about personal attacks. If you are aware of sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, please add them to the article and mention here when you have done so (Google and Bing are not sources in themselves). The reason the title Shabazz Sallier is protected is that several articles that did not meet Wikipedia policy were created there. --bonadeacontributionstalk 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Please don't let the police investigate Wikipedia for hate crime on a student with a disability yes I wrote an article about a student with a disability and you can be charged in the court of law so far the police King County said you guys have already violated 2 WAC Codes in the State of WA they are trying to see what laws you broke where Wikipedia is located. Please be nice before I read you your rights and hold you accountable even more than what you are. ! It is a federal offense to hate crime someone specially if they have a disability or disabled. O please stop cyber bullying as well " However, Prosecutors have used existing laws on the books to prosecute individuals suspected of cyberbullying. Criminal harassment statutes can often provide a basis for bringing charges in severe cases, and more serious criminal charges have been brought in cases where the offense has resulted in suicide or other tragic consequences.Recentlycreated cyber harassment statutes may also provide an avenue for charging online bullies in some states. Nearly half of U.S. states include "cyberbullying" in their broader bullying laws, while most states also include either "cyberbullying" or "electronic harassment" as well. The nationwide trend is toward greater accountability for bullying in general, including criminal statutes.
O did you not just see the president speech when he said freedom of speech is legal so you are violating my rights o man I can't believe I almost forgot about that ! Goodnight all I hope you make the right decision ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledoggymack (talk • contribs) 08:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FTR: Littledoggymack seems to have got themselves blocked for making legal threats here and elsewhere. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Guess what a little birdy just told me so you know what I did I filmed a video called Wikipedia is racist against African American males
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoAxBEtmT3k How dare you guys disrespect me Shabazz Sallier I will promote this video I will make sure you guys get justice that person is right you have no right go go against the president when he says freedom of speech is legal I can't wait till Donald Trump bans wiki or changes because you guys been getting away with to much stuff for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:834B:7EAF:0:10:C3A6:D001 (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close this Afd already please. GNG/BASIC/SNG, none of them is applicable here. Unfortunate but quite silly comments to keep. Like the nom says, almost a speedy deletion candidate. Impressed at the patience of other editors in not retorting to some of the churlish keep comments. Lourdes 09:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced article about a hill that exists. No claim of notability for any discernible reason: it just exists, the end. But a hill needs to be reliably sourceable as notable for something before an article becomes appropriate -- topics are not automatically eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. After putting some deeper research into this, this actually is salvageable with a stronger claim of notability and better referencing for it than is apparent from the current version. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus seems to be that the subject satisfies WP:PROF#C1 and it is also well argued that the subject satisfies WP:PROF#C8. While the criticism about the journals is valid, it doesn't automatically make them non-notable. What matters here is whether the subject had made an impact (whether positive or negative) which has been noticed by others. Randykitty seems to have demonstrated that the subject's work has been noticed by others.
However, as noted in this AfD, the article needs work. It needs to be cleaned up and the criticism about the journals needs to be mentioned. The way forward is not to delete but to mention all reliably sourced viewpoints about the subject in the article (in accordance with due weight and BLP). (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable academic. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1-7 & 9. This leaves criteria 8, "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.". I argue this is also a strong fail. By 2015 SCImago rankings of journals which he has served as chief editor: Cell Cycle - 257th in subject area "Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology", 363th in "Medicine". Aging - 195th in subject area "Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology". Oncotarget - 344th in subject area "Medicine". Agingis ranked 5th in the subject category "Aging", but this is merely a subcategory under the subject area "Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology". Furthermore, both Aging and Oncotarget are published by Impact Journals (Albany, New York), a relatively new (and very small) publisher listed by Jeffrey Beall as a "Potential, possible, or probable" predatory open-access publisher. I should also point out that "700forscience", a group that that the page indicates that he co-founded, appears defunct and is not notable. C64rocks (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep and withdrawing my nomination per my comment below from the last hour. C64rocks (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this case but Draft if anyone should ever be willing for it, because he's part of team with high citations, but he's not been a closely significant author for it, therefore he would not be notable or apply for it, and although his book counts in libraries are noticeable, it's still not enough. Overall, there's still not the convincingly genuine article needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
Preserve I serendipitously stumbled on this discussion and most likely the editors proposing this delete are non-scientists, because Blagosklonny published in PNAS, Nature and many other journals, edited books and developed the entire theory of aging. His H-index is >40 and he has over 250 papers on PubMed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=blagosklonny%2Bm. It is worthwhile to point out that the Beall's list is biased and Jeffrey Beall is not a notable scientist with no significant contributions to science, who made a name for himself attacking open-access journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.227.252 (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that it should be relevant to the discussion, but my PhD is in biomedical sciences.) What we have here IMO is a prime example of why WP:ACADEMIC warns that H-index is of limited usefulness for establishing notability. Although Blagosklonny's H-index is respectable, there is simply very little (?any) mention of his work in secondary sources. It appears that a large percentage of his articles were published in the journals where he serves as managing editor (Aging, Oncotarget, Cell Cycle). Considering the dubious reputations of these journals, I have a hard time not considering all of these articles as self-published. In other instances he is merely a middle author in a long list of authors. As for the claim that Blagosklonny "developed the entire theory of aging", self-publishing theoretical concepts on aging does not establish notability. I still fail to see any evidence that he has made a significant impact on the field. C64rocks (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment as apparently the author has emailed, but I still confirm what I said above, as there's still not enough of the genuine substance for an article here, it's too soon. SwisterTwistertalk 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I doing a bit of IAR and sorting into the Academic journals list because there is some talk about a predatory journal and the subject's notability as an editor in chief. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article Significantly Improved since many of the editors here may be distracted by Dr. Blagosklonny's publications in the journals, where he is editor-in-chief and did not have the time to go through the publication record on PubMed, I added just a few selected papers, 15 to be precise in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, Nature Leukemia, Nature Cell Death & Differentiation and FEBS, where Dr. Blagosklonny was a senior author. Either first or last author (it is customary for the senior author to be last). I added other editorial roles including Nature Cell Death & Disease and included coverage by third parties including the Scientific American (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v306/n1/full/scientificamerican0112-32.html) and Bloomberg Business Week (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-12/does-a-real-anti-aging-pill-already-exist-). When it comes to notable scientists, it is easy to criticize. But instead, please try to do your own research and improve the articles instead of deleting and criticizing. Cancer and aging are among the most important challenges our society is facing today. Attacking the people, who dedicate their lives to developing cures is bad karma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.227.252 (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several (actually, most) arguments given above by both "keep" and "delete" !votes are misinterpreting WP:ACADEMIC. Blagosklonny clearly meets at least two criteria of ACADEMIC:
Criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". That the subject has published in important journals is irrelevant, as are the number of articles that he has co-authored. What is important is whether all these articles have been "noted" (that's what "notability" means). Well, GScholar tells us that his articles have been cited over 25,000 times, with an incredibly high h-index of 83. Given GScholar's notorious unreliability, I also checked the Web of Science. WoS lists 260 articles, cited a grand total of 18,849 times, with an h-index of 73. Please note that we often keep academics who have about 1000 citations and an h-index of 20 or more. We often keep academics who have 1 or 2 articles with more than 100 citations. Blagosklonny has 54 articles cited 100 times or more (9 have been cited over 300 times). This kind of metrics one does not get by self-citations and such. These are actually the highest citation numbers I have ever seen in an AfD of an academic. And, yes, we need to be careful in interpreting the h-index and citation counts, but that is mostly in the lower numbers: a low index or low citation counts do not necessarily mean non-notability. However, exceptionally high counts like Blagosklonny has are proof of notability. As for the doubtful argument that many of Blagosklonny's publications are "self-published", even if true that is not a reason to ignore them if it can be shown that such self-published stuff has made a measurable impact.
Criterion 8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Whether we like it or not, Aging, Cell Cycle, and Oncotargetare "major, well-established" journals. All three have significant impact factors. Yes, they are published by minor (or even shady) publishers (as noted in the articles on them) and Blagosklonny's editing (at least of Oncotarget) has been criticized (which should be mentioned in this article), but the fact remains that journals with an IF of 3 or higher are highly notable. (And if you check their edit histories, you'll note that it was me who inserted the criticism on those journals into the articles).
Finally, if one does a news search (just click the link above), several sources pop up (among them the New Scientist), so a case can be made that Blagosklonny also meets WP:GNG directly.
The above is not to say that the article we currently have is OK, because it is not. The list of articles is way too long, there is no criticism (such as about the editing of Oncotarget), so the article clearly needs work. However, there can be no doubt as to Blagosklonny being notable. --Randykitty (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that Blagosklonny is not notable. From WP:ACADEMIC: "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." Let's look at the section that was recently added to the page "Rapamycin and Aging". In the two references for the section, he is mentioned on the last page of the first article and sporadically several times in the second. Neither of these references are peer-reviewed academic sources (Scientific American and BusinessWeek) and as such they do not establish the claims made in that section. I should also point out that Blagosklonny does not appear in the list of faculty on the Roswell Park Cancer Institute website (the most recent mention is several years old). The PNAS publication is an interesting one. According to PubMed this article has been cited 29 times. A quick look reveals that 23 of these 29 citations are from the journals that he edits! This is the problem--every time that I come across something that at surface level looks like it may establish notability there is a big asterisks next to it. In my eyes, this is one of the most egregious cases of H-index padding and academic piggybacking that I have ever seen. The fact is that despite his H-index or any other arbitrary measure, I see little evidence to suggest that he has made a significant impact on his field of study. C64rocks (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I repeat: it doesn't matter how many publications somebody has, nor in what journal they were published. What matter is if these publications were noted. Blagosklonny's certainly have more noted, much more than we usually require, because over 18 THOUSAND citations is simply stellar. Where he works is also immaterial. Whether at a reputed university or some backwater one, the only thing that still counts is whether he is noted. Being cited in Scientific American and BusinessWeek contributes to meeting GNG. And nobody can "pad" their citation record to get 18 thousand citations and an h-index of 73 or more, that's just physically impossible. If you have an issue with the aging/rapamycin section, remove it or improve it. With or without that section, this is one of the most notable academics I have ever seen at AfD. I understand you are new here, but at least SwisterTwister has been around long enough (and often enough at AfD) to know better. This is not a case of WP:TOOSOON. This is a misguided AfD and a waste of our time. I strongly suggest that it be withdrawn rapidly. This is my final comment here, enough said already. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of lack of field impact: He does not appear in Who's Who in Gerontology (maintained by João Pedro de Magalhães) despite the fact that the list includes 291 researchers in the field of aging. Although the page claims he was instrumental in elucidating TOR signaling, he is an author (co-author in this case) of only a signal reference out of 163 references on the TOR signaling page.C64rocks (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot prove that something or somebody is not notable. It's teh other way around. To include something here, you show it is notable. Which I have done above. That this person is not included in some list is absolutely irrelevant. And this now really is the last time that I comment here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: dear editors, I know that my comment was deleted, but I wanted to mention that Beall's list is a personal blog and personal blogs are not peer-reviewed. There needs to be an objective independent consortium to evaluate the editorial policies. Promoting a personal blog run by one person is much worse than promoting a resource run by a consortium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.227.252 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss whether or not Beall's blog is a reliable source. Up till now, it has several times been judged to be one. --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close this Afd. Even a basic review of contributions of the academician (something I would consider should be necessarily done in the case of academicians) put him absolutely above the WP:ACADEMIC bar. As one of the editors above mentions, this subject out here has stellar contributions in the academic field, and Wikipedia not having his bio would be our loss, than the subject's. Lourdes 10:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Swallowing my pride and changing to Keep as I realize now that it is very difficult to demonstrate definitively why his H-index doesn't satisfy WP:Prof#C1 and that the bar isn't necessarily where I thought it was. There are contributions that I would like to make to other pages and I don't want to start off on the wrong foot here. I apologize for wasting anyone's time. C64rocks (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You could perhaps strike off your nomination statement above and, as nominators may do, write that you are withdrawing the same. Lourdes 17:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could use much improving, but worth keeping around for people to try to improve. Sagecandor (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The arguments presented by the keep proponents are compelling, and apparently not disputed by the delete proponents. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more notable now than during the last AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Despite having one song "chart" at #47, there are few reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard has an article about LessThan3 here. An editor-in-chief, managing editor, and editor are listed at http://www.lessthan3.com/about, which demonstrates there is editorial oversight.
The article notes:
Unless you’re a board game fanatic or a small child, the name Candyland conjures up images of two grinning faces who, despite their initial odd-couple vibe, seemed like the perfect pair on the surface. Fun-loving party jams and searing bass tunes on steady flow, Josie Martin and Ethan Davis looked to be headed out on the first stretch of a serious tear of a career powered by a never-ending sugar high of inventive tunes. But all is not gumdrops and licorice whips in Candy Castle, as Josie Martin, the iconic afro-rocking half of the Santa Barbara duo, has decided to split with her longtime friend and production partner Ethan Davis. Confectionary humor aside, Josie Martin is now heading down Candyland’s historically colorful path solo, and she says things are about to get a bit darker as she continues her sonic experiments as Candyland by herself.
Outside of music, Martin is no stranger to the darker side of life’s experiences. After moving 29 different times throughout the Santa Barbara area growing up, she was eventually without a place to stay, which was when she met Davis and the two started Candyland.
...
Martin first met Davis while playing at his 17th birthday party and, after about six months of performing and DJing under a different name, Candyland was born and with it, the production careers of Martin and Davis.
7 p.m. Saturday, March 5, at Trees, 2709 Elm St., $14-$16
Josie Martin's carved her niche in the DJ world as both a songwriter and remixer. Under the name of Candyland, her songs have gotten hundreds of thousands of plays on SoundCloud and her music bridges the gap between house music, trap and dubstep to create songs that'll have you flailing with your worst dance moves as soon as the bass drops. MW
So, what's the appeal? Candyland's original productions, remixes, and edits are packed with as much high-power energy as 20 pixie-sticks straight to the vein. They'll drop anything with nasty bass; dubstep, trap, hardstyle, moombahton, electro house, drum 'n' bass, glitch hop, whatever. It's all about making the kids jump up and down and "Get Wild."
