Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 October	5 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Slaad#Slaad Lords. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ssendam[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Slaad. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Slaad#Slaad Lords. I'll go along with a merge, though there isn't a whole lot here. There are a few hits on Google Books, but they're just novels and game manuals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 9 October 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. As several editors point out, the article has zero reliable sources at the moment and thus fails WP:GNG, which supercedes the precendent of school outcomes cited by the editors arguing to keep. Even if that weren't the case, the school is not currently a secondary school and it's crystal balling to assume it will be based on primary sources. No prejudice against recreation if better sources can be found. A Train^talk 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krabi International School[edit]

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

A recently (last year) opened school which hasn't been covered in the press at all. Does not appear to meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minimal article and cites needed but degree issuing schools are usually kept as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that something is usually kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES pretty much amounts to other stuff exists. The GNG is an official guideline, while SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the school ~~has only begun operating at the primary~~ is not yet fully operating at the secondary level, so it actually fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. See [1]. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if it is relevant, but a bit of background is here and here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, in this case in fact OTHER STUFF DOES EXIST, about ten thousand high school articles kept evidencing the precedent as documented by SCHOOLOUTCOMES. All our guidelines are flexible and this is one of the most common and widely accepted exceptions to them. See intro box at WP:N. (Oh, and what an amazing coincidence, I just few back to Udon from Krabi 2 days ago). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the above. The school has not fully opened as a secondary school. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012: The school is a high school catering for pupils up to age 18. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at least until next year, that is, according to their website.[2] --Paul_012 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant, since it clearly will. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it very clearly doesn't satisfy WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.

It clearly has only primary school students and no secondary school students as of now. Saying that one day it will become a secondary school is WP:CRYSTALBALL.
I am unable to find any resource to verify that the school is accredited. Note that the school website doesn't count for verifiability purposes. I wasn't able to access the website of the Thailand MOE. I found this International Schools Association of Thailand website (not sure how reliable) but the school is not listed here either.

I might be willing to change my !vote if more information comes to light which satisfies SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear to be recruiting secondary pupils.[3] The Cambridge International Examinations website does list it if you search on Thailand and Krabi.[4] I really don't think WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't satisfy WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as noted, in its current state and is not a stub which conveys any detail of notability; further it has no WP:RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no verification in the article that this is an accredited school. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cambridge International Examinations website does list it if you search on Thailand and Krabi.[5] It is indeed accredited by them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 12 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Govindrao Pawar[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the sole basia of the trivial award, and there has in fact been consensus here at AfD that one award is not a convincing claim for an article here, and quite contrary, articles have been deleted even if listed, and the article itself sinlly says "fourth highest civilian award". My PROD concerns still apply. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Padma Shri has been awarded to fewer than 3000 people in over 60 years in a country with a current population of over a billion. The fact that there are three even more exclusive awards doesn't subtract from the fact that it is a highly significant honour giving a pass of WP:ANYBIO. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:ANYBIO (Padma Shri and Punyabhushan are notable awards). Anup [Talk] 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'm going with Anup on this; these achievements appear to be notable, including Padma Shri. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 11 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for American Homeless Veterans[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the sole basis of the IP apparently misunderstanding it, yet the added links now are simply trivial.and unconvincing, certainly not amounting to actual substance and there's nothing else suggesting otherwise better. ~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search in Google News produces exactly one story in which this organisation is referred to, and it appears to essentially be a press release reproduced in a small-town newspaper's website. A more general search produces a small number of extra sources which claim that this is a poor performing (at best) charity. Eg: [6]. As such, WP:ORG isn't met, and this article may have been created to advertise this group. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "org spam"; reads like a promotional brochure / donor prospectus. Off with it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits from RS in GNews/Books. The only RS is the Tamba Bay Times piece, which reveals how this charity is highly inefficient at actually helping those they claim to help. Given that finding by a RS, the current article is definitely just promotional whitewashing, and saving it is impossible given the lack of other RS. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources I'm finding are about how the organization is terrible at its finances. Not enough coverage to build an article on. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 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) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connectria Hosting[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the sole basis of actually adding other sources but yet they are not only boldly tossed, no actual inline citations, but they are still trivial and unconvincing PR, since they speak of nothing else but what they would say themselves, including specific company activities and plans. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate spam". Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'm actually surprised not to find coverage of them not inspired by a PR outreach, but there you go - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links are typical press coverage for company. Nothing significant to read about or analyse. Light2021 (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, here are the current references in the article, filtered to remove the primary sources I could identify by looking at the URL:

"Company Overview of Connectria Corporation". investing.businessweek.com. 12 March 2014.

Amir Kurtovic (25 Nov 2011). "Connectria's new service targets Amazon clients". www.bizjournals.com/.

Rich Miller (8 May 2012). "Connectria to Expand With CyrusOne in Dallas". datacenterknowledge.com/.

"Cloud Storage Providers". Twinstrata. Twinstrata. Retrieved 19 December 2012.

"The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Top Workplaces 2012 Connectria". STLToday.com. 2012.

"Connectria". www.inc.com/. 12 March 2014.

"TOP WORKPLACES 2012". STLToday.com. 2012.

Brian Proffitt (1 May 2012). "Who Are The Top Cloud Providers For 2012?". readwrite.com/.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When investing.businessweek.com covers a topic, that is a big clue that the topic is Wikipedia notable. The article has done a reasonable job by including 16 inline citations for a 3-paragraph article. No editor has identified any problems with writing that fails WP:PROMO, which means writing that fails WP:NPOV. I'm not seeing any such problems either. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I couldn't possibly care less. Unpaid Wikipedia Troll (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- the supposed Business Week coverage is actually a directory listing from S&P Global Market Intelligence, hosted on bloomberg.com: directory listing. These are not independently checked with material often provided by the companies themselves. This is not a suitable source for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this how? And you have used what definition of "directory"? And you are an impartial source? Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's these relevant discussions: Deletion of Semil Shah (where I commented) & Reaching the decision at the Semil Shah AfD. Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to my first question is that you've quoted yourself? And the answer to the second question is that you don't have a response? And the answer to the third question is, well, "no", you are not an impartial source? Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- another poorly disguised advertising brochure bombarded with the usual advertorials and promotional churn. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your COI. Unscintillating (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation with Connectria, and I'm not associated with any of the publishers cited in the article. Reyk _YO! 06:26, 12 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UnboundID[edit]