Santa Barbara natives Ethan Davis and Josie Martin bring the hype with them to every performance. You've never really seen a girl in a tutu twerk until you've seen her shake her ass for Candyland. Meanwhile, the DJs party just as hard as the kids in front of them. Their signature move is going absolutely bananas, like, way beyond the Jesus pose. Also, Martin has a really sweet afro, and that b*#ch knows what to do with it.
Candyland took the dance scene by storm in 2011, and their debut album, Bring the Rain, had singles topping not one but four different Beatport charts, as well as took the number three spot in the Overall Releases Top 100. They just finished slaying at the Budweiser Made in America festival, and next, the daring duo is coming to tear the roof off of Fort Lauderdale's Revolution Live on July 12.
Don’t confuse this infectiously charming boy and girl DJ duo with the childhood boardgame. Candyland hails from Santa Barbara, California and carved a name for themselves after dropping insane beats that blend house and trap with everything from System of a Down to Lil Jon.
5 million Soundcloud plays deep, numerous chart toppers later — No. 1 on Dubstep Top 100, Electro House Top 100, Glitch Hop Top 100, etc. — and the co-ed duo is poised to be the next EDM epidemic. Before tearing up Orange County’s Sutra and leaving everyone a breathless, sweaty mess, 7 got the chance to catch up with Candyland.
Santa Barbara DJ Candyland (aka Josie Martin) has just dropped a brand-new banger. Titled "Murda," the dancehall-inflected track has drops for days, sure to please EDM fans everywhere.
...
As Martin prepares for Candyland's next release via Steve Aoki's Dim Mak label (out in June), she's amping up the volume with another new track as well -- her take on Major Lazer and DJ Snake's mega-hit "Lean On." You can download it free here.
An editor-in-chief and an editor are listed at http://www.youredm.com/about-us/, which demonstrates that there is editorial oversight.
The article notes:
Josie Martin got her first gig when she was 17 years old, DJing the birthday party of Ethan Davis, whom as fate would have it, she would go on to form what was originally the electro house duo Candyland with. Inspired by the late DJ AM, Josie initially focused on turn-tabling and scratching, but over time, she began to delve more and more into dance music as she and Ethan began to develop their sound. After winning back-to-back Beatport contests for their remixes of Skrillex’s “Make It Bun Dem” and Bingo Players’ “Rattle,” they released their debut album Bring the Rain on Spinnin’ Records, which would go on to chart at #3 on the Beatport Top 100. Soon after, the duo found themselves on a nationwide tour, with club and festival dates in Los Angeles, Denver, New York and Las Vegas, as well as opening for Krewella’s “Get Wet Live” tour.
An editor-in-chief and an editor are listed at http://www.youredm.com/about-us/, which demonstrates that there is editorial oversight.
The article notes:
For Josie Martin and Ethan Davis – the Santa Barbara-based duo we know as Candyland, the homeless population has a special place in their hearts.
That’s right. Both Josie and Ethan grew up in the same town of Santa Barbara, California and graduated high school the same year. When they met as teenagers (Josie was asked to DJ Ethan’s 17th birthday party), they were both aspiring musicians – Ethan played drums and Josie was DJing. When she learned that Ethan could drum, she asked him to drum next to her while she DJed, and so they formed a band called Empires And Riots. At the time, they really only did mashups, but then Ethan began to replace drumming with DJing and eventually they both got into producing as well. Josie’s dream was to also launch her own record label because she wanted to combine her two passions: music and business. They began spending a lot of time together, became good friends, and eventually decided to form the DJ/producer duo, Candyland.
...
Sooner than expected, they saw this dream actually turn into reality. Their hard work and persistence began to pay off. Just two years after they met, they won the Beatport remix contest for Bingo Players’ hit “Rattle”. Some of the biggest blogs in the music industry picked up their music and began supporting it…blasting their tunes all over the Internet. Once they developed a solid fan base, promoters and venues across the country were taking every opportunity they could to book Candyland. Soon Ethan and Josie found themselves touring daily – both by car and plane. As we know, often times with touring there is a lot of partying that usually results in little to no sleep. That being said, touring began to take a toll on Ethan. While on the road, after a rough breakup with his girlfriend, he fell victim to the “DJ” lifestyle and was drinking more than he intended. Drinking and the exhausting schedule led to a deep state of depression and to a very difficult decision. Ethan decided it was time to give touring and the music dream a temporary break in order to regain his strength and get back on his feet.
A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:
It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. ...
It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.
This week's most popular dance/electronic songs, based on radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music, club play, and streaming activity data from online music sources tracked by Nielsen Music.
Keep - It has a song charted on a national music chart (passes WP:MUSICBIO), has sufficient coverage (passes WP:BASIC) and the third (WP:ANYBIO) mentioned by Magnolia677 is additional not obligatory. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Speechless" charted on Billboard, and their other two songs have sufficient references, as does the short article that I wrote. The first AFD states "No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article", which is what I tried to do before it was deleted. The article was blown up and started over due to extensive reference bombing. The new article no longer has reference bombing, has 3 reviews, and if the three songs were merged into this article, it would likely be notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The number of independent sources that have covered and interviewed Candyland, including YouTube video interviews not previously mentioned, suggests that this page should be kept. Candyland ocntinues to perform weekly across the country as well as produce music including but not limited to Speechless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C201:A669:7C79:FEE:4485:3702 (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable actress, The article's been unsourced since its creation (2008) and there's nothing on Google - not even 1 mention, They appear to meet NACTOR however they fail GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source for our purposes, despite the intent of some Wikipedia is not meant to be as comprehensive as IMDb, and so we need something else as a source to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close this Afd. I've found a BBC source with just a mention of the actor. If i had had more reliable sources (even mere mentions), I would have argued with the nom that meeting NACTOR (which the nominator agrees) is enough for a keep. However, as the nom mentions, I am not able to find more than a single source for the subject. Lourdes 10:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No source given WP:V verifies the general notability WP:GNG of the subject of this article. It is therefore not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sourcing showing that he gained any actual attention for his testimony related to his uncle, justprimary sourcing. His law firm website is no good as a source either. The rest shows he is involved in community affairs in Fulton COunty, Georgia. He also is evidently involved in encouraging educational development in Kenya and beyond, but we lack any sources that show his impact there has been noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable actress, All sources in the article are IMDB and BBC episodes, Nothing substantial on Google, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that article, I would have absolutely no objections to redirecting there however as it stands this article still fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 03:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I favor at least redirecting, as this will preserve the edit history; this individual may well have a stand-alone article spun out even if this one is not going to make it, no sense deleting the work that went into creating this. Montanabw(talk) 08:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Half the time I tend to forget to add the redirect bit above but usually I never have a problem with redirecting these as as you say it preserves the history and can easily be reverted if something substantial pops up :), Anyway thanks –Davey2010Talk 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This barely escapes being an A7, but I confess I haven't researched the union, mostly because it's foreign and I seriously doubt it will have coverage in non-Ukrainian sources. Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of reliable sources about this writer and poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. This article should not be deleted:Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steam, the primary source contains many secondary sources (55) each verified by a minimum of a $5 steam purchase, 40 of which also purchased the $15 game[1]Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game was greenlit[2] through steam, meaning that both, the developer had to spend $100 to enter his game, and that well over 1,000 accounts had to nominate the game for publication[3]Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This game is extensively covered on youtube in a manner that would take a vast resource pool and many years to fabricate[4]Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "55 secondary sources" you're referring to on the Steam Store page are user reviews. They are not reliable sources and do not contribute to the game's notability (WP:USERG, WP:VG/USERREVIEW). A game being on Steam or greenlit for release on Steam is not a a valid criteria for a game's notability. YouTube videos from random people aren't reliable sources and don't contribute to notability either. This game has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Few games pass the Steam green-light process, it needed a substantial and thus notable, community to do so
Games with less notability, which also lack secondary sources are on Wikipedia[5]
I will start working on a collaborative paper about this game with my peers, which would be a valid secondary source
"Life is too short to spend cutting budding flowers." William FitzPatrick Sphyloid (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Passing the greenlight process does not make a game notable. Wikipedia has a criteria for notablity, WP:GNG. I suggest you actually read it rather than making up arguments to keep the article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep the article either in this case. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This article does not violate any of the five pillars of Wikipedia, therefore this is a valid argument. I'll just save the article, get the sources over time, then re-post under a different user name + IP.Sphyloid (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me that Curses 'N Chaos, to which I personally added sources, meets our guideline for notability. If you do not agree, you are free to start your own articles for deletion nomination. Be aware that such an action could be considered to be pointed. And regarding a new user name and IP, that would constitute sockpuppetry, which is verboten on Wikipedia. Such an action is disruptive and will be met with harsh consequences for your editing life here. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking that the "Trusted video game sources" in that source are legitimate, especially in a day and age where even science direct needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if they are, the game was discussed here[1].Sphyloid (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One source on a website basically announcing the game isn't the kind of coverage we expect. The rest of your comment will fall on deaf ears here because it has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Izno (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little more listening might be in order. Try these links: This article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had few meaningful hits (more than listings) in a video game reliable sourcescustom Google search. It doesn't have enough depth of coverage in reliable sources to write meaningfully on the topic, and there is no indication that the game is somehow notable despite this lack of coverage. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. This is the first game to offer true sandbox editing of vehicles, at a resolution of 20 centimeters. The game leverages softbody physics concepts originally developed in Beamng.drive, however unlike Beamng.drive and "Sandbox" vehicle editor games Dream Car Racing 3D not only includes it's own editor (Unlike beamng.drive), but it allows you to edit the exact frame geometry in a three dimensional space instead of lego-building with pre-made parts like scrap mechanic and machinecraft. The developer intends to extend the editor into aviation, and numerarios types of land vehicles such as tanks and motorcycles.Sphyloid (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources that help satisfy the WP:GNG have been provided, nor do they seem likely to exist. Sergecross73msg me 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
XInput might be notable, but it doesn't look to me like the set of games is notable per WP:LISTN. Delete. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing actually convincing of independent notability and significant with the listed links simply being trivial and unconvincing themselves, none of them what is needed for substantiating this article, with my own searches then only finding a few links of such triviality also. There are no significant library book collections at all and I'm literally not seeing anything else better, with the history also being self-explanatory, consisting of nothing significant. SwisterTwistertalk 23:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | DemocraticsTalk 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lavery as an artist has been included on a handful of websites and it isn't immediately trivial. But certainly Michael Lavery the founder of whole brain power is not trivial. It is mentioned on numerous blogs and, if not entirely dedicated to it, whole brain power has been refered to by newspapers such as the orange county register and the New york times. I believe there was also a book called something like 'eye yoga' that refers to the exercises of whole brain power. The benefits of the program may be debatable but the stir it had made meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.32.131.79 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded with reason "extensive article in deWP & their notability standards are stricter than ours. Therefore, would need discussion." I'm not sure about the German WP being stricter than us (I regularly see articles that would never make it here because of insufficient sourcing), but in any case, the German article has the same references as the article here. Apart from a brief paragraph in the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, there is nothing that suggests any notability. It is not in any selective database that I checked (not even the ATLA Religion Database). In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Keep -- This looks like a specialist academic journal. Sources are probably failing to pick it up because it is not in English; citation indices are not good in dealing with the arts, and particularly religious issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't "Sources are probably failing to pick it up" (for whatever reason) the very definitions of "not notable" (in the sense of "has not been noted")? --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "historically important in its subject area" (WP:NJOURNALS, #3). StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any evidence that this is "historically important"? --Randykitty (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has a long history of being cited: over 5000 Google Books and 1600 Google Scholar results. This is a significant journal. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Both of the nominator's questions need to be answered. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Both sides of this discussion present strong arguments and I won't hide that my sympathy lies with the "delete" side (and rare indeed are the cases where I disagree with DGG). The walls of text, riddled with quotes, that were dumped into this debate by the "keep" proponents did not make me more sympathetic to their case, either. Despite this, I have decided to close this as "keep", not even "no consensus". The subject of the article is the subject of one book and extensively covered in Ruthsatz's book. Yes, the first book is written by his mother, but it is not published by some vanity press but by the very respectable Random House. Then there is abundant coverage, sustained over several years, in reliable sources like Time Magazine and reputable newspapers. I agree with the arguments that some of those sources look like they do not hold up to the usual journalistic standards, but, unfortunately (in this case), it is not up to us to judge that. The subject has been covered in reliable sources and all that coverage makes for a clear pass of WP:GNG, in my opinion. That WP:ACADEMIC is not met is irrelevant. I am also sensitive to the arguments concerning harm in a BLP of a minor, but given the widespread and sustained coverage in major news sources, I fail to see how a WP bio could cause additional harm. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources published in the peer-reviewed literature that assess the subject's alleged prodigious ability (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). As a researcher, it is far WP:TOOSOON to have a biography on the subject. Since this is a WP:BLP of a scientist, we generally require high-quality peer-reviewed commentary on the subject, highly significant awards such as a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, or other evidence that the subject has made a substantial impact to their scholarly discipline (WP:PROF). Just having been on a few talk programs at one point because of his mother's promotion of her book does not seem a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article about a scientist. There is nothing (yet) of substantial import worthy of an encyclopedia article in the career of this particular graduate student, as would be evidenced by the criteria outlined at WP:PROF. Moreover, the article claims that the subject is autistic, but that apparently lacks independent sourcing (all sources are either based on the mother's memoir, or interviews with the Barnetts), in violation of WP:BLP. And while it would be WP:OR to draw any conclusions of our own from the subject's TEDTeen talk, it is not unreasonable to demand independent sources of a very high quality attesting both to the subject's alleged disability, and to the noteworthiness of his claimed scientific accomplishments (WP:REDFLAG). Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought we had come to a consensus to retain a short article per WP:GNG. Nobody disputed the claim that the subject fails WP:PROF. I do not want to reproduce the material that I contributed to the long debates debate that followed the last nomination, other than to point out that there has been considerable interest in the subject, and that our article is still getting 300 hits per day. Viewfinder (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, academics are expected to pass WP:PROF. WP:GNG creates the presumption, not a guarantee of notability. Refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And there seem to be no independent reliable secondary sources either on the subject's prodigious ability, or on his alleged contributions to science. So there is simply no verifiable basis on which to build an article, unless it is a perma-stub devoted to following every minor aspect of the subject's middling and non-notable career. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be short but it is well referenced, and includes quality academic references which uphold its autism and prodigy claims. Viewfinder (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read Dr. Ruthsatz' latest book please, if you wan't to continue to bring some qualified oppinions about Barnett's autism and prodigy status into the discussion. Barnett is a major case studie of Dr. Ruthsatz and she also in the Book explains about her meetings with young Barnett with details that isn't found in any other published sources. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources include a 2016 Penguin Random House–published book, The Prodigy's Cousin: The Family Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Talent, that covers Jacob Barnett on pages 99–111, 169, 171, 203, and 212–213.