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

My extensive PROD was removed with the sole basis of the IP misunderstanding what "PR environment" means therefore this PROD still applies and there's nothing suggesting any actual notability for this company since, like my PROD stated, all of this is simply trivial and unconvincing PR, no actual substance, and it's clear the company had activities with this advertisement article itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no RSes providing WP:CORPDEPTH - RS coverage appears to be funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a company that was unremarkable either before or since its acquisition. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:19, 9 October 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbs Homes[edit]

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

Company does not meet general notability requirements and is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Meatgains. New to this, so I'm working to make sure I'm adding enough. Just added Time Magazine highlight, some additional that focus on the company and founder more specifically and some detail on their White House advising. Hope that helps. STLDanni (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Hoe is this anything more than a run of the mill local builder? Bearian (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as single-use advertising with not only the account being an advertising-only account, but the information is an equivalent of it also, none of this amounts to substance at all and there's nothing suggest salvageability should be expected. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as corporate spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2013[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:GNG. Not notable. The mother article, Miss Tourism Queen International had been deleted. This pageant is different from Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced article and I do not support keeping unreferenced articles. I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of this minor pageant. If someone produces such sources, I will be happy to change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced essay and WP:LISTCRUFT. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to justify articles on each instalation of the competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 6 October 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Wars (video game)[edit]

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

Unsourced; the article neither asserts nor indicates notability (WP:GNG). The generic name hampers the search for possible sources. Sandstein 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have any secondary coverage on specialist games sites, which would be the bare minimum of coverage we'd want. A Train^talk 21:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding much so far. I found this at IGN, but it looks like it's just a reprinted press release given the way it's written (uses the word "us") and arranged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like a press release. Scroll to the bottom of the article and you can see the press release boilerplate about the company. Strange that the byline is "IGN Staff", but I guess that's a weird CMS quirk. A Train^talk 09:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some websites cannot post material without attributing the authorship to someone, but also don't have a set name for press releases, so they just use the defacto "press" setup. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 15 October 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. Seems like WP:BAND is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Issues[edit]

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

This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for music BestUsernameEver11 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — BestUsernameEver11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Meters (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page refers to a musical group in violation of registered trademark/copyrights held by others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhelpton (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Jwhelpton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- struck by User:Meters at Jwhelpton's request [7] [reply]

Comment There's no evidence that this claim is correct, and it would be irrelevant even if true. The band uses that name as is shown by the sources cited. Meters (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band appears to meet WP:BAND. I added AllMusic.com to the external links. They appear to have toured from Texas to Tennessee (sounds like a song) and Canada. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BAND, Only one (not two) albums on a major indie label with notable bands, but sufficient independent media coverage (Paste Magazine and This City's full, for example). Meters (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 8 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2014[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International.. Richie Campbell (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the sole source, obsessedbeautypageantfan.wordpress.com, would be considered a RS. - Brianhe (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unreliably sourced essay and WP:LISTCRUFT. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to justify articles on each instalation of the competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 6 October 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. I have to admit, I have not understood Bearian's keep argument, perhaps he can explain it on my talk page. I cannot see any example in WP:OUTCOMES that fits in the same category as turf war, nor do any of the three examples given support keeping generic terms as far as I can see (I can't even find a deletion discussion for magnesium chromate at all). I see no point in userfying an article on a subject that the community has decided that it does not want in principal. Of course, discovery of sources discussing turf war as a concept would change all this. SpinningSpark 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf war[edit]

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

A combination of dictionary definition and unsourced original research. The meaning of the term is so generic (it can refer to any sort of struggle, usually between criminal groups and the like) that I am finding it difficult to imagine that an encyclopedia article can be written about this. Sandstein 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Vague concept, searching mostly shows dictionary type definitions. Somehow this article has been around since 2003 and keeps growing and still doesn't have a single valid reference. MB 04:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: once again I find the confusion between "unsourced" and "original research" being tossed around. Please do not confuse the two. Now to the topic: one can find tens of thousands of references to this term in Google Books from a wide variety of topics, so there's plenty of refs if one wants. The only reason I mark this as comment and not keep is that there is a wiktionary entry, and it seems perfectly fine. Let us not forget that the wiktionary didn't exist in 2003. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't confuse "references" with "usage". There are certainly many books that use the term when writing about a struggle or dispute, but I didn't see any that were talking about the general concept. There may be some, and you have found anything that could serve as a reference to this article please share them. MB 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, as noted by Maury Markowitz. This is not so bad as to require WP:TNT. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, we have kept such diverse topics as Chaos, Sisu, and Magnesium chromate. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before" is not an argument for keeping if there are not in fact any useful sources. I've searched and the meanings are too disparate; one can write articles about specific turf wars, but I don't see a source describing the concept itself. Per WP:BURDEN it is you who would need to find sources to keep this. Sandstein 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would argue that lots of hits for the term in google books do not necessarily equate to potential for an encyclopaedic article. The term is a common colloquialism, but I think we'd all agree that a bare definition of it is better left to Wiktionary. So what would a good version of this article look like? If we kept it around as a disambig page (like Bearian's example of Chaos, what would it link to? Unless somebody has a source showing that "turf war" is a term of art in, let's say sociology (where there was more to the term than is implied by its colloquial use), then I don't think that there's an encyclopaedia article here. A Train^talk 21:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a sysop would userfy it for me, I'll work on it later, after the silly season. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this colloquialism applies equally well to mafias, warlords, and drug cartels, as it does to academic departments, washing machine retailers, and desperate housewives shows that it's a generic term for any kind of real or metaphorical conflict over physical or metaphorical space. Generic terms belong in a dictionary. Specific types of turf wars, like a literal battle to control territory between gangs, or a metaphorical battle between officemates, belong as sub-sections of Gang or Organizational conflict, or (if the sections grow very large; I said if! per summary style) as disambiguated articles about those specific kinds of turf wars, e.g. Turf war (drug trade) or Turf war (workplace). Better titles than these are possible for these hypothetical articles. Emphasis on hypothetical. For now we have a dictionary definition. Delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. The article's text shows that this is a term that is widely applied to any territorial struggle. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:23, 20 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2010[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to warrant a seperate article for each year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY; main article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Miller[edit]