WP:PROF, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), is cited in the nomination statement and by one of the delete votes. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria states that "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."
Not a single one of the sources you gave are reliable sources regarding matters of scholarship. These aren't even very reliable as "news sources": human interest reporting is typically not reliable, per our guideline. Finally, they are not independent of the subject. That requires peer review to assess the subject's scholarly impact, and independent assessment to assign either the "child prodigy" or "autistic" label, either of which seems like a redflag given the content of the TEDTalk. Please present some WP:SCHOLARSHIP here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Penguin Random House–published book source The Prodigy's Cousin: The Family Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Talent, which meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it does meet scholarship. It cites no primary peer-reviewed case studies on Barnett. It is not published by an academic publishing house. It repeats WP:REDFLAG claims about synesthesia. It has no bibliography. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Nom is essentially arguing that because the subject has a plausible but insufficient claim for notability as an academic, whether he meets GNG requirements is irrelevant. That's simply ridiculous. Subject meets GNG requirements, article should be kept, further time should not be wasted rearguing this very basic point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are required to be reliable. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for the kind of sources that are normally acceptable in scientific articles like this one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. "la la la can't hear you" is not an AfD-winning argument style, Sławomir Biały. --Tagishsimon(talk) 01:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no intended disrespect, it is too soon to have an article on Mr. Barnett. The situation with this article is very similar to WP:BLP1E: a person known only for being a child prodigy, but not yet for doing anything with that genius. For non-public figures, we should not be swayed too much by human-interest news pieces, which can be attributed to the 24 hour news cycle and a natural interest in child prodigies. It would be better to wait until the subject has some more substantive achievements before having an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – he will soon be notable for the number of attempts Sławomir Biały has made to delete his article. Oculi (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were a question only of notability, I would recommend keeping, since it easily passes GNG. For acceptable sources, the guidelines for news organizations is more relevant here than the one on scholarship. The article is discussing biographical details, not the science, and there are articles from reputable news sources supporting them. For example, the Maclean's article is ample evidence for autism. You won't find a scientific paper analyzing a particular individual; I'm pretty sure that would violate ethics guidelines. However, I think that @CBM is right that WP:BLP1E trumps notability here. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jacob Barnett doesn't have to disappear from Wikipedia altogether. Some of these sources could be added to his entry in List of child prodigies. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:25,
We have articles about the overwhelming majority of those listed at List of child prodigies, including some of the ones that are not linked. Most of those listed are attracting considerably fewer page views. So there is ongoing interest. If this were a WP:BLP1E case the page view statistics would have declined considerably. They have not. Viewfinder (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Viewfinder: That's interesting, but page view statistics are not relevant to deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect the number of page views that an article is getting is surely relevant to any debate about whether we should retain or delete that article, especially following the citation of WP:BLP1E. Viewfinder (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is obviously nuts -- page view analysis is an absolutely horrible criterion to apply to questions like this, and in particular its inclusion is not supported by policy, guideline, or cultural norm. (Incidentally you will note that I am not taking a position on the deletion question here.) --JBL (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to call something "obviously nuts" and "horrible" without giving a reason. Broadcasters frequently axe programs on the grounds of low viewing figures. But I concede that our policy states that raw hit count is unreliable and agree that it should not be conclusive. I can only speak for myself, but it still astonishes me that someone who has given a talk that has been watched more than 7.5 million times can be dismissed as not notable. But maybe that is because, like the subject of the article we are debating, I am affected by Asperger's syndrome - which is why I am interested in this case and why I feel strongly about the existence of our article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. The rest is WP:BLP1E generated by churnalism from an ambitious relative. He can be added to the list as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Jacob Barnett does not meet any of the three WP:BLP1E conditions:
He is not being covered "in the context of a single event" because being a child prodigy or a physics student at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is not a single event.
@Cunard: 2. Being a physics student at the Perimeter Institute is not a separate event. No media source would care about that if he were not an unusually young student, i.e. a child prodigy. 3. I think you're getting too literal with the word "event" - the intent of the policy is clear enough. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider being a child prodigy an event. But even if it were an event, Jacob Barnett cannot be considered a low-profile individual because of his numerous interviews, his receiving sustained coverage over five years, and his receiving substantial coverage in the 2016 Penguin Random House–published book The Prodigy's Cousin: The Family Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Talent.
Keep - Easy, easy pass of GNG. No need to resort to any special notability guideline for scholars. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barnett was the youngest person ever admitted to the Perimeter Institute's master's degree program (with an 8% admission rate). This is approximately the same as MIT's admission rate, so it seems to be a significant accomplishment. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Student accomplishments, even including notable and reliably-sourced awards, do not contribute to notability under the guideline for notability of academics. Being the youngest in a class of 30 100 or so students in a recently established small inaugural master's program does not even rise to the level of a notable student award, let alone something to guarantee notability under our guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The masters's degree program at PI was started in 2009. JB was admitted to the 2013 program, so it was the fifth class, not the "inaugural" class. He was not just the youngest. At age 15, he was 6 or 7 years younger than the average age of the students admitted to this competitive, selective program. So, according to reliable sources, he is a genuine child prodigy (the faculty at the Perimeter Institute are certainly reliable sources). It is a waste of time to try to delete this article when there are so many other articles that obviously should be deleted. For example, all of the fictional characters in the TV show the Big Bang Theory have their own article. If someone would try to delete these articles, I would definitely vote in favor of that. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Student awards still do not contribute to notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jrheller1: It is a waste of time to try to delete this article when there are so many other articles that obviously should be deleted. I don't get that line of argument. At all. If those articles should "obviously" be deleted, then you should file an AfD or ten. That has next to no bearing on this AfD, especially given that the policies are quite different for living academics (and minors to boot) and for fictional characters. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 00:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are essentially arguing in favor of keeping articles on fictional TV show characters, Pokemon characters, and "Bus uncle" and in favor of deleting an article on a genuine child prodigy. To me this seems totally absurd. Genuine child prodigies are very rare. The phenomenon of child prodigies is poorly understood and very important. It seems obvious to me that an article on a genuine child prodigy should be kept. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jrheller1: You are essentially arguing in favor of keeping articles on fictional TV show characters, Pokemon characters, and "Bus uncle" Not in the least. I am arguing that "look, there is some cruft elsewhere, so let's not clean up this cruft" is an invalid argument. If I gave enough of a whit about "bus uncle", whose existence I was heretofore blissfully unaware of, to participate on its hypothetical AfD, then on personal taste I'd most certainly vote delete. The phenomenon of child prodigies is poorly understood and very important. This I agree with. All the more reason to hold related articles to a solid standard, which this one does not meet. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The childhood development of Jacob Barnett was both remarkable and notable. There are sources out there, both lay and academic, which meet our notability and reliability guidelines, which could be used to expand the article. We should be getting them together. It is not about whether we at Wikipedia think that he ought to have been reported and covered so extensively. It is about the fact that he was reported and covered. Viewfinder (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered the new book highlighted by Cunard and OHL, but delivery is likely to take a few days. Assuming this book defeats WP:BLP1E, and that the closing admin does not perform a U-turn and delete the article per WP:PROF (overruling WP:GNG which even some of the article's opponents accept that it passes), I hope to start the search for consensus to re-expand the article. Viewfinder (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with Xxanthippe, we have always judged and based this by WP:PROF and there's nothing there convincing, thus there's nothing to suggest better; it's as if judging a sportsperson by a completely different notability, and this is the case here, WP:PROF is relevant, the others are not, and the news stories listed are simply about the one-time events, no actual significance beyond it. SwisterTwistertalk 04:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROF is the rule for academics and he does not conceivably meet it. WP:GNG does exist as an alternative, for someone who incidentally happens to be a n academic but whose notability is elsewhere--it's intended to prevent the deletion of such articles as a notable politician who happens to be also an undistinguished assistant professor, which should not be rejected on the basis that's not an notable academic. The guideline is not for the present case, of someone who is a totally non-notable student, but where his mother apparently thinks otherwise, and has written a book about him and has managed to get the attendant publicity for what the press thinks a human interest story. I have always voted to disallow articles about minors whose parents are exploiting them--it's not fair to the child. (The press, havinga different set of ethics, has the habit of just accepting the parent's consent in these cases). DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several people who want to delete the article seem to think that JB is being "exploited." If he is being "exploited" by his mother, it would not be a bad thing if more parents would "exploit" their children. At age 16 he had a Master's degree in physics from a very selective, competitive program. This is a very good position to be in. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not currently notable as an academic (3 papers, low cites). The article can well be recreated when he actually does something worthy of mention. It's WP:TOO SOON. No need to have an article on everyone who might do something noteworthy at some unspecified point in the future. (Being invited to talk shows to promote one's mother's book about oneself is not noteworthy.) — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who relish arguing about people's idiosyncratic opinions about relativity (I am not one of them), I strongly recommend Herbert Dingle where the discussion started over 80 years ago and is continuing at Talk:Herbert Dingle#This article is full of lies. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison whatsoever with Dingle. Dingle actually published his opinions. The subject of the article claimed to have opinions in a YouTube video. His mother also claimed that he had opinions in a book. However, the opinions themselves were never made public, in the half a decade since he allegedly first had them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SB, as far as I am aware, nobody is disputing that the book written about the subject by his mother sold well. Further, for better or worse, the claims about him, including the exaggerated claims, were widely publicized and read. Readers want to check out the accuracy of the claims that they have been reading, and Wikipedia is an important resource that is available to them. If, in future, they do not find an article on Wikipedia about a guy who had so much media coverage, I think they will be rather astonished. This brings me back to the view that the article would be more helpful to its readers if it included a sentence on the lines of "media claims that Barnett disproved relativity have not been accepted by scientists", citing this article. Viewfinder (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would bring us back to this version, documenting all of the media fabrications from the numerous supposedly "reliable sources" that User:Cunard has been pushing since the second AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to go back that far. We can reach a sensible compromise. The addition of a short and mildly worded sentence, with a reference on the lines that I have suggested, would be sufficient. Viewfinder (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because some of the sources that have been listed by Cunard contain exaggerations, it does not mean that they should all be trashed as unreliable. Viewfinder (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. That he fails WP:PROF is obvious and, I think, not under dispute. Barnett appears to have no accomplishments of his own except for studying physics at an unusually young age. As for WP:GNG, I'm not convinced that being the subject of human interest stories makes someone notable. People may be of greater or lesser interest, and Barnett is of somewhat greater interest because people are impressed by child prodigies; but I see no reason why that interest rises above the level of trivial. Ozob (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been involved with this article for a long time and am reasonably sure it will be kept because of what I would call "blind allegiance to sources"...indeed, there are numerous sources, but they're all wrong, a fact established long ago at AfDs and talk. The problem with this article is that it is one of those relatively unusual cases that violates the journalistic tenet of coverage. Specifically, we generally assume sources exist because of some encyclopedic reason for coverage. In essence, we take sources as a proxy. Here, the collusion of sensational "journalism" and tireless promotion by his mother led to an edifice of coverage devoid of any arguably justifiable record of accomplishment. It is a case of reporting preceding deed, of being famous for being famous, etc., which is no basis for an encyclopedia article...that is, unless the article is about the collusion and promotion. Therein lies the problem for a BLP...and we've already decided against this option on ethical grounds. As has been observed, Jacob is now trying to make a real go of it in physics, but has not yet come anywhere near standard thresholds delineated by PROF. I think he will at some point. A proper article could then cover his actual accomplishments in detail, with a few side notes regarding his autism, mother's book, and media focus that surrounded his childhood. WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Agricola, I feel equally sure that if the article is kept, you, SB and DE will be back again next year with another AfD nomination with the same arguments that you are using here and used at AfD2 and the review that followed its result. And Viewfinder (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that I will get my fourth nomination for an autism topic ban if I continue to debate with them. Viewfinder (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're questioning my motives. I'm not going to bicker with you. The article continues to have the policy-based problems that myself and many others have mentioned. Agricola44 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Viewfinder: Re "DE will be back again next year with another AfD nomination": no. I'm not going to re-nominate this because past AfD's have made it abundantly clear that the bean-counters who look at the number of sources and don't evaluate the ridiculously low quality of them generally win these debates. So with no change in the information we have available I see re-litigating it as a pointless endeavor. But since someone other than me has already re-opened it this time, of course I'm going to participate again. Why shouldn't I? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per WP:HARM. He is obviously non-notable (yet) as an academic, so all we have to go on is being a child prodigy. But almost none of the child prodigy material is actually in the article, because the local consensus is that it was so hyped, and in many cases so obviously bogus, that continuing to include it would likely harm the subject's academic career. So we can either have (what we have now) an A7-eligible article that only describes the (not-yet-notable) academic career, or an article based purely on hype. Deletion is preferable to either option. There's also an argument per WP:NOTNEWS: the hype cycle surrounding Barnett-as-child-prodigy seems to have died down and what lasting significance has it had? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This chart doesn't go far enough to the rightNo word in bold from me, I'm afraid, but quite a bit of thinking. I've opined on this article several times in the past and I've never understood why some editors seem to feel it's a slam-dunk "delete". Yes, this is a child; yes, he's being promoted by his parents. I don't see the reasoning that goes from there to "delete". Deleting someone's Wikipedia article might protect them if they were a low profile individual... but this is someone who's appeared in Time Magazine, The Times, The Independent, ABC News, the Huffington Post, etc., etc., etc., all of which sources advertise him as a child prodigy. With all due respect for David Eppstein's ingenious argument above I don't see how WP:HARM#TEST is failed here. And WP:BLP tells us to remove unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't tell us to remove very well-sourced promotional material about living people, so that line of argument goes nowhere at all. In fact I think that a Wikipedia article serves a useful function in moderating the most hyperbolistic claims, which do appear in reliable sources, but in my view are overstated. We're not Snopes, but in cases like this we can usefully do some of their job.