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

I tried to find additional sources, but Sandy Miller is such a common name that all I found was noise, and material on a person in San Francisco who has this name but is a different person. The article is unworkable as is. It is sourced to the website of her employer and to the Miss Missouri USA site. We need sources beyond organizations she wasdirectly involved in. Being Miss Missouri USA is not enough alone to make her notable, nor is being a local level journalist and news anchor. Nothing about her career suggests that she is actually notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unreferenced essay which is not acceptable for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree -- insufficient notability as journalist. Quis separabit? 22:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hardly any reliable independent sources about the subject. The entire information seems to be sourced to a single Fox website profile listing which is not an independent source as she apparently works there. WP:WHYN requires more sources and this is particularly true for BLPs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:13, 10 October 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. Notability is established. Discussions about the title can continue on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Harvest (upcoming film)[edit]

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

This seems to be too soon. Not enough solid information and doesn't seem to be notable. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - [EDIT]per nom. It doesn't pass muster for WP:NFF. Even predicting whether it will actually end up being released is WP:CRYSTAL. Given that there's only promotional material available, at this point in time it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~~--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)~~ Changed to 'keep' per latest information below. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "Bitter Harvest (film)" because this film already exist and described in a number of publications. Most sources exist on Ukrainian (please see version of this page on Ukrainian WP). The movie already exist and received significant press coverage, including such sources as RFE/RL - [8]. It only has not been released in US yet. too soon is an essay, not a policy-based argument for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Radio Liberty cited above is an interview with the filmmaker in November 2015, not a review. The Radio Liberty reporter didn't get to see the film, and the filmmaker says it wasn't finished yet. The Ukrainian Wikipedia says it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 2016.[9]. But it doesn't show up on the Cannes Film Festival site [10] or the Guardian's list of all films shown there.[11]. Can anybody find a WP:RS reliable source not PR-generated? John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it also appears under the name of "The Devil’s Harvest" (see this and here). This publication on RFE/RL is a valid RS and an indication of notability. Some other sources: [12], [13] (that one is definitely not "PR"), [14], [15] (3rd party review). My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per My very best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep - (UPDATED - see below.) as a film in pre-production, it got a note in Variety. That's about it for reliable sources with any depth. Everything else, even in Ukrainian sources, is PR or a brief mention. The film was not shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 2016. It was promoted at the Ukrainian booth at the film market held in conjunction with that film festival. No reference indicates any outside party has ever seen a final cut of the film. So, per WP:NFF, it's too soon. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come? According to this source, the movie was actually demonstrated at the Cannes Film Festival. I do not know if other participants can conduct their own investigation and disprove this claim (which would probably be WP:OR), but I can't. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited reference, way down, after mentioning other films that were actually in the festival, there's this: "Film Market - this is not the program of the festival, but an opportunity to show the world their work. ... Within the market demonstrated the show in Cannes as Canadian film about Ukraine entitled "Bitter Harvest." Its presence in the city was impressive. Its advertisements in the city can be seen almost everywhere. The official brochure of the festival on the day of the show "bitter harvest" on May 17 he was given one of the pages of the cover. The picture is epic romantic drama for the first time in the history of English cinema touches Holodomor. Directors of Mendelyuk were George and Jan Ihnetovych. One of the roles starred Ukrainian actor Ostap Stupka. This film has already demonstrated this year at the Berlinale." That's it. It was marketed at the "film market", where films that didn't make the cut for the film festival can buy booth space. A booth at a trade show where films are shown on laptops is not notability. As for the Berlinale, they have an archive. Searching the archives of the Berlinale, the doesn't appear under either "Bitter Harvest" or "Devil's Harvest".[16] John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The movie was shown in Cannes, but not as a part of official program. And no, it was actually shown in Berlinale, as shown here and described in this reference. No one here should try to disprove publications by RS using personal internet searches. This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Publications can and do make errors of fact too (e.g. by not adequately factchecking the topic's own potentially PR-inflated notability claims about itself), and as you just demonstrated it is very possible for an individual editor to either misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent what a published source is even saying in the first place. (This isn't even the first time in the past month that I've seen somebody try to stake a film's notability on screening at Cannes, when in fact it had simply been an exhibitor at the film market or the Cannes Lions.) We're not required to go around independently factchecking or reverifying every single thing that a source says about a film — but it is not original research to seek further verification in other sources if a claim is in dispute. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film didn't make it into the competitive Berlin International Film Festival. It was at the European Film Market held alongside [17], another trade show where you rent a booth. Exhibitors get "priority access to screening slots".[18] It's not clear why this film hasn't achieved notability or found a market; the trailer isn't bad. But it hasn't. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never commented on AfD for movies before and did not know that movies should not have their own pages even if they have been already created, demonstrated in a few places and have independent coverage in several 3rd party sources (see links by me in discussion above). Thinking in terms of general notability guidelines, I do not really see any reason why they should not have their own pages. Hence keeping my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a film has been made, things can still happen (e.g. no distributor picks it up at all) that cause it to never actually go into actual release anywhere. As of yet, the film has been "screened" only at industry trade events, and not at any general market festival. We cannot plausibly keep an article about every film that ever got made, even if it exists only in a vault somewhere and has never actually screened at even one real film festival — we do not start articles about films until, at the very earliest, a definitive premiere date somewhere has already been announced. It basically works very much like our rules for television series: we do not start an article about every television series that is known to have entered production, because many pilots get produced that never actually get picked up as a series — we start an article about a television series only once a real television network has announced a definitive premiere date at a real upfronts presentation. You're right about the independent coverage being necessary — but you're wrong about the other bottom line: it's not "film has been created", it's "film has been released". And that simply hasn't happened here yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation. No hard feelings. If this should be deleted, so be it. Maybe someone will recreate this page a few months later, after release, although I am not at all sure that anyone will. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this comment due to change in circumstances noted below. Replacement comment posted below for clarity of context. Delete. With rare exceptions on the approximate order of the Star Wars sequels, the time for a Wikipedia article about a film is not while it's in production or hustling to find a distributor. Once a distributor has picked it up and a formal release date has been announced, an article about it can be created at that time — but as long as we have to rely on misrepresenting industry trade shows as film festivals to make it notable, it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain — I've been thinking about this since it was nominated. Since I've been involved in trying to police the COI issue, and took it to AN/I, I think it's probably best that I abstain from the AfD. Murph9000 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has adequate sourcing for a GNG pass. With a $21M budget, we can reasonably assume that a finished product is in the pipeline, this is a fairly big budget film. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That puzzles me, too. Reasonably big budget. Name actors. Good subject. Good trailer. Promoted to distributors at two major film markets. Can't get distribution. No independent reviews. Not available online or in DVD/Blu-Ray format. Strange. John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not having seen the film, I have no idea of whether it's actually any good, Nagle. It could well be that it's a generic 'against adversity' romance that could have been set against any backdrop and still have been a dud. Throwing money and a good cast at a film has failed hundreds of times in the past. Obviously, something's not clicking with the critics and the audience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change my "keep" vote and agree with Carrite because (a) the title is incorrect (this should not be "upcoming film"), and (b) there are many movies, including documentaries that deserve own pages if they were described in 3rd party sources as this movie was (see links in my responses above). My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close as a completed film project whose topic has been receiving lots of coverage. In easily meeting the caveat of WP:NFF its time has arrived... and per WP:DISAMBIG and WP:NCF I've moved the article to Bitter Harvest (2016 film). Minimal searches find decent coverage in Variety (1), Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, Variety (2), and EU Today, Screen Daily (1), Screen Daily (2), Screen Daily (3), Screen Daily (4), and many many more. This AFD is over. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key item here is the new news in the trades, since this AfD began, that the film now has a distributor.[19]. The producers took the film to the Toronto film market in September, and there, it sold. It should appear in 2017. So I am changing my vote to "Keep". John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per the evidence presented here that the film has now landed a distributor and consequently does now have a planned 2017 release confirmed in a reliable source. I've withdrawn my original deletion argument, and note that the date on the "distributor and release date confirmed" article is October 6, which means that while every delete comment above was made in good faith based on the available information at the time, the distribution announcement is a new development that happened after those comments were posted. Title should be moved to "2017 film", however. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(2017 film) is probably appropriate. For Academy purposes (the Oscars), the year of release is the calendar year it first appears in theaters to paying patrons.[20]. Film festivals, markets, and other trade and marketing activities don't count. John Nagle (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that we're having this discussion since in 2014, Terence Stamp appeared in George Mendeluk's drama film The Devil's Harvest (2014 film), opposite Max Irons, Samantha Barks, Barry Pepper, and Aneurin Barnard (actually the ref. only says that "shooting is underway"). Can someone please clean up this mess? wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That title exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to this article, so there's no actual mess to clean up. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the film really was released in 2014, as stated by the biography of Terence Stamp? Then why are we still talking about this as if the film hasn't been released yet? wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't; that's a simple, easily fixed error in Stamp's article that can be dealt with through the normal editing process, not a "mess" for AFD to deal with. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why was this moved to the new title "2016 film", when the sourced release date is early 2017? Also, why is this still open almost two weeks after the last "further discussion needed" relist, when the consensus is no longer in any doubt? Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I agree that this should be closed, but in response to your query, I point you to MOS:FILM That year was used as 2016 was the year of a first sourcable screening for European Film Market. When an actual 2017 release occurs and is sourced (not just speculation), we can always move it to a new title. [21][22][23][24] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internal industry film market screenings, at events whose basic purpose is for as yet unreleased films to exhibit in the hopes of finding a distributor to buy them, aren't determinative of what year a film's title should be disambiguated at. The first public screening in a context that people who aren't industry insiders can attend (e.g. an actual film festival, general theatrical release, etc.) is what determines whether it's a 2016 film or a 2017 film. MOS:FILM says "year of public release", and says nothing about private film industry trade shows counting as public release. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 17 October 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. The WP:V concerns have not been addressed by the "keep" side. Sandstein 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Parit Selangor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't even know if this exists even with the help of Google Maps (no coords was given). Unnotable village I may say. NgYShung ^huh? 09:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 09:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 09:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Villages satisfy WP:GEOLAND, no matter how small. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL8. Legally recognised populated places are notable. This one however is a populated place for which the boundaries are not officially demarcated. More importantly it fails WP:V are I don't see reliable third party sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:01, 4 October 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 redirect to KCKS-LD. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV25.tv[edit]

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

tv25.tv is not notable by itself generally or WP:BCAST. Yes, I did search on two search engines with out find much more than the official website. tv25.tv is the branding of KCKS-LD, thus a duplicate of that station's article. The information in both articles are duplicate just in different format and/or location. Having transmitter/simulcast stations doesn't make the brand notable or anything separate from the originating station. Spshu (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to KCKS-LD. No reason for the article when KCKS article exists. Could even maybe qualify for speedy deletion under A10. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCKS-LD. As has already been noted, there's no reason for this to be a separate article from the parent station, especially since the programming of all three stations with this branding — KCKS-LD, WROB-LD, and KMJC-LD — appear to be more-or-less identical. It may be a valid redirect, however. (I'm also not really sure there needs to be articles on all three stations, as the presumed notability for broadcast stations does not extend to a station that exists solely to simulcast another station; note that of the three stations, only the article WROB-LD actually has a section with a station history, if that means anything.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to make the most sense at this time. if there is something different, I'd entertain discussion. But I can see no policy or guideline violation other than duplication of articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some promotional material from the content of the page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCKS-LD. Doesn't seem like this new article expands upon the existing article. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suren Aghababyan[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. I know being a stub is not grounds for an AFD per se, the fact that it has not been updated since it was created and the fact that a Google! search gleaned little insight (for this editor, anyway), are. I will be happy to withdraw nom if proved wrong. Quis separabit? 21:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a Famous Armenain Literary criticModern Sciences (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His article on Armenian Wikipedia would tend to suggest notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- being the author of History of Soviet Armenian Literature (two volumes, 1961-65) seems to suggest notability. More sources are likely to be available in Armenian and / or Russian. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Mahtani[edit]