For example, Time Magazine says here that, at the age of 12, Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170. That's a bald, unqualified assertion made in a source we'd normally consider to be reliable. Well, the measure at age 12 would be the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, under which the mean is 100, and each standard deviation is 15 IQ points. So mathematically, a test of 170 would put Barnett in the top 0.000153% of the population. IQ scores aren't very precise at that level because there are so few people in that ability range to calibrate them against. Am I prepared to believe that the Time Magazine journalist has seen the results of a 170 IQ test performed by a qualified professional? Frankly, no. I call bullshit.
I'm prepared to accept that this is a very bright young man. But I don't buy 170 IQ --- not for Barnett, not for anyone. Any statistician or cognitive scientist will tell you that what a score in excess of 160 really means is "off the scale".
The problem is that this whole train of thought goes to a place it can't go. Because what I'm actually saying, here, is that I know better than the sources, and there are good reasons why Wikipedians don't get to do that.
I think that if we follow our own rules, then the sources have to prevail and we have to concede that Barnett is notable. But I clearly understand and to an extent I sympathise with the contrary view. It's a hard one.—S MarshallT/C 19:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us here who have a working knowledge of physics (and maybe you are in this category) recognize that the HARM comes from having lots of absurd articles talking nonsense about besting Einstein and disproving Big Bang that will be detrimental as this person moves into an adult career in physics research. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't pretend to have a working knowledge of physics. I don't feel that I need that knowledge to understand the harm those claims can cause to an academic. The harm would be there whether Wikipedia hosts a biography or not, though; that ship has long since sailed because of his parents' antics and the journalistic decisions that have led to all the sources being published over the years. I've never been able to understand why this argument leads to a "delete" outcome in Barnett's case, in any of the discussions we've had.—S MarshallT/C 22:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When entering the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario Barnett was asked wheter he was working with any "projects" of his own, and Barnett's reply was something like, that he entered with a curious and open mind and had no personal projects he was working on - so from Barnett's perspective the case of these "theories" that at some point where so widely distributed by the media is closed. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundance of sources. Dilaton (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (literally); the subject is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject is unwitting victim of predatory journalism engineered by others and is being exploited by advocacy groups. WP:Do no harm should prevail. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Book source that demonstrates WP:NOTNEWS does not apply.
Jacob reveled in every aspect of college. He loved his classes. He liked getting to know the other students and even tutored some of them: the only prerequisite was that they bring spoons to partake in the giant tubs of peanut butter he brought along to snack on during study sessions.
After his freshman year, he worked as a paid research assistant in quantum physics at IUPI as part of an undergraduate program; during this time, he tackled a previously unsolved math problem. Afterward, he and his mentor coauthored a paper that was published in a noted, peer-reviewed physics journal. It's titled "Origin of Maximal Symmetry Breaking in Even PT-Symmetric Lattices."
At fifteen, he enrolled at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario. The Barnetts sold their home in Indiana and moved to Canada, and Jacob is now a Ph.D. candidate. His TEDxTeen talk, "Forget What You Know," in which he urges listeners to stop learning and start thinking and creating, has been viewed more than six million times.
This provides extensive biographical background about Jacob Barnett's secondary and postsecondary experiences and accomplishments and can be used to expand the article.
The book also notes:
...
Jacob's synesthesia memory boost is associated with numbers. When Jacob thinks about a number (say, 3), he doesn't just picture the numeral; he perceives it as having a specific color (like red) and a specific shape (like a triangle). As Jacob once put it during a conversation with a reporter, "Every number or math problem I ever hear, I have permanently remembered." But he has trouble remembering smells and conversations.
The book then notes:
In 2011, a reporter from a small Indiana newspaper wrote a story about Jacob. Two months later, the Indianapolis Star published a lengthy profile on the twelve-year-old scientist who was trying to disprove the big bang theory, and that story got picked up by a wire service. Word of the whiz kid was rehashed in print and plastered all over the Internet. The full weight of the media crashed down on the Barnett household.
...
It was in the midst of this media frenzy that Joanne contacted the Barnetts about her research. Kristine was skeptical. "At first I sort of thought, well, I don't know about that," she recalled. But then Joanne asked if Jacob might like to go to Cedar Point, a Sandusky, Ohio, amusement park jammed with roller coasters. The Barnetts packed their kids into the car and began the five-hour drive to Sandusky, eager to talk to someone who might provide a new perspective on the child who couldn't get enough theoretical physics.
The Barnetts also consented to one more interview. They had been approached by 60 Minutes, and convinced that the reporters and producers there would do a thoughtful piece, the Barnetts said yes. They pointed them to Joanne as a prodigy expert.
[several more paragraphs about Jacob Barnett]
The book chronicles how Jacob Barnett received substantial attention: from a small local Indiana newspaper to the Indianapolis Star, to a wire service, to Glenn Beck to 60 Minutes to being contacted by the book's coauthor, Joanne Ruthsatz.
Delete The subject does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that this article was added to Wikipedia in the first place because anyone mistook Jacob Barnett for an academic (at the time), so it has never been a matter of wheter he is/was an academic or not. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the result then was "DELETE; a cut-n-dry case", according to the closing statement of the first AfD, so whatever the reasons why the article was added in the first place, they were not very good. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no dealings with the "first version" from 2011 you refer to, but the present entry for Jacob Barnett has been around as an article since Feruary 2014. A number of things have happend since 2011 & 2014 that makes an article even more relevant/eligible now than then. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jacob Barnett is a primary or major focus in two books published before he turned 18 - that alone is unusual for a person that young, and in my humble opinion that alone is more than sufficient to be considered as notable for having an article in Wikipedia in this case. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oleryhlolsson. This is not a case of BLP1E. As Oleryhlolsson points out, this is an important case study. This is an encyclopedia. This is exactly the type of material that belongs on the project. Kudos to all those attempting to save this important article. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per not-yet-proven valuable notability (how old was Einstein in 1905, at what age died Galois, ...), keep for justice wrt the plethora of trivia, DYK, and the likes in Wikipedia. Just vindicating based on my poor common sense, and on me inherently abhorring speedies, because it's a voting. -Purgy (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be responding yet again, but for as long as the "delete trivia" comments continue, I feel the need to respond. Even if, to some or even a majority of readers, this case comes across as trivial, and even if Barnett will never pass WP:PROF, this very widely reported case illustrates what some of us see as a fascinating link between autism and prodigy, research into which could have profound consequences. If there comes a day on which we no longer find room for an article about it among our five million other articles, then that day will be a sad day. Viewfinder (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is research on the link between autism and prodigy, we should indeed cover that research. But mass media trivia provides a non-existent basis for this research. If there are peer-reviewed case studies of Barnett, then we can certainly cite those. But the current litany of sources does not contain reliable, peer-reviewed assessments either of Barnett's autism, nor of his prodigious ability. WP:BLPs require reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a professor of psychology who specializes in child prodigy is not a reliable enough academic source then no source about anything should be considered reliable.... Viewfinder (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A professor is not a reliable academic source in and of herself. A paper by the professor, reviewed by other researchers and thereafter published in an appropriate venue, is such a source. Not everything an academic writes is automatically a high-quality academic source meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP; the vetting process is the important part. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing a new scientific theory. We are talking about a person who, according to some, can be talked about by multiple leading publishers and still not be notable... Viewfinder (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that the subject is notable because he is (a) autistic and (b) a child prodigy. Peer-reviewed case studies have been published about individuals that are autistic, and those who have prodigious talents. An example is Daniel Tammet, who has been extensively studied in the academic literature as an autistic savant, with numerous peer-reviewed studies attesting both his autism and prodigious memory (e.g., Savant Memory in a Man with Colour Form-Number Synaesthesia and Asperger, : Baron-Cohen, Simon; Bor, D.; Billington, J.; Asher, J.; Wheelwright, S.; Ashwin, C.: Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 14, Numbers 9-10, 2007, pp. 237-251(15).) However, I am not aware of any peer-reviewed case studies that discuss either the subject's alleged "moderate to severe autism" (but, see his TED talk) nor his allegedly prodigious abilities (again, see the TED talk). Given the false claims that were made about the subject in the past, I do not think it is unreasonable, in light of the biographies of living persons policy to demand high quality sources for each of these features of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am I missing the material at WP:BLP that demands peer review? I thought that was for new scientific theory. Viewfinder (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Be very firm about using high quality sources." In this case, a high quality source would be a published, peer-reviewed case study with details about testing methodology. I don't see any evidence that a clinical practitioner has actually examined the subject, and determined that he suffers from any level of autism (let alone "moderate to severe autism" as claimed by multiple low quality sources). Indeed, autistic children are not generally known for their ability to charmingly relate to large groups of people (the aforementioned TED talk), and this would seem to preclude any reasonable diagnosis of autism. This is why we're form about sourcing. If a test were administered, and the methodologies were explicit, then we could say that the subject is a notable autistic. But there are no reliable, credible sources that make this assessment. We also don't know anything about his physics or mathematics abilities, other than the fact that he enrolled in a non-degree program in physics at an unusually young age. That brings us to an article whis notability is entirely predicated on the subject enrolling in a program at a young age. Although impressive, as I've said already, student accomplishments are not a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article under the relevant notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let us look at this issue the other way round. Can you identify a source that disputes the autism claim that Cunard's sources appear to universally agree upon? If not, then surely your challenge to the claim is your own original research and need not be the subject of any further discussion. Viewfinder (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we do WP:OR and write an article calling into question Barnett's autism and prodigy. But in light of the TED talk and the many false things that were hyped in the allegedly "reliable sources" Cunard came up with, these are WP:REDFLAG, and we need sources of the highest quality that leave no room for equivocation in the matter. That is, we need WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not tabloids. This is completely consistent with the WP:BLP policy, which demands high quality sources, not the barrel-scraping trawl of human interest garbage that you and Cunard are pushing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if there were any serious question abut his autism, it would have been asked and you would be able to come up with the relevant links. Incidentally I would be interested to debate this issue further with you, but I don't think the debate belongs here. Viewfinder (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. But reliable sources for the subject's autism are required under multiple content guidelines: WP:V, WP:BLP. This is especially true in light of the fact that the person in the TED Talk claiming to be Jacob Barnett does not seem to be autistic in the least, let alone "moderate to severl[y]" so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that Paul Wells and Joanne Ruthsatz would take kindly to accusations of "pushing human interest garbage". Viewfinder (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already demolished the claim that Ruthsatz's book is a scholarly work under the WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline. I'm not going to repeat that. If it were scholarly, we wouldn't be having this discussion: there would be actual peer-reviewed reliable sources that discuss tests that Barnett was subjected to confirming both autism and prodigious talent, including discussions of the particular testing methodology, who conducted the tests, etc. Ruthsatz fails to cite any such testing, by herself or any third party, and does not mention what methodology was used in the assessment. Instead, she merely repeats the same talking points (often with the same wording) that appear in Kristine Barnett's book and the yellow media sources that Cunard and you have been pushing. BLP and WP:V both require high quality, scholarly sources. That is particularly lacking in view of the falsehoods promulgated by the supposedly reliable sources Cunard listed above, as well as the rather glaringly obvious WP:REDFLAGs in this case. I realize you want to be a champion of autism, but there are plenty of articles about notable autistic savants that have been discussed in reliable medical sources. Why not focus your energies on them? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthsatz's book is surely the work of a scholar, and it is not clear to me that its publication by the lay press means that it necessarily fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Moreover, WP:BLP and WP:V make no direct reference to scholarship, and our article stands on its general rather than its academic notability. Therefore, even if they do fail the scholarship test, it would seem to me to be unduly harsh to demand that its autism and prodigy claims, which have been universally made in the mainstream press, and which only SB's personal POV appears to be challenging, should be disallowed. But that is not for me to decide. Viewfinder (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. My comment was: "I do not think it does meet scholarship. It cites no primary peer-reviewed case studies on Barnett. It is not published by an academic publishing house. It repeats WP:REDFLAG claims about synesthesia. It has no bibliography." I'm astonished that anyone could claim this is a scholarly book. 2. WP:V states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", WP:BLP demands that we must "be firm about using high quality sources". So far, no high quality sources have been provided for the exceptional claim that the subject has autism (see TED talk), nor has any exceptional abilities beyond those of an unusually bright teenager. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. It's not for us to decide. Viewfinder (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this elaborate discussion started under my -still strongly upheld- vote for Delete, I comment that I do not consider an individual as notable, and worth an article about his person in an encyclopedia, for just being the human object in -and be it- several notable scientific studies. I do appreciate research on various human deficienciesspecial needs (for PC) and resourcefulness, but do not hold the human objects of this research to be noteable, until these objects themselves create notability of their personal work (and be it looks). I do not count extensive public relations (TED!) as notable. Information about such persons are righteously called "trivialities", imho. -Purgy (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have had three long and heated debates: AfD2, the DRV which followed, and AfD3. We are still as far as ever from consensus on whether or not we should be covering this controversial subject. Is this situation, WP:Deletion_policy states that if in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it. Even two of its passionate opponents (DE and Agricola) concede that deletion is unlikely. Therefore, unless several of the article's proponents change their position, I am not going to spend more time arguing here. Viewfinder (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since my name was mentioned, I'll throw in a few more cents. I'm certainly not passionate about deleting this article. Rather, my views are disinterested and based only on policy. I said many times that the stub version would never be a long-term viable solution. I think it must either be deleted (which I advocate) or we must have a complete "warts and all" version. I suspect the latter option will prevail and you can check the version that SB linked to above to see what the article will look like after this discussion. Agricola44 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
No, that's still a whitewash. For example, we don't typically single-out average papers for discussion and it barely mentions the very items of notoriety and the their supporting sources (Einstein, Big Bang, etc, etc, etc) that would be the sole justification for keeping the article in the first place. If the article is kept, it's got to be complete. Agricola44 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It's not a whitewash. For anyone coming to us to check out the story they read about a kid disproving Einstein, it supplied a clear and cited answer. We do not need two long paragraphs. Viewfinder (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly would be UNDUE whitewash because almost all of the dozens of sources on him are of this ilk and, moreover, these articles and the mother's book have generated a secondary literature pointing out these inaccuracies. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The article as it is has been fairly stable since January 2015, when we reached an implicit consensus to accept it even though some of us would still have preferred to delete it. I would still prefer to restore a brief mention of the media controversy, with equal weight given to the skeptics, but I think that the full version gives the controversy undue weight. More about the subject's childhood progress would improve what is primarily a human interest biography. But we can continue to debate all this on the article's talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia WP:GNG notability has increased since the last AfD which closed as keep. WP:PROF does not override WP:GNG. The argument of WP:BLP1E has been refuted. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I contradict: The more time elapses without notable professional output, the less notable is the topic of this article. -Purgy (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The professional output is not the reason why we have an article. Viewfinder (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should one take from your words that -according to your view- there is no professional output from this person? -Purgy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only apologize for using terms in this discussion in an immanent meaning, which is not fully sanctioned by some bureaucratic, local "essay". However, I'm clueless how I should handle my personal dislike of this article being in Wikipedia, beyond not using it in argumentation. I do assume you and viewfinder liking this article. Is this allowed in a Deletion Dicussion? -Purgy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLP1E issue as refuted. It's exactly the kind of thing we would expect for a human interest piece given the 24 news cycle. The subject has news coverage as a child prodigy - but the article has no mention at all of anything he might have actually accomplished as a child prodigy. The sources all seem to just be a whirlwind of accidental publicity, not a reflection of any actual accomplishments. When we can write an article about his accomplishments, it will be time to have an article. Until then, I think a combination of BLP1E and NOTNEWS applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability as others have said. Is he a notable author of one or more books? Is he an educator? Has he started journals or computer software or any technology? What are his contributions to physics? Has he solved anything previously unsolved? Has he made any impact on society? Intelligence, prodigy, genius, hardworking, and so on do not imply notability. (Disclaimer: I have not extensively reasearched this person and have only scanned the discussion here). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) tweaked 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Has he made any impact on society?" As far as I can tell from what I have read, he is a huge inspiration for many people, who have autism themselves or who work with autism, so yes, some "impact" can be ascreibed to Jacob Barnett. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could be "a huge inspiration for many people", with or without autism. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not anyone "is" but in principle they could be. You said "some" impact can be ascribed to Jacob. So how many people has he influenced - 10s, 1000s, millions?
For a similar example Stephen Wolfram started as a physics prodigy and must have influenced many people (friends, family). That alone would be no reason to write an article about him. He has also given many talks which can be found on youtube. Again this is not notable alone. But he started writing papers papers around age 15, actually published in the literature, and worked upwards creating SMP and Mathematica, became a fellow of the AMS, and has become very well known (through a lot of self-promotion and arguably vanity). This accumulation makes him notable. See the difference?
I am not objecting to an article on Jacob when there is more to write about him and his contributions. For now it is too early. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia already has too few articles covering child prodegies as it is. Barnett is in my opnion among the more notable child prodigies out there and he has already made a notable amount of achievements as it is. All of this is substantiated if one digs a bit in the sources. I also found the arguments from Cunard and Wolfowitz compelling. 92.6.187.195 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what are your arguments for notability? He is another prodigy who entered higher education very early. There are loads out there. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I suspected, the debate is trending toward "keep" based on the "sources exist" argument. If that argument ultimately carries the day, then the only justifiable article will be a version that faithfully and completely represents all the information in these sources. That will bring us pretty quickly to this version (as noted above by SB), which contains most of the relevant info: prodigy and Ruthsatz text, his autism and his mother's book thereon, the media hype on his childhood "research" into theoretical physics, and the secondary literature surrounding the whole milieu. Agricola44 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm of the oppinnion, that the article from the begining should have focused much more on Barnett's autism (including his own views on this matter) and much less on the science discussions we have had over the years. There are also things like "public appearances" and "awards" that among other - in my oppinion - are missing in the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for putting in information supported by credible sources. Autism is a medical diagnosis, so the mother's book will be of limited use here, but maybe there are others, in which case, again, I'm all for it. I will remind you and Viewfinder, however, that the overwhelming majority of the sources are on the various claims regarding his childhood physics research and that fact will necessitate that most of the content will revolve around this aspect. I have a suspicion that there is still a vision of turning this into a thinly supported but heartwarming story of a boy overcoming autism, in the image of the mother's book. This will only be a sourced BLP, not a story. If the "sources" argument carries the day, we will follow our own rules and use those sources. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In January 2015 a senior editor came to the article and deleted all coverage of what he called "absurd claims". They have not been added back. Personally I would not have gone to that extreme. People are coming to us, wanting to check our take on these claims. We need the article to inform them. A sentence with links to Platt and Edwards should be enough to convince them that there have been gross exaggerations. I really do not think we need to return to the other extreme and reinstate a long and overweight list of the sources of these exaggerations. We seem to be in agreement that expansion of information about the subject's life would be OK. For this we have plenty of source material which has not been challenged. Viewfinder (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. There's no there there. Mackensen(talk) 01:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"there there": it sounds like you're consoling somebody, Mackensen. Is that a typo, or is there a WP:THERETHERE policy somewhere that I'm not aware of? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't know that one. Thanks for the clarification. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I enjoyed @User:Oculi's reason for keeping this article, but I believe Barnett has co-authored some research pages and he has been widely covered as a child prodigy by reliable sources. KingAntenor (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-charting album that almost completely fails GNG, except for one review by Allmusic. It would be best to delete and redirect since nothing can really be said about this album. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | DemocraticsTalk 07:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the slightly less abysmal E.Town Concrete article. The album isn't sufficiently notable, and articles with as little content beyond a tracklisting as this should never be kept. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
most of the gangs are not notable, and this is basically a recreation or small part of a couple of lists out there, no independent references showing notability for being on a list. WP is not a directory. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incorrect actually. The article was created because the peckerwood culture is extremely complex, so therefore this list could help explain the alliances of the different regions (which is hard to do with one infobox in the main article). I realized that while I was writing the main peckerwood article because there is sources for the content of this article. It's just incomplete and deserves an incomplete tag. [qub/x q;o++a]++ 20:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being incomplete is one thing. that does not justify deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. Merging properly sourced content to Peckerwood would be appropriate; a redirect would not. It is doubtful the individual entries in this list will ever be notable, and without that, a list isn't appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually very incorrect. The list's items are notable because they're under the wing of larger gangs such as the Nazi Low Riders, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, European Kindred, and many others. There is reliable sources to support that too. With the help of these sources, the article will show the diversity of different alliances in different regions. [qub/x q;o++a]++ 04:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | DemocraticsTalk 06:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been a criminal defense attorney for 24 years, and didn't know this was so widespread. Experts needed. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very widespread indeed. Mainly due to the culture of Aryan Brotherhood and Aryan Brothehood of Texas decentralizing from their original locations and throughout the prison system. This has become a nationwide prison and street gang subculture. [qub/x q;o++a]++ 07:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say in todays criminal underworld, it even outnumbers white power skinheads in many regions. The white power skinhead culture is becoming more and more obsolete due to the peckerwood culture's loosely defined racism and emphasis on prison politics becoming more standard. [qub/x q;o++a]++ 10:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - refs like [1] dont show notability, just existence. If there are enough NOTABLE gangs, keep the list. so far, i dont see evidence that the gangs are individually notable, and we are not a directory for gangs. many here dont have refs. I if the list of notable gangs remains below 10, which it seems it will, i recommend merging that content wtih the main article, though the main article itself should be renamed Peckerwood subculture.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be a huge list. It's very unfinished. You have police profiles from almost every single state that prove that the peckerwood culture and its regional scenes is a prominent part of prison and street culture. The article will include lots of police data, murders, gang profiles, prison profiles, alliances, and chapters of Aryan Brotherhood with its rivalries and alliances which differ in almost every region. I also agree that the main article should become Peckerwood subculture, because the word itself doesn't have enough content to go past being a stub and it might as well be a Wiktionary entry. [qub/x q;o++a]++ 00:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the main article become Peckerwood subculture as I don't see the point why non-notable gangs should be put even before the main article for their culture is still not created.(This comment looks like trash)Your welcome | DemocraticsTalk 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too close to indiscriminate information for my taste, we are not a directory of everything that exists - including criminal gangs. Sandstein 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PRODed by @Pichpich: with the PROD contested by the article creator. This is a non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG and appears to be a niche theory without substantial coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick search couldn't WP:verify any of this. Vague bio claims, creator has COI with one ref, so possibly WP:OR. Suggest moving to draft and provide inline citations. Widefox; talk 22:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The loose "involved in" claim is not well documented and not of the level to establish actual notability. This is an article claiming a grand role, but never asserting what it is, and built on extremely weak sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. And salt. For one year in case it becomes notable after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if this is consistently being recreated, maybe salt it, or do a redirect to... something ... to not leave the redlink as a temptation for round 4, 5, and 6. Montanabw(talk) 04:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Salt too. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The first link on this disambiguation page is blue, but the other three are red with no mention in another article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGeoffreyT2000, did you look for mentions in other article? The Scouting entry didn't have incoming links to its red links, but the other two did, meeting both MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. I also found another entry which meets both, so this has 4 valid entries. Quite rightly, Richard Frost, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is where people who type in 'Richard Frost' will be directed, but if they don't see who they are looking for, the hatnote can take them to the information WP has on others of this name. No benefit to readers to delete this, and meets relevant guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good dab page. — Gorthian (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: good dab page. PamD 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. obvious spam anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources about this company; all I've found are their own website (which doesn't establish notability, their social media accounts, forum posts, other sources that don't prove notability (including one that seems to be just a description of the job, which doesn't establish notability on its own), or sources unrelated to this company. JudgeRM(talk to me) 21:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article does not explain why it is important, and has only one citation that does not directly relate to the subject of the article. I have not found any independent resources that define the notability of this subject. There is presently no article of the school system this school would be located in to redirect or merge with. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 21:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince George County, Virginia#Education, sooner rather than later. The only reference is to a deadlink, but here's a bigger problem: the article appears to have been substantially lifted by an IP editor from the cited reference, available via Wayback Machine. Even though the original source is no longer on the JEJ Moore Middle School site, it's clearly a copyright vio, with wikilinks added and some additional text. The historical information on JEJ Moore could be summarized and salvaged for a proper biography of Moore, if he otherwise meets GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I know how this AFD debate will go, barring extraordinary events, but bringing it here to get a formal consensus to delete so next time it's recreated we can just delete-and-salt it under G4. Self-promotional vanity page for a youth activist, whose Wordpress blog invites his followers to use his Wikipedia page to contact him, so this gets repeatedly edited by an assortment of single purpose accounts. Needless to say, nothing remotely approaching a source to establish notability exists. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question. @Iridescent: I have now Confirmed the account that recreated this article. Therefore, the article can be deleted per G5, which I would typically do. However, I think you prefer the AfD route procedurally in which case I'll defer to your judgment. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the AFD route purely because it then provides a method for any re-recreations (under whatever name) to be speedily deleted without the usual suspects bleating about "admin abuse" because "it has a claim of significance". Per my initial comments, I have no doubt at all that this will be snow-closed as delete. ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Non-notable person - deleted article was being promoted/protected by Socks/Meats/friends, so needs salting. His "Official website" https://incpratikbavi.wordpress.com/about/[2] includes "Contact Pratik Bavi via. Wikipedia Pratik Bavi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratik_Bavi[3]" - Which I raised at the Help-desk before the article was deleted last time. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Unelected politician who lacks coverage in reliable sources. Also, please salt the title to save further community time. Anup[Talk] 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Salt:Vanity page and use of WIKIPEDIA as a tool to rev up popularity.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As documented and discussed here. Cited IGN source only mentions "Rockstar Japan" in a sentence that also includes false information, since Localization was always handled by Rockstar Lincoln since its renaming in 2002. All sources that were previously mentioned do not mention a "Rockstar Japan", not even the Japanese Rockstar Games website. The only two further sources that at least included the phrase "Rockstar Games", as detailed in the discussion, simply misinterpreted Rockstar's presence at the Tokyo Game Show, which was handeled by Capcom, as something that could be "Rockstar Japan". Conclusion: The company does not and did never exist, wherefore this page should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 20:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No Rockstar Japan seems to exist, so even a redirect would be misleading. We might already be dealing with minor WP:Citogenesis going on. ~Mable (chat) 21:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of proof they exist. Articles can and have been wrong and/or misleading and should always be fact checked by Wikipedia editors for this reason. ~ Dissident93(talk) 22:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of existence, there's no sources to prove it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73msg me 02:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's literally no significance aside from the fact it was simply involved with the company listed. SwisterTwistertalk 22:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted under the CSD disambig criteria. / Withdrawn - Well shit had no idea that that CSD even existed so thanks Rcsprinter123 for csding it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off this is a dab page so I apologize if this is in the wrong place, Both articles listed here have both been deleted and are extremely unlikely to ever be created, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion, so this discussion is no longer required. Rcsprinter123(interview) 23:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Only keep !vote is not addressing the deletion arguments about notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NPOV, removed ads and non encyclopedic parts IMHO now it's OK and should not be deleted. --Biskup2010 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:Corp; not notable, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertising and everything else here suggests it otherwise given the fact it's only ever existed for exactly this. SwisterTwistertalk 00:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. / Withdrawn - Sources have been provided which are excellent so withdrawing, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The station has significant representation in west central Scotland (and further afield) on air, online and at concerts and events - http://www.revival.fm/events/