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

This is WP:TOOSOON and fails GNG. The coverage in reliable sources is limited to quotes or passing mentions. I see some brief coverage in sites like "Tech In Asia" and e.27, but these tend to publish stuff on request from employees of a startup (which usually happens). Note that this article has been created and edited extensively by someone with a conflict of interest. This is related to the promotional campaign around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Cheung and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99.co. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as none of this is farther than being a business job listing, nothing forms actual substance for independent notability and the sources are sinlly trivial and unconvincing coverage that include anything from simply listing business information and interviews. This is an advertisement and it seems those were the exact plans. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the completely promotional tone, there's nothing actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few dozen news items on the web, every one of which turns out to be an advertorial at best. As objective data on the firms importance, the best number I can find is that her firms total funding in 2015 was $US 3 million. Very few companies that size are even remotely notable . DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - I wrote the original entry and I can honestly say that Roshni is one of the most notable internet entrepreneurs in Singapore and Southeast Asia. She has built a company that has 7 million monthly users and runs her business in 6 countries. It is important to understand that the world develops at different rates, and that notability has to be relative and not absolute, otherwise, Wikipedia will not be relevant for a region like Southeast Asia. Please see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34276798 for an additional notable reference. --Tobias Tan (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have a COI here which you should have declared. Secondly, people are notable for Wikipedia when there are multiple secondary third part coverage. This BBC article is simply a quote by her at an event. What we require is someone else writing about her in detail in a major publication. The coverage also needs to be by someone who is independent of the subject as well. The claimed 7 million figure is essentially...pageviews? As for Wikipedia not being relevant, the biggest reason is that people think of Wikipedia as some kind of linkedin/web profile and use Wikipedia for promotion. I am ashamed to say that I have personally observed many in the SG startup scene do it. All of this reduces the long term credibility of Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofijah (rapper)[edit]

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

Not enough notability, the sources are mostly blog pages. Melaen (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find reliable sources to back up notability. If there are such sources in Swedish, I would appreciate someone who speaks that language bringing them to our attention (as my Swedish is sorely lacking). agtx 22:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope, I can't find any sources that could be used - only a handful of blogs and forum discussion threads. --bonadea contributions talk 05:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rupert[edit]

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

I think she would be encyclopedic only if she gets elected. Melaen (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:politician, unless she wins as stated above. But for now, delete. MB 04:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for inclusion on some other grounds independent of their candidacy (e.g. as a writer, as a sports figure, as a holder of another notable political office, etc.), then they do not become notable enough for inclusion until they win the election. No prejudice against recreation next month if she wins, but her candidacy is not enough in and of itself to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would articles about her candidacy and the controversy over her designation on the ballot in the Los Angeles Times^[1], the Los Angeles Daily News^[2], and The Sacramento Bee^[3] meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? HollywoodCowboy (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Coverage of an election campaign in that campaign area's local media always exists, so it doesn't in and of itself assist the notability of every individual candidate who happens to be running. For an unelected candidate to pass the primary notability criterion, either you have to demonstrate and source that she already had enough notability and sourceability to have already qualified for an article independently of the candidacy, or you have to show that her sourceability is nationalizing to a very disproportionate degree compared to most other candidates (the canonical example of that being the media beast that ate Christine O'Donnell.) If you can't meet either of those conditions, but can rely only on the routine level of local coverage that would be expected to exist, then you have to wait until she's declared the winner of the seat on election night. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is bad enough the article lacks sources. This probably could be fixed. However candidates for state legislature are no where near passing our notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 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 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Employsure[edit]

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

Already speedy deleted recently per CSD A7, this article was clearly created with promotional intent. No indication of significance or importance - just having some sources does not necessarily confer notability (WP:NOTDIR). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding enough source coverage after several searches; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply repeating advertising, the sources are trivial and unconvincing and this is essentially still actually speedy material, emphasizing the concerns also, so there's simply nothing actually convincing or substantial. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As well as the passing coverage of investment announcements, I can find a couple of brief pieces which mention this firm as one "disrupting" a particular local market sector but not substantial coverage to indicate more than a firm going about its business and worthy of encycopaedia coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I vote to keep the page as this have have many independent primary sources in Australia, which is enough to establish notability. Homeifi (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Homeifi has only made 5 edits to Wikipedia. All recent. All to this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 5 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. E. Hinton's continuity[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. Seems like mostly original research. TTN (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems entirely a personal essay, cited to no more than a twitter feed, making the case for a connection between Hinton's books. It's effectively pure WP:OR and has no place in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any critical commentary that explicitly describes Hinton's books as establishing a common universe or shared setting. Absent that, claiming that they are intended as such (and not merely iterations on a common environment without being intentionally interrelated, for example) is original research. And this, with observations such as "every novel finds the characters in Tulsa" is unquestionably original research. I have similar concerns about Shepard Family. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TTN is correct, this appears to be unsalvageable OR. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one reference, and it's to Twitter? WP:TNT the article as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is simply original research. Unless the sources actually talk about the 4 novels together as a group, this article should not exist. Btw, there's just a twitter status as a source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 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 merge to Eladrin. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynharwyf[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Eladrin. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding content because of all the false positive.... No I'm kidding. Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 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 merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socothbenoth[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. I just did a post-AFD demon lord merge the other day. A+++ would merge demons again. No independent secondary coverage that would merit a standalone article, which is a shame because I'd love to read about a demon lord in the New Yorker. A Train^talk 21:24, 5 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unison (file synchronizer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. No third party sources are provided. Laurent (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands and it's really hard to search for RSes with that name - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreliably cited product brochure on an unremarkable software package. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:18, 9 October 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 (G7) by Rhaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal management on Android phone[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedic article, but a scientific research. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a research paper (albeit a spare one) and not an encyclopedia entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a home for original technical papers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have reinstated page that was blanked by article creator by saving to a previous version. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks unlikely to matter much, but if the article's author has blanked it, we can simply CSD it (G7) and close this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 7 October 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Puddu[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. I can find no sources which I can identify as the subject although there are a couple of Italian sources that seem to be about another person with the same name. There is no credible claim of significance and this should probably be an A7 but the author and a brand new account keep removing th speedy tag. Not worth an edit war so AfD it is. Jbh ^Talk 19:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Equivalent pages have been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia a couple of times : [25]. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a poet publishing through print-on-demand self-publisher Lulu (company). No reliable 3rd party sources provided or found. Fails all WP:NAUTHOR and broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 5 October 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. Barely, per the so far uncontested sources by Fixuture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lowell[edit]

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

Searches are not finding the needed information and sourcing for independent notability and substance and this was also deleted in 2010, which says a lot by itself, WorldCat and my own searches are not finding convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are the Parsec Awards sufficiently major that winning them sufficiently demonstrates notability? I am unsure; they seem like a lot of categories for a niche market, much like certain recently discussed adult entertainment awards. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - these 2 sources indicate notability: [26] & [27] as well as [28] - however an article about the "Tales from the Golden Age of the Solar Clipper" might be better than one about the author. --Fixuture (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional articles on a non-notable science fiction writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson & Knight[edit]

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

Searches are literally finding nothing of actual substance, significance and convincing and that's not surprising considering it's only 1 company and whose environment is only going to consist of advertising, this shows based from my searches which only listed PR and republished PR, certainly nothing acceptable therefore all we have is a explosive advertisement with nothing else to suggest meaningful improvements (I'll note the article has been somewhat heavily contributed to by the company itself, one of them the literal "Thompsonknight" account). SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm finding slight coverage in legal press of employee movements (and most of those are press release reprints), but that's about it and I'm not sure there's an article worth having in it. This RS suggests it's possible, and I'm willing to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. With sections on "Offices" and "Diversity Efforts", this is about 100% certain to have been the result of paid editing. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:43, 9 October 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CloverETL[edit]

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

Delete and Salt please given this is nearly essentially the same thing from the 1st AfD aside from a few changes so there's seriously nothing of actual significance, substance and convincing, and with searches literally finding nothing at all, that's not beneficial news for this company given it's a explosive advertisement, having been restarted not even a year past the first AfD (article restarted in June 2013!) and has been heavily contributed to by quickly-coming-and-going accounts which of course apparently have no other focused articles than this one, which says enough by itself. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basic BEFORE turns up only press releases and passing mentions for me - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by one and subsequently extended by another WP:SPA account since the previous AfD deletion. The given references are routine announcements, integration notes and blog reviews - sufficient to verify the product but not to establish its notability, nor are the couple of items covered in the previous AfD. My own searches are not finding anything better; clear evidence of utilisation but not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt -- blatant corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 10 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sreedhar TN[edit]

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

I'm obligated to bring this up to AfD because it was de-PRODded by an anon editor without substantial improvement. Original concern still stands: the article (created by an indeffed sock) fails to meet WP:CREATIVE notability standard. This is a non-notable film director. There is no evidence that any of his works have actually gained any critical commentary. We aren't even sure with what's in the article at this point that they were screened. Brianhe (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable director lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete this article

User:Neerawrites The article should come under the category of Stub. As I researched, the written information about the person is reliable and believable although the references are not enough. So stop delete the article Sreedhar_TN. Also it matches the ratings of Wiki project India. —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Not seeing anything other an interview for this person. It appears to be failing both, WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Anup [Talk] 15:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another example where some sources and information have been tossed in attempts to make any unknowing person think it's acceptable, but it's not and that's because they are simply 2 works and what's accompanied here is not suggestively better either, therefore no amounted substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 9 October 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 redirect to List of Death Note characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Worshipers[edit]

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

Article lacks any references, other than links to the"Death Note" wiki pages. I could not locate any secondary reliable sources to confirm whether it met WP:GNG guidelines. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an official name for the group that supports Kira. If it were, then it could redirect to the List of Death Note characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to existing character list and no merge or redirect is required.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death Note because Kira is (rightly so) a disambiguation page, so the title is marginally useful to get readers to the right place. Any content can then be merged as desired to List of Death Note characters per WP:CWW, if anyone disagrees with the above !voters that everything important about each character included is already in that list article. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Almost all of the descriptive content about the characters is already present at List of Death Note characters, from whence it was copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Death Note characters, as recommended by Diannaa. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 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. per SK1 - Nom !voted below which indicates they've withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinner play[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary~~!!!~~ Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it isn't, but it's a trick play referenced in several articles and a dictionary is usually the source for such things. Cake (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is deleted, merge it to Glossary of American football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if that's your only concern. The article is about the play, not about the term. Otherwise, I concur with WO-9. Might be the best option if the article will be a permanent stub. Lizard (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exclamation marks don't make deletion rationales any more true. This is stubby, but lots of articles begin as (sub)stubs. The Football source already cited is, more properly: Otto, J. R. 'Bob' (1969) [1961]. Football. Creative Educational Society. ISBN 978-0-87191-021-9. It provides definitions of the play, in at least two variants, and some history of its development. Its use and development was also the subject of critical examination during the appropriate time period. Examples include a pair of articles by Guy Lowman in the early 1930s: Lowman, G.S. (1930). "Western Conference Football Strategy: A Review of the 1929 Season". Journal of Health and Physical Education. 1 (1): 25–28.; and Lowman, G.S. (1931). "Western Conference Football Strategy: A Review of the 1931 Season". Journal of Health and Physical Education. 2 (10): 17–47. There's more than enough material in those three sources to flesh this out into a fuller stub, at the least. A more comprehensive article could probably find some additional material; a cursory search suggests this lithograph of the topic by Benton Murdoch Spruance is at least interesting as an addition to an article that has otherwise already cleared the notability bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, the article concerns the play itself, not the term. And exclamation points don't help. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Am convinced!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as you've already gone with delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above as a notable historical gridiron football concept. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the nominator withdrew his nom, so this can be closed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QASymphony[edit]

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

Literally a company advertisement for a company whose environment is advertising and this is shown by the noticeable signs of listing anything and everything the company would say about itself, to also then the sources which simply consist of PR and republished PR, none of it being actual independent, significant and substantial information, searches are immediately finding nothing but PR, so that basically shows the best paths and methods the company is taking to advertising, which of course includes this article. I would've also PRODed as this needed to be deleted long long ago, especially considering the 2012 speedy deletion, and please also note the history logs which not only contain large numbers of multiple quickly-passing accounts, but one of them is an actual confirmed employee, "JeffQAS", and the IPs are also geolocating to the company's location. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The COI is strong in this one. The content is almost exclusively that of SPA's. Though the company is notable, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:TNT apply. Kleuske (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to revert to this version, ban the SPA's (who quack like crazy) from the topic (broadly construed) and keep an eye on it. Kleuske (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Should have been deleted at the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:22, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codeless test automation[edit]