I'm assuming you work for the station ?, Anyway none of those are reliable sources in any shape or form, The station can't have that much of a "significant representation in west central Scotland" as there's nothing to prove this, The station isn't notable pure and simple. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They may be reliable for some purposes, but a local newspaper from the town where the station is based isn't much of an indication of significance and the others appear to be directory entries or similar. Some coverage exists (The Scotsman, 29 April 2007 is all I could find specifically about Revival FM, Cross Rhythms, 15 May 2013 is about a festival co-ordinated by the station) but I'm not sure whether this is notable or not - it could be that one more source, that I haven't been able to find, is enough to meet the guidelines, or it could be that the coverage that exists isn't enough. Peter James (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peter James - Nope they're excellent thank you, Radio stations (community ones especially) don't tend to get much coverage however in this case they're excellent so thank you, I shall withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP article with no sources about an actor. Article has had continuous updates since 2010 when an BLP IMDb refimprove tag was attached, but no effort has been made to update it with additional sources. It is still unsourced and as such fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Scope creep (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Other criteria notwithstanding, if the subject is not written about, we have no reason to include. Those other criteria are simply shorthand for indicating under what conditions a subject may find general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Goroand (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like product/company spam. The most it has going for it are few mentions in passing, with the best being a paragraph and a half in Forbes. I don't think that's enough to be in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "startup spam" -- even with a section dedicated to "Fundraising History". No indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications of notability. -- HighKing++ 12:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence of actual impact, and the sources listed are mighty thin, to put it mildly. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the nomination, as it's exact with stating the concerns, everything here exists only for advertising and nothing else, regardless of any likely notability in which this is not. SwisterTwistertalk 04:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. / Withdrawn - Shit my apologies I had searched "Disney Channel (India)" which only brought up mentions however bizarrely "Disney Channel India" brings up substantial stuff, Broadcast is irrelevant but anywho withdrawing. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable TV channel, No evidence of notability, Could probably be merged or redirected to The Walt Disney Company (India) however I'll let the community decide, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National cable channels are presumed notable per WP:BROADCAST and it does not fail GNG. A click on the news link above reveals sufficient coverage, including but not limited to this Hollywood Reporter story from last year. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TV channels are treated like any other article which is if there's no evidence of notability then they either get redirected (which I have no issue with) or they're deleted, Unfortunately the article so far does fail GNG however if you can find substantial sources then I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"if you can find substantial sources?" Well, I just listed one. And you have looked at the other Gnews results by clicking on the "news" link above, right? And you have read WP:BROADCAST and its provisions for national cable networks? If you've done your BEFORE work, looked at the news coverage and read the policy and don't come to the same conclusion as me, fine. I'm not concerned about you withdrawing this. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, I don't see how the subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. I checked the article before major parts of it were blanked, and none of the independent sources given at that time covered Yasir in any detail. Since apparently the subject doesn't want the article, that too would weigh in favor of deletion for a low-profile subject. Huon (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's literally no actual claims of significance either, and the sources are all trivial and unconvincing including in the fact of they not conveying anything of actual substance. SwisterTwistertalk 07:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are news articles by Sameer Yasir, not about Sameer Yasir. He fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup[Talk] 21:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do you know the company wrote the page? When you say it is promotional and nothing else, that indicates that you feel every sentence is promotional which would lead to WP:G11. Can you tell me what about the first paragraph is promotional? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatantly and unbelievably moved from sandbox to mainspace by the user themselves, showing the sheer blatancy of PR advertising, and that's exactly what the information and sources both are, only advertising or (attempting to hide) what the company clearly wants to advertise about itself. That's not surprising considering the state of this company, which would noticeably need PR and that's exactly what its field comes with, therefore, none of this actually forms substance and there's nothing to suggest we should mistake otherwise. SwisterTwistertalk 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:AGF? I am not sure there is a guideline to delete an article for being moved from a sandbox. I have moved many articles from my userspace to the mainspace so I am not sure what would be "blatant" or "unbelievable" about it.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I saw one paragraph that I found promotional which I removed. Here are two about funding from Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)The Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch. They are not routine announcements of funding as both publications used the funding as a reason to write a more in-depth article describing the company and its services. There are way too many references available from BitCoin blogs which are not reliable, but here is one from the Ottawa Business Journal which is a feature on both the company and the founder. And another one from the same publication which is just as in-depth as the first. There are additional features in Forbes but those are contributor publications as well as a ton of brief mentions and quotes. The brief mentions do not amount to notability obviously, but they do show this is not a fly-by-night startup looking for press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, even the WallStreetJournal is filled with company-supplied information and quotes such as even specifying what dollar amounts it involved itself with, that alone starts to question everything because only the company would know that; also, as for the TechCrunch, there's been a considerable amount of Delete consensus here at AfD that TechCrunch is still such a questionable source because it will basically publish anything including when it's heavily influenced and supplied by the company itself, simply notice how the article itself either contains businesspeople or company quotes, specifics about its numbers and business plans-thoughts, none of that is independent and it's basically republished PR.
Also, another case is the Business Journals, they are a damningly notorious place for companies to advertise themselves and we have established that here at AfD numerous times, and it's also noticeable because that website itself also contains company and businesspeople quotes, specifics about its own plans and interests, none of that is actual journalism, if it simply came from the company's own mouth and hands. There are additional features in Forbes but those are contributor publications as well as a ton of brief mentions and quotes.
The brief mentions do not amount to notability obviously, but they do show this is not a fly-by-night startup looking for press coverage itself acknowledges the actual concerns here and how we have to examine and consider the articles carefully for such blatantly obvious PR such as "special contributor" when all it clearly means is that someone is replacing the journalist to speak about the company instead, which is why we have also started to consider Forbes unconvincing and unacceptable because of the obvious questionability of "news".
Also, take "used the funding as a reason to write a more in-depth article describing the company and its services" for example, this itself acknowledges the honest fact the articles initiated and were motivated by PR, therefore questioning the actual genuine "news". Therefore, since the nomination and overall concerns here are advertising, that is actually what it still boils to, and what the Keep comments and listed sources emphasize. SwisterTwistertalk 05:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More proof that you need to conduct WP:BEFORE. You are confusing Ottawa Business Journal with the American City Business Journals. As far as The Wall Street Journal is concerned, I don't care WHO SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION. What it comes down to is they have a fact checking system that qualifies them under Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source. As such, I would say they fact checked the information before printing. If you have an issue with their editorial process, you should take it up with them. Also, who do you think supplies the information for news stories? It's the company. How else would the WSJ find out the information? They are not breaking into businesses and going through its records and then reporting on them in the news. I think you are using any means necessary to support your Deltionist views which has also been recently discussed at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA; now as for the article, the Ottawa Business Journal is still only a local business journal willingly advertising its own local business and, as for deletions, I noticeably am willing to delete especially such blatant advertisements as these, because the history nearly always shows the obvious company employees involved, the advertising-focused information such as what it is, how it can be used, services, its finance numbers and other triviality. "I don't care who supplied information, it's still a source" is not considering the damages of not only advertising "news" but also churnalism, because it basically republishes company PR advertising. SwisterTwistertalk 19:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please take me to WP:ANI if you feel what I said was a WP:NPA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "republishes company PR" happens AFTER fact checking. All others is considered paid advertising. To understand WP:CHURN fully, you also need to know Native advertising. These publication are required by the FTC to disclose such paid advertising. If you look at "sponsored" articles in these publications - as I have stated to you in other AfD discussions - those are clearly marked as PR. This one isn't and therefore meets the definition of a WP:RS. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No one really cares. What encyclopedic notability it provides, it has few media sources, and debate is going on the media issue, where the debate is why this article should be even part of Encyclopedia at all. what value does it adds apart from being a company directory in Wikipedia. if the sources have covered them in news, let there be a news. What is the relevance of creating an encyclopedia material here? where it only is debating around media sources? can you provide substantial thoughts on why this is encyclopedia material? leave the media debate apart.. everyone knows how such media is covered. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. The company is not yet notable, while the page exists solely to promote the business. Even the claim of notability "the first company to use bitcoin's blockchain to enhance international transactions" is described as a claim by the company. Other content provides the back story on the company founders and the funding news, indicating that there's nothing else to write about. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable private tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by CNMall41 (talk·contribs) in The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, and Ottawa Business Journal provide significant coverage of the subject. The articles are all written by established journalists and published in sources with a history of fact-checking. That these sources consider the information they publish to be credible and worthy of covering means that the information passes Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or incubate Most of the sources in the article are from early 2015, but I found a recent article from the Phillipines on the first page of WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news, that says that they are now in 60 countries. I lean toward incubation for a year to wait for more WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but keep also makes sense. If there were any valid WP:PROMO arguments, the argument would cite text in the article that needed NPOV improvement, which would allow the problem to be removed, but the objections as stated don't seem to have a remedy or a policy basis. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - The article link above is literally republished company activities, plans and quotes, and the beginning and its sentence name states exactly that to emphasize how it was republished company information; next we have never alone keep articles by the fact it existed and worked in other countries, and nor would it ever happen, since it's not even significant, let alone convincing. The fact this is currently an advertisement and the history shows it, there's no sensible mindset to actually keep this, even with the advertising history which shows alone what this article signified and existed to show.
As it is, this alone, and what's been mentioned above the Delete comments are sufficient in stating the WP:SPAM and WP:NOT concerns, this as it is damns anything else such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, etc, because it's what Wikipedia uses to remove anything unsuitable (which this article is). When we start damningly saving such blatant advertisements is when we can no longer be taken seriously as a no-advertising website, because we would've finally become a company-advertising webhost.
Also, the fact the one source above is a new one, and there's nothing else beyond that, actually shows there's literally nothing significant about this company, and that it once again has to republish its own company plans and words to show some sort of "mirroring significance", hence advertising, regardless of publication or anything. I'll note the 2 Delete votes that exist here both cited WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, while the others not only cited WP:GNG, but then simply tossed some republished company PR, and calling it bare "news", without caring to look at the actual advertised quotes. SwisterTwistertalk 01:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD considers international attention, such as coverage in both the US and the Phillipines.
Your opinion that this is an advertisement doesn't seem to be supported by facts and evidence, see the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum.
I'd prefer that it be delayed in the incubator for a year, so perhaps that was missed.
The premise that we are not an advertising website is a misunderstanding to the extent that we provide useful information, and useful information is indeed useful. The alternative that you seem to suggest is that we can have articles on companies as long as the article is not useful? Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is far from clear that this is some sort of blatant PR piece. TechCrunch, Ottawa Business Journal, The Wall Street Journal, and the Manila Bulletin are all respected publications. The presumption that these sources are influenced by the company itself to publish desired information is somewhat baseless as you would have to put into question anything published by these sources (especially if the original source was a press release). But, again, as others have pointed out (per WP:CHURN), major publications often use press releases as sources. Doesn't mean that those publications are therefore unreliable. As it stands, the company has broad coverage in major publications in the United States, Canada, and the Philippines and is also published in a variety of industry publications. In my opinion, it definitely meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gargleafg (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The character lacks notability. He led a fringe political party that neither presented candidates for any office nor participated in public discourse during his tenure (to my knowledge); a research institute registered as a sole proprietorship (cf. https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=982770440) with a website that fails to load (cf. mises.no) and one that looks more akin to a sparsely used personal blog written in third person (http://www.farmann.no/). The only company listed in the article, Runbox, appears to be owned by Internet Upside AS (cf. domain records at https://www.norid.no/en/domenenavnbaser/whois/?query=runbox.no&sok=Search), which has had no income in the past three years (cf. http://www.proff.no/selskap/internet-upside-as/oslo/telekommunikasjon/IG75JFQ01PE/). To summarize, I see no evidence of the character's notability, aside from his ability to generate the odd newspaper article from press releases or contrarian positions (e.g. partaking in a panel boldly supporting Donald Trump for U.S. President, a fringe political position in Norway). The aforementioned articles are indeed possibly generated in large part by this very article as an indicator of his notability. Dysase (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the thorough nomination said it all. Not a political figure at all, correct assertions about Farmann. Geschichte (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising only barely hanging by shoehorned claims of other people and groups with whom he's worked, but none of it is actually significant. SwisterTwistertalk 05:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A recreation of an article recently deleted via PROD. Article recreated by Special:Contributions/DSKICPUNE (same editor as extensively having edited the prior version of the article).
Original Oct 2016 PROD: "An unremarkable for-profit educational institution; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Being extensively edited by Special:Contributions/DSKICPUNE which suggests a COI."
Suggest salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given the obvious blatancy of motivated advertising when this is explicitly deleted a week ago for both G11 and no signs of significance and there's literally nothing else better, I'll note that even the current article is G11 again. SwisterTwistertalk 22:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unsure about notability of topic; it may or may not meet the required standard (sources). For now it seems in favor of encyclopedia to get rid of this spam'y article. I can give it a second thought - if it is re-written by an unaffiliated person. I'm also not sure about salt'ing - it was previously speedy deleted (G11) on 6-Nov (I go by at least two G11 in a year). Anup[Talk] 14:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this statement, "You get a certificate from French government which is recognized by National Committee for Professional Certification, at the highest level granted by the French Ministry of Employment, grade level 7 in Europe. Once you graduate, you will be an International Masters degree holder." from http://dskic.in/faq/ I can't evaluate the assertion, but it seems like it might meet Wikipedia requirements, and the topics they are covering and the international aspect and it being in English seem worth a more thorough review than what we've seen so far. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- definitely needs salting as the editor in question (with quite obvious COI judging by the name) is back editing the article: diff. I believe it would be impossible to keep the article neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the logs and comparing with the nomination shows that you know information about the prod and the previous article that is not public. How is that? Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt fails WP:ORG. COI concerns as well. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP lacking in reliable independents sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources listed are iafd, promotional profile at Wicked Pictures, award materials, or interviews -- none are suitable for establishing notability. Awards listed are not significant and well known.
Dec 2015 AfD closed as no consensus. One year later, it's an appropriate time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack enough sources that discuss the subject in detail to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Sourcing is minimal at best and clearly nonindependent. The "Adam Film World Guide Award" fails the PORNBIO "well-known/significant" standard by a healthy (or should that be unhealthy) margin; it's a non-notable award given out by a non-notable spinoff of a garden-variety porn magazine. The argument that it is "one of the longest-running adult film industry award ceremonies" is nonsensical and should be given zero weight because there is no award ceremony; as the minimal coverage of this tinfoil honorific shows, the awards are announced by press release and a list is published in the magazine -- not exactly an indication of prominence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is my statement from eleven months ago. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This particular actor has appeared in over 100 films. I'm not thrilled by the article, but it satisfies our policies and guidelines. This topic passes WP:N, whose basic concept is that the topic attracts the attention of the world at large. Porn-actor nominations need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. WP:V has not been questioned. Relevant discussion for WP:NOT so far is that it reads like a press release, but it is not a press release; so while it is a point that needs some attention, is a point that can be handled with editing, and AfD is not cleanup. The 2007 bio at this webpage states that the topic has appeared, "on the cover of the June 2005 issue of AVN Magazine and the September 2005 issue of Adam Film World Guide. Keri has also been interviewed by...publications as Club Magazine and European based adult industry magazine Hot Video." Hot Video is reported to use "professional journalists previously committed to other news fields", so this source might be useful. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- at issues here is WP:WHYN; the subject lacks reliable & independent sources that would cover it directly and detail, to enable editors to build an NPOV biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware from previous discussions, WP:WHYN is not a part of the guideline proper, having been rejected over time as such. Another view is now the main consensus as stated at WP:N, that WP:N is not a content guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment on the prev AFD - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But does it fail WP:N? Do you agree that a topic with 100 film credits has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time? Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not; these films are routinely filmed in days (?) and then scenes are often repackaged into yet more films. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, 90% of her films aren't notable and she herself isn't notable. –Davey2010Talk 01:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the link, because it allows looking at the quality of the argument. "Number of films (e.g., 'any actor with X films is notable'). Pornographic films can be made in a few days, thus performers can appear in dozens of films per year." This is an argument based on production of films, rather than what Wikipedia cares about, which is attention given to the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:CREATIVE . sources don't look reliable and gnews yields little LibStar (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing here of actual substance, the information and sources themselves are simply trivial and unconvincing, there's no notability at all and there's honestly nothing else, thus delete. SwisterTwistertalk 01:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general the sources are either by Daniels, instead of being about her, or autobiographical, which is not what we need either, or essentially directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep It is true that the article is astoundingly overstuffed, overhyped and overlinked (I don't think I've ever seen a church article before in which the Reverend is bluelinked in the list of former pastors) That said, we are talking about a surviving mission Church in India, foundation laid 1853,building completed 1881. And beyond peacocking, hype and stuffing, there are good sources like "162-year-old church in Secunderabad restored,"[7] in The Hindu.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some very aggressive cleanup. Bradv 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might like to keep all church articles. The question is how notable this is. It perhaps originated as a church where the (British) officers of the garrison worshipped (hence garrison), perhaps with merger of a Methodist mission (hence Wesley). Certainly Purge of the excessive amount of background. After that I fear that we will not be left with much material except on its renovation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source # 4 from The Hans India has info on the church's origins - as a garrison church with an army chaplain as pastor - and current use by a local congregation, with a description of the turreted Gothic building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{ping|The Banner}, Did you consider working with article creator to help him understand how to delimit an article, and what material belongs on a page about a church, and when to link to other articles on broader topics?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I assume that somebody editing Wikipedia for the last 17 months knows the drills. The Bannertalk 01:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided establish notability. "Promo. non-neutral/peacock, multiple subjects in one article" are all issues that can be remedied quite readily and do not require the article to be deleted. An editor who has been here for eight years needs to gain some familiarity with WP:PRESERVE and WP:Deletion policy, which are both rather clear that efforts *MUST* be made to preserve encyclopedic content. No such effort was made here. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a start with improving the article. But I was removing so much irrelevant stuff, that I did shy away and did not save the removals. In fact, I was doing exactly as was suggested above: an "aggressive cleanup". The Bannertalk 16:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
::*Kudos for undertaking some of the heavy lifting needed to reduce this swollen mass to an article about a notable church. Paring down overstuffed articles takes real work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for what? The Banner claims I did make a start with improving the article. But I was removing so much irrelevant stuff, that I did shy away and did not save the removals. In fact, I was doing exactly as was suggested above: an "aggressive cleanup". The problem is that the only edit this editor has made to the article is to nominate it for deletion. The failure to understand, let alone observe, the policy obligations dictated by WP:PRESERVE and WP:Deletion policy raise significant issues about an editor who's been at this for more than eight years and 60,000 edits. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. WP:TROUT to Nom, whose word I took. I was WP:AGF. Look, this is just a church, notable for its location, history and building. Why would an editor lie about revising an undoubtedly overstuffed PROMO, but otherwise innocuous article on an old church in India?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Meher Mansion: Dear Meher Mansion, I hope that you will consider editing the text (perhaps adding some of what you wrote to other articles that can be linked here,) This will make a better article. It will also enable fellow editors considering deletion to more easily perceive the notability of this building and congregation, if the most of the material on Christianity in India is removed. It is usual on Wikipedia to confine pages about individual churches to material directly related to the specific church under discussion. Discussion of broader topics belongs in wide-focus articles such as Christianity in India, Anglican Church of India and so forth. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (from 5 years ago – sorry I missed it!). The inclusion criteria for this list are ridiculously arbitrary (no stands connected to other stands? That rules out most of the stadium stands around the world, then!), and furthermore I have never seen any similar list compiled by any reliable source. This list has been cobbled together from three sources (which only cover the first three entries), leaving a further 40-odd entries unaccounted for. This list feels like one user's vanity project and as such has never been fully completed. I very much doubt that there are any Formula 1 Grand Prix stands that would be out of place on this list, and yet they are conspicuously absent. Of course, missing entries can be added, but even if we added entries one at a time, there would be no evidence that the list was ever complete. Without a definitive source to provide the overall basis for it, this list is very much a non-starter. – PeeJay 15:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with the nomination and was going to AfD it myself had I not seen PeeJay had PRODded it a while back. Spiderone 16:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now this is a blast from the past, something I started in my early years of Wikipedia. As for it's inclusion, it was intended primarily as a navigational list with it being a decorated WP:List of lists. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: But how is it notable enough for a stand-alone article? I also don't understand how it can be navigational since most of the stands mentioned in the article don't have independent notability and hence don't have articles. Spiderone 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria are arbitrary at best, and there is no context apart from "this is a list of ..."; there is nothing about this list to make it encyclopedic, so it fails WP:LISTN. Add to that the fact that it is largely unsourced, and it also fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC); edited 12:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear inclusion criteria. Many North American stadiums (football or baseball) would have a larger single structure than most of the stands listed here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:LISTN; no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The fact that none of these stands has a dedicated article suggests none have received sufficient individual coverage to satisfy WP:GEOFEAT and thus that the overall subject is not that notable. I'm also not sure how encyclopedic inclusion criteria could be applied to this listing either, i.e. how small does an area have to be before it is no longer a stand? Does it have to have a dedicated name?Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITt does say that it has to be a standalone unconnected stand and there is a size limit on inclusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have struck that bit. I still think the inclusion criteria are essentially arbitrary. I'm not sure where you would go to find general coverage for stands >7000 to satisfy LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:CORP and the GNG. No independent reliable sourcing. Since the claimed awards aren't sufficient to make the film involved notable, they certainly don't suffice to make the studio that released it notable. Nor does swiping the name of a long defunct, but one major, film studio confer notability. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by article creator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP & sources are not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent reliable source coverage required by WP:CORP. Porn trade coverage consists of republished press releases and an obituary for one of the company's founders. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete is not a highly impactful psychologist at the level that would be needed to pass our notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not fit any of the PROF or other relevant criteria. Media mentions are passing quotes, not coverage of her herself as the topic. — James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
How notable is this person? Not so much Pyrusca (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick look at the results of the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above shows that the answer to the question posed by the nominator is "pretty damn notable". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that a 13th-century poet is still being discussed in 21st-century reliable sources not an indication of notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant Syriac liturgical poet of the 13 century per sources at article, some of which were added after this was originally nominated. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep sources suffice to establish that this was a notable medieval poet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
*Delete per nom. WP:NOTSTATS yet again. Anyone can find this data in CricketArchive or ESPNcricinfo. If the list is to be kept, there needs to be a descriptive narrative intro and, if I were creating the list, a "notes" cell attached to each row (preferably a wide one immediately below) to make some useful comment about each century or at least each player. The intro should include some guidance for non-cricket readers too. A table of bare stats with a one-liner at the top is no good at all. Jack | talk page 15:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The arguments cited by the users above are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it. While I recognise that the list could become unwieldy someday, assuming cricket continues to be played for the next 200 years, the possibility that this list could go on forever is the only reason I can see for deleting it. A century is a great achievement for a batsman, and I would hope that lists like this exist for all Test, ODI and T20I nations. – PeeJay 15:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a little extra text at the top of the article. Hopefully that should stave off deletion indefinitely. – PeeJay 15:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: Do you think you could do so for all the other articles in the infobox at the bottom of the page as well please? I was going to suggest that they were bundled with this AfD to make life simpler. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a complex one given the comments above. As PeeKay2K3 suggests above, making a century for your national team is a notable feat. It's a feat that is worth noting on the individual's article page certainly. It would also be worth a section summarising this sort of content on the page of the national team (e.g. in this case, Hutton, Hammond, Cook, Peterson (perhaps) and Grace certainly) and/or the page that deals with records for that national team. My problem is whether or not it is appropriate to have a list of all those who have made one century. Is that, in itself, worth a list - afterall, the information is going to be on the individual player's page and there should be some kind of summary associated with the team as well. I'm honestly not sure whether this list, in itself, is notable and should be kept. I lean towards weak delete as I'm not convinced, yet, that a list of those who have made a century should be dealt with as a separate list. I am keen to listen to counter arguments as well though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote (see above where entry struck out). For some reason, I got into my head (D'oh!) that it is a list of centuries, not centurions. It would still have needed a decent lead, of course, and PeeJay has provided that so I now think we should retain it. Apologies to RG for my silly mistake. Jack | talk page 16:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are a perfectly valid way of presenting information in an encyclopedia, and I don't see why this, and many of the other lists that have recently been up for deletion, can't be scrubbed up for current standards. WP is indeed NOTSTATS, but many stats are useful bits of information and a list is often a logical way of presenting them. I don't buy the argument that other sites are available: surely the aim of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic, ie all-inclusive. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, it a list of centurions not the centuries. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of notable players making a notable achievement, also the article has been improved Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable achievement. However I suggest article needs to be condensed slightly, we don't need a record of number of 100s, 200s, etc (as this violates WP:NOTSTATS). Just the first achievement for each batsman. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
~
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 12:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. WP:NACTOR is marginal with one significant role in a film with no article and a significant role upcoming. Others are minor roles. Only passing mention in sources so WP:BASIC not met. One award and one nomination for an award. No Wikipedia article for the award itself and I am uncertain whether or not the award itself is notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Geraldo Perez, except that subject is a full WP:NACTOR fail (not marginal), and is an almost certain WP:GNG fail (e.g. no mentions in Variety or The Hollywood Report) as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place where every working actor is automatically entitled to an article just because they exist — the article must be supported by reliable sources which verify something that constitutes an WP:NACTOR pass. But apart from one-off guest roles in TV, all she has is one significant role in a direct-to-DVD film, which is not enough. And neither are the Joey Awards a major film or television award for which a win or a nomination counts toward NACTOR — they're a PR event staged by a promotional organization for young actors, not a real industry award remotely equivalent to the Oscars or the Emmys or the Canadian Screen Awards. And for sourcing, what we have here is a press release and the PR award's own website about itself, which is not reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future when there's more substance and better sourcing available, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about people who have already attained notability, not a free PR platform for publicizing aspiring future notables. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game engine with only primary sources. The article was previously deleted via WP:PROD and then restored as a contested prod. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not have nearly enough coverage in independent reliable sources to keep. Meatsgains (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources all go back to itself and that is not good for all roads to lead to the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidelines, as tagged since July 2008. The sources in the first AfD do not adequately establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unsourced tribute / vanity page on an unremarkable band. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only for promotions. no encyclopedia notability is here. References are highly questionable. Enterpreneur, Mashable, Tech crunch can write about a startup who is no where notable or even you can become contributor to write about yourself. Light2021 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although this may not be damningly explosively and continuously blatant as others, the content and sources themselves explain it alone and show it's simply advertising, complete with the sheer specifics about it, so although this is a different case than others, it still boils to something unsubstantial and unconvincing. SwisterTwistertalk 06:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's nothing special, but there are reliable sources establishing some level of notability. Claims of unreliable sources are overblown. tedder (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Light2021:, I believe if you took the time to look, @Tedder: is an experienced administrator who would already bee aware of the "essays" you pointed out. Also, I am not sure if someone already has been essays have little weight over policies and guidelines. This bull in a china shop conduct with your AfD nominations and comments is starting to border on WP:DISRUPTPOINT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no question on the contributors. But seems like you are coming up with arguments not on topic but on my personal AfD. As you did on my Talk page or probably going on every discussions. sometimes we need to read something, I am not doubting, whether the senior editor has knowledge or not, in same case as you cite policies or guidelines, it does not mean no one read them. You are just trying to make a point as per wikipedia guidelines or putting the perspective. I did not understand the need for your comment there. as if you never cite GNC or other policies on every discussions. Light2021 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220732, this magazine is no different than recently deleted The Next Web, Yourstory and blocked Red Herring Awards. This magazine has no credible Journalistic approach. and article can be written by any kind of writer from PR agents to company officials themselves. Highly Questionable reference on notability. On the second though what we get " A Profile" written on Wikipedia". What are we making for such companies. A Directory? Doubtful anyone knows beyond a particular geography oe even their own industry. Non-notable and not adds any value to Encyclopedia material. Need to do assessment on Wikipedia Notability impact! And if we consider that article by any reason, it is already there. Why you need to make Wikipedia article based on interview conducted by magazine? We need substantial coverage and depth. It is missing here. This is not a News Distribution Channel. Light2021 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Examining those articles still only finds what the company has either published, republished or influenced for their own advertising and advertising materials, especially TechCrunch which has noticeably not been taken seriously here at AfD because of the sheer willingness of republishing a company's own advertising. Because there's advertising concerns, that's not something we compromise with nor should we consider. SwisterTwistertalk 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Why relist this when it's had more than sufficient participation to close?—S MarshallT/C 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP Lack of in-depth independent coverage in RS. Refs listed are typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases. They are all from 2013 and I find nothing newer. MB 15:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refs listed are typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases. – I don't consider the articles from ABC, La Tercera, and El Confidencial to be "typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases". Would you clarify why you believe this? I believe the articles meet WP:CORPDEPTH for discussing Kuapay's history and products in detail.