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

This article appears to be only used for promotional purposes. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the phrase is one that means something, but this is at best a DICDEF with a promotional cite to a non-RS. Maybe redirect to Test automation - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been a speedy delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unreliably cited essay. I would have requested a speedy deletion, but can't seem to find a suitable category. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:15, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three springs fruit farm[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There's a few mentions in articles about farmers markets [29] and [30] but not significant coverage. Prod removed by article's creator after brief talk page discussion. If more references are added, perhaps could be kept, but I found next to nothing. agtx 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it with the prod. Was going to give more time to see if they could come up with better sources, but nothing appears to be there when I did a Google search on my own. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as sufficient consensus, advertorial article that has unconvincing sources, nothing else suggests otherwise better substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 5 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClinicJot[edit]

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

Delete-Nothing notable about the article to be featured in encyclopedia!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding very little in RSes about this. I was surprised to find actual reports on the SME award [31][32], but I don't think that's enough RS coverage to swing a keep - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nominated for a major award in the UK on Thursday. Its a pretty big deal. I have given 5 years of my life to develop this software and everyone has to start off somewhere. Its an amazing piece of kit and with mHealth set to be a $53bil industry over the next 5-10 years, its an extremely valid submission as its the only native therapeutic EMR on the market. Mikeijay (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC) mikeijay[reply]

@Mikeijay: Sir, with all regards you are probably unaware of the rules and policies to discuss a proposed deletion of any article.I would suggest you take a look at Contributing to AfD discussions.Thank You.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Moderators - Please can you elaborate how two highly regarded UK publications including a link to the SME Magazine's website, as well as the BBBA Award link does not provide suitable evidence? - Many Thanks Mikeijay (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Mikeijay[reply]

Delete - To answer the user's questions above, this is because it varies with the actual contents, for example, republished PR information is not convincing even if it were mentioned at a major news source, because it's still the actual contents that matter. This is essentially still advertising and none of it suggests otherwise, nothing suggesting the substance we would need. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBHOST; Wikipedia should not be a replica of company's web site. Sections include "Management Team"; "Products"; "Awards"; etc which is typical of corporate spam. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 8 October 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. A redirect to Zoho Corporation can be created as an editorial decision if the latter article stays. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sridhar Vembu[edit]

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

My PROD still applies, since article actually looks worse now, considering the links themselves emphasize the PR state of mind and intentions, since the man himself is simply supplying information which then goes as far to talk about his career and achievements, that's not "news", it's self-advertising, and there is no matter of "hey, there's sources!" that can genuinely suggest otherwise. As it is, it's a known fact Indian news media is a pay-for news, and they make it quite clear at it, so there's no amount or comments that can suggest otherwise it was guaranteed as non-PR, because such a situation is non-existent and it's not surprising then looking at this self-advertising article. Non-notable CEO whose article, ZOHO Corporation, is also at AfD now, and what's amusing to state is that an Indian IP removed the PROD from Zoho's article yet with no acknowledges of considerations to all concerns listed, including the fact the company and man himself have "contributed" to this article, and quite heavily at it, so there are no improvements that can be made to an article that is such an advertisement, the company is heavily involving itself, and actually emphasizing it's simply a PR campaign article. The SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoho Corporation if it stays, else delete - none of these sources, nor any I could find in a basic BEFORE, have any substantial biographical information - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page and part of a walled garden around Zoho Corporation created by Special:Contributions/ImmortallyTranquil, a user with few other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:43, 17 October 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) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhigh Networks[edit]

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

My PROD here still applies since none of the concerns have actually been acknowledged, considered and then taken to serious mind, instead additional sources were added, but this is still exactly what the PROD covered and mentioned, it's all PR for a company that involves itself with PR and that's not surprising given this was clearly another company-influenced article as part of its PR campaign, therefore there are no changes that can be made genuinely if this is an advertisement and solely that. Looking at the simply tossed stacks of links, they all still actually confirm what this article is, PR for the company, since the articles all themselves consist of republished company PR, interviews with the people or company itself where business and clients & investors plans and everything else the company would say about itself, therefore it's not the same thing at all to simply toss some links and hope they get accepted since they come from a news source, since that's not convincing at all and it's likely not convincing to the IP themselves since they simply tossed it, actually making the article's advertising environment worse. SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom I find the sources similarly unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Rajiv Gupta (technocrat). That article is pretty weak too, but the personality I would say has a slightly better case of being notable. Clearly all the promotional stuff is just that. Either split or re-create when the company has enough independent sources, perhaps. W Nowicki (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did some work on the Gupta article. I think a case for his notability is much easier to argue. Almost every source for the company also mentions him. Maybe if the company outlasts the CEO, it might be notable. The court case is hard to call. I would be happy with a delete now. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing here worth merging elsewhere; it's pretty run-of-the-mill marketing cruft. The court case certainly isn't independently notable, and I think it's listed there for WP:PEACOCK purposes more than anything. FalconK (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; an unremarkable security company. With sections such as "Recognition" this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article Rajiv Gupta (technocrat) does not assert much notability beyond being the founder of Skyhigh; I'm not sure it would survive if this article is deleted. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:24, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burns & McDonnell[edit]

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

My PROD here still applies because of the concerns, so simply removing some of the advertising contents here but yet not acknowledging or considering the other concerns is not the same thing, since the entire article is an advertisement, I'm not finding anything better at all and, clear from the contents and tone environment, is a PR campaign article, especially that given quickly-passing SPAs and IPs came and changed or moved things, therefore there are no amounts of "supposed trimming or changes" that can fix a naturally formed advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - are there any good sources in that REFBOMB? - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as typical corporate spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:51, 9 October 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 the first "keep" opinion attempts to make a policy-based argument, whereas the others are about how important the game or how useful the content is, which are not adequate arguments for keeping in the face of the policy-based concerns identified by the "delete" side. Sandstein 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic sales catalog of content of a video game, violating the policy WP:NOTCATALOG. Fails the notabliity guidelines that apply to all lists because there are no independent sources that have covered this extensive list of content. All the citations are brief blog posts and product overview articles that, at best, merely mention that iRacing has 'a lot of cars' that 'seem realistic'.