They are all from 2013 and I find nothing newer. – Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary and Kuapay has received sustained significant coverage in reliable sources from 2011–2014 based on the sources I posted above. The es:Diario Financiero article I posted was published in 2014.
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON, as a page an unremarkable business with no indications of notability or significance just yet. Sources are weak and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as they mostly relate to launch publicity, as in "Mobile Payments Startup Kuapay Grabs $4 Million Investment, Readies Global Expansion". This is a typical startup blurb focused on company aspirations and self-promotion. Let's wait until it achieves its planned global expansion and then create an encyclopedia article. Otherwise, this is a WP:NOTNEWS situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- WP:TOOSOON applies here; at present, allowing this page to exist would amount to nothing more than WP serving as Kuapay's PR rep. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are page after page of articles in Google and Google news, many of them in foreign languages. Yes, there is an unexplained reduction of coverage in recent years, but not enough to be a clear issue. Kuapay is starting to appear in Google books. Wikipedia notability is thus established. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 4:3 of votes here for Delete, but I'll comment to simply state "pages and pages of articles" for sources is not convincing, since the analysis above, as it is has shown all available links to be advertising, including either paid or self-republished by the company itself, therefore we cannot automatically confide in sources without actually analyzing them as I have myself above. Therefore, the Keep votes have then not substantiated themselves after said analysis or to at least acknowledge the concerns.
Also "unexplained less coverage in years, but not enough to be an issue" is itself showing how the company itself is not even significant, therefore it explains the fact they simply paid and republished for news attention themselves, hence not independent or convincing. We should not compromise with advertisements simply because another publication offered to publish their own advertising, because it would damn us from being better and different from advertising-hosting websites. To summarize, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply here, so any triviality such as WP:GNG be damned, since it means nothing against advertising. SwisterTwistertalk 02:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
International Year of Volunteers Plus 10 was a followup campaign to the International Year of Volunteers 2001 campaign. IYV 2001 was a world wide campaign, with events, publications and other activities by a variety of organizations globally, and this is documented on the Wikipedia page for such. IYV Plus 10 was a much smaller endeavor, and was undertaken only because of IYV 2001. The IYV Plus 10 page, as it is currently, seems to be made up of text cut and pasted from press releases and planning documents, cites few sources, and doesn't really show why the event merits its own page. The page talks about upcoming events and things that "will be" done, but as it's 2016, this information is now woefully outdated. IYV+ 10 has a section within the main IYV Wikipedia entry. If more substantial information about activities associated with IYV+10 are found & contributed, they can be put into the sub section on the main IYV page. -User:Jcravens42 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I have no opinion of the nomination itself at this time. @Jcravens42: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngalltalk 13:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan90 above. North America1000 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The subject is already covered in Wikipedia. The redirect will aid in people finding it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Almost certainly created by someone with a conflict of interest, the article is so biased and terribly formatted that it suffers from lack of WP:TNT. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I might have been tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion as unambiguously promotional, even. And when you sift through the advertising hype, it becomes evident that this is a business person who has started a couple of companies - but there is no real claim to notability, nor any sources to show that notability exists. --bonadeacontributionstalk 11:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one section that was entirely promotional and almost entirely a copyright violation, and some advertising for companies run by family members. What remains needs editing if the article should stay but at least it is slightly less egregiously promotional. --bonadeacontributionstalk 11:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the only verified claim is opening a beauty lounge. Seriously LibStar (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. Coverage is mostly trivial mentions of a local business, and one interview which is hardly independent. Notability not established. MB 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DePRODed. Concern was: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are either unreliable, social media, interviews, or music download sites. No Ghits that add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A large number of social media accounts to be found but zero coverage, outside of possibly the UUMA one I couldn't find anything about. Searching about such awards, I found UMA, UUA and other similarly titled awards more popular than UUMA. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. per CSD tag Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about speedying this, but bought it here. Clearly non-notable, junk "references", one of the zillions of self-written would-be msuican articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography with unreliable references and no substantial claim of notability, whether by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Added: I am also seeing no reason why the article creator's removal of the CSD should prolong this, so have replaced the CSD. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreated after speedy deletion; retagged and speedy re-removed and a claim of significance subsequently provided. I've not been able to find sources to qualify the subject on GNG/SNG... I propose a deletion. What do other editors think? Thanks Lourdes 07:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not able to find any sources. Even the one cited in the article doesn't mention subject. As of now, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Anup[Talk] 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards claim is provably false - here is a source for the winners of the Indian Television awards 2014, and she is not on it. Even if any of the other claims should be correct, she still does not meet any of the applicable notability criteria. --bonadeacontributionstalk 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several other claims were also easy to prove wrong. I'm very certain that the whole article is a hoax. --bonadeacontributionstalk 07:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as seems a hoax, could be speedied Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for the closing admin I would suggest not just deletion and salting this particular title, but including "Anjali Yadav" and combinations thereof in the title blacklist for at least a couple of months. Lourdes 01:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt-A hoax at all probable extents.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This article needs lots of cleaning up and other improvements but after looking at the references available on the Persian version of this article I guess it is a notable film in Iran and Persian title of the movie is دم سرد which in Latin alphabets reads something like Dum Sard. Since, I am not an expert on Persian language or alphabets, I am unable to analyze the reliability of those sources therefore I am not !voting keep. However, bearing WP:WORLDVIEW in my mind, I am inclined towards keep. Hitro talk 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 02:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source listed on this article to prove notability. This hereby fails WP:GNGMusic Boy50 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant media coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above link is literally trivial and is not what establishes notability and substance for an acceptable article, therefore with literally nothing else, there's no notability, regardless of whether it was merely mentioned. SwisterTwistertalk 07:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article cited to no reliable source. Same creator of the article Street Jams. This hereby fails WP:GNGMusic Boy50 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant media coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Street Jams. I think that a single article about the four related Rhino albums is the best outcome. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep unless the female equivalent is deleted too. 95.148.92.183 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable event. The above "keep" comment is along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF and is from an account with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There has clearly been a concerted attempt to remove all the copypaste and promotional text from the article over several years. But what is left is not about Mardis Gras World as a whole. I can't see anything other than listings pages and travel reviews online. perhaps it is time for the article to go, or be redirected to Kern Studios. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable New Orleans landmark and tourist attraction, and as Cullen328 notes, book coverage exists as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The notability of Mardi Gras World has been as a public museum, and party venue, as well as store house for NOLA parades. Plus, recent news continues (see: Google news links), even 5 years after article was created in October 2011. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, on the basis of the couple of lengthy news articles [8][9] that can be dug out of the Google search above. And I agree the fact sociologists in Finland use it as an example suggests it is known beyond the USA too. Thanks for the input. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable civil servant. He is not event the state's Chief Secretary. Not much sources as well. Fails WP:ANYBIO and also WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 05:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Is that an article or a purple-ink biography?Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator is a vandal that I had reported to AIV, but there has been no vandalism from them since the final warning. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person in the pharmacy industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Insignificant individual and does not meet notability requirement. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be hard to come by sources for players who played way back when, but there seems to be quite a few on this guy. It looks like he played a notable role in the early years of the Harvard–Yale football rivalry. Lizard (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No, Lizard, you're inferring he played a notable role. Unfortunately, we can't infer someone might meet the GNG, there has to be positive proof he does, and the answer to "It can be hard to come by sources for players who played way back when" is "Then an article cannot be sustained on those players if those sources don't materialize." Passing mentions can't be used to support notability, and quotes from subjects can't be used to support the notability of the subjects. He obviously fails the pertinent NSPORTS criteria, and the sources listed only are passing mentions that don't satisfy the requirements of the GNG. Ravenswing 13:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on the development of college football in the 1870s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't the Harvard-Yale rivalry article be a more apt redirect target? Ravenswing 11:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ravenswing argumentation here is spot on. If there are not sources from someone in at the time or in the historical process, then they are not notable per WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as revised. While not sufficiently notable as a football player, the subject has been established in the revised version of the article as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, given that he was a cabinet official and supreme court justice of a country. (Also, I think that an uninvolved editor should now feel free to close this AfD as withdrawn, since nobody is calling for deletion any more.) --Metropolitan90(talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - KAVEBEAR I was just going to ping you when I pulled up Whiting's page. Please withdraw this. Whiting is actually William Austin Whiting, who was Attorney General of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I'm adding to the article right now. You actually linked his obit with his image on Commons. It says in there he was a 6th generation Harvard graduate. But there's no doubt this is the same person. We just need to develop the article more. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same person?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure. He's the same age, the same name, went to Harvard during the same years and studied law there. We could resolve this whole thing by moving the article to William Austin Whiting, since the football is negligible anyway. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the source "Wm. Austin Whiting Passes to the Beyond". The Hawaiian Gazette. January 21, 1908. Retrieved November 16, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Given the new information above. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded fivefold and nominated it as a DYK. I originally thought it was just an obscure football player and my purpose was to delete it and reused the link for the Hawaii attorney general, but ironically they turns out to be the same person. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, providing that this is actually the same person who was the Hawaii attorney general. @Cbl62:@Jweiss11: anyone else have any more info on this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There appears to be no coverage of this subject by the media, only by research entities interested in it. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources are already provided. There is no requirement in the GNG for media coverage of academic research topics; if multiple researchers have published in an area, the area is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a mess, but I searched for coverage and found no less than 504 scholarly papers to mention the term, and from as early as 2003. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and from an online search, the subject does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. –Matthew - (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This episode has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, mainly as it references an episode from Regular Show, a notable Cartoon Network program that has all of its episodes listed and referenced in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this could be deemed not notable if it's referenced by not only IMDB and TV.com, but also the List of Regular Show episodes and has been seen over 2 millions times? The nomination for deletion seems bizarre. ScooterbeeZy (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, according to WP:N, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Aside from the page on TV.com, there doesn't seem to be much significant coverage online of this episode in particular to warrant its own article. –Matthew - (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Both references are episode databases that include a similar entry for every episode in the series. There is no reason that this episode is any more significant that the others. There is no in-depth coverage and no notability. MB 05:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most Regular Show episodes don't have articles. Nothing here suggests this one episode warrants an article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability of this episode separate from the show has not been demonstrated to the point where it should be included in Wikipedia. No substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, criterion G7, because the only editor deleted the page. It would have been eligible for speedy under A10 otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly is an essay, and written in a completely unencyclopaedic tone. The 'historical perspective' put forth my this article is completely unsourced and has probably been copied from somewhere (probably a school essay). InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on the grounds that he has played a cup match for Perth Glory. However, since the match was against club that does not play in a fully pro league, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the explanation of the nominator, they fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 08:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the article will show, there's literally nothing here that isn't published, motivated and influenced by the company itself, since (1) the sources literally consist of either blatant company webpages or published-republished PR, but the others are simply trivial and unconvincing, also being PR-coated, therefore there's nothing to suggest actual substance for an article here. It gets worse when my own searches have only found trivial and unconvincing news stories from casino and gambling websites; also, seeing the history here will show the sheer fact of, not only advertising-only accounts (literally since the article started 2 years ago), but there was literally copypaste violations from the company's own published webpages itself, hence there's nothing genuinely convincing to keep. SwisterTwistertalk 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability. Could be a candidate for CSD A7 -- HighKing++ 12:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a vanity page with no value to the project. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to serve as a platform for materials that belong on company web sites. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP about a writer and consultant, whose claim of notability is skewed in a decidedly advertorial rather than encyclopedic direction. About half of the referencing here is to primary sources (e.g. his own "our CEO" profile on the website of his own company, content where he's the author and not the subject, etc.) that cannot carry notability at all, while the other half is to purely local media coverage in the immediate area where he lives and works with no evidence of wider coverage. There's also a likelyWP:COI here, as the creator's username Googles to the owner of a "full-service communications agency" in the same local area as the subject (i.e. this was most likely a paid editing job.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which everybody who exists is entitled to have an article for publicity purposes -- certain specific standards of notability and sourceability have to be met for an article to become appropriate, but nothing here passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Creator confirmed on his own talk page that the article subject is "his client". Accordingly I've struck out the portions of my earlier comment which suggested that COI paid editing was merely possible, as it's now confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are Google news hits that quote him -- exclusively in the St. Catherines/Niagara Falls regions, in relation to " Pathstone, Niagara's key children's mental health organization." There's no national or provincial notability here -- certainly not as an author. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as particularly not notable as an author, and there's no library collections for that matter, there's then honestly no other claims of significance and notability in the other occupations. SwisterTwistertalk 02:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:PROMO, in fact has links to his LinkedIn page. I find a lot of these self-inserted "Entrepreneurs" often are. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Confirmed the account that recreated this article. Therefore, the article can be deleted per G5, which I would typically do. However, I think you prefer the AfD route procedurally in which case I'll defer to your judgment. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
mail) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
mail) 09:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)