This is one of a sprawling number of lists and articles created for the iRacing.com game which catalog the game's content. Some of those deleted include:

Multiple editors have agreed unanimously that these forks from iRacing.com are not notable and violate WP:DIRECTORY. etc.

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion for the same reasons: sales catalog of game content, lack of notability established by significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:GNG.

It's not exactly a slam-dunk that iRacing.com itself meets Wikipedia:Notability (video games). After you ignore the some 30 links to iRacing.com, YouTube fan videos, and press releases from iRacing's partners, you're left with a handful of capsule reviews. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: @Dennis Bratland: I have removed the AFD tags from the redirects with tags; redirects are not in scope of AFD, but however, of their target articles are deleted, then they will be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G8. Also, I have restored 2016 Brazillian iRacing Grand Prix as an article so that it can be properly included in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, in this edit, I removed a few of my strikethroughs above since I realized they were distracting. Also, anyone viewing the redirects you referenced above will be forwarded to the respective nominated article referenced above, so they will see the AFD tag either way. Tagging redirects with non-WP:RFD tags can distract and confuse readers since the redirect itself isn't being discussed, but rather its target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dogged persistence of promotional editing by iRacing.com, their fans, and various SPAs, I'd like an explicit affirmation that consensus favors removing this suite of iRacing pages, including redirects. They're going to need to be salted too, no doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta admit, I've noticed this from time-to-time with various racing-related articles myself, so I can say that this definitely happens. Anyways, I have no opinion on this at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Ridiculous articles and lists that do not belong on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:GAMECRUFT discourages these sorts of massive in-game lists without any context or further information provided, being in articles. Exhaustive lists of participants and winners of tournaments is discouraged as well. If we don't even want them in articles, surely we don't want articles dedicated to them entirely. Wikipedia is not the place to track all this stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The main article nominated for deletion is List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com to which I am responding. The nominator has stated about the article "there are no independent sources that have covered this extensive list of content." and "All the citations are brief blog posts and product overview articles". These are not true statements. Car and Driver magazine has been published since 1955, both in print and online. It is a reliable 3rd party source per WP:RS and covers the cars in addition to iRacing in general. As stated in Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline the reference requires no original research to interpret the source, addresses the topic directly, and is more than a trivial mention, but not the entire subject of the reference. No extraordinary claims are made in the article and no extraordinary references are needed. Another reference, www.expertreviews.co.uk, is neither a blog nor a product overview. It is an article by, again, a reliable 3rd party source who examines televisions, cell phones, appliances and others. Lists are not banned from Wikipedia WP:LISTV and this lists performs the same function as the example listed, List of typefaces serves. No expansive information is added to each item in the list. It serves as an "excellent resources from which to begin exploring the subject." Cotton2 (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really address the WP:NOT and WP:GAMECRUFT concerns though, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What encyclopedic value does listing every single winner of every single race of the last seven years of the NASCAR Peak Antifreeze Series give? Once you strip that cruft out, there's little more than a paragraph left of prose present. It's better left covered at the parent article, along with the minimal sourcing you've drudged up... Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my entry. I have limited my reply to one article, the nominated one, not the additions. Cotton2 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, missed that part. The WP:GAMECRUFT part still applies though. We don't have List of cars in Mario Kart or List of cars in Grand Theft Auto 5 because of that, and I believe the same would apply here. We don't do "List of 'in game item'" sections in articles, let alone these stand-alone list spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. NYTimes and LATimes are specifically mentioned in WP:RS as high quality references, better than local papers due to editorial review, national scope, etc. Car and Driver is also a national publication, peer reviewed etc, if not international. I posit that an article in that publication on iRacing, and the vehicles included, makes the subject notable. Cotton2 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, inherently, vehicles are going to be discussed in the context of the subject when the subject is a racing video game. I'm sure there's many reliable sources covering the vehicles of Forza 5 and Gran Turismo 5 in articles about them too. That doesn't make it a valid spinout though. This is doubly true when you see that the parent article, iRacing.com, is a mere 30k in size, and that includes formatting, making it far below the normal size for needing a split. So, it doesn't warrant a separate article, and then a number of WP:GAMECRUFT points say it really doesn't belong in the parent article itself either, which is why I'd favor a "delete" over a "merge". I'll let others voice their opinions now though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above related articles per nom. Keep the game itself, but no more. It's just about notable.46.226.49.228 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a simulator, I feel it is important to list what is being simulated. Drawing comparisons to games such as Gran Tourismo and Forza is not really fair. Gran Tourismo and Forza allow modifications to be made to these vehicles and offer a arcade style of play. The vehicles in iRacing are taken apart and each part is weighed individually and a extremely accurate model is built based on this information and laser scans of the vehicle/parts. I realize the arguments about this just being a video game, but the argument could easily be made that this qualifies as a vehicle simulator and not a video game. This isn't wholly irrelevant, but a separate argument to be argued at a different time. The list was moved from the main page to accommodate an edit war, and was done so in the spirit of other pages, such as: List of Game Boy games, List of Star Wars characters, List of Pokémon (52–101), etc. The list is encyclopedic in nature by assisting someone in doing research on how to simulate a certain vehicle or racing series. I realize my opinion may be bias, but I do feel it is necessary for someone with knowledge of what iRacing actually is to chime in here. MordeKyle (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also only defending List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com MordeKyle (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO says guidance on how to simulate cars is not encyclopedic. Even if it were, List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com doesn't provide any information on how to simulate anything. It's just a list of names of cars. It is not true that iRacing disassembled and measured every car. Cars are simulated using CAD data, ordinary photographs, and laser scanning. This is typical of any sim, not extraordinary. Which parts of the cars, if any, that were scanned or weighed is unknown. It's unknown how many cars are simulated using only photos, and how many iRacing ever put their hands on. There is no independent sourcing to verify any of iRacing's claims that their modeling is more extensive or accurate than other sims. And even if it was more accurate, why does the accuracy of the modeling imply that a complete list must be made? Isn't it enough to say, wow, they modeled over 9,000 cars?

The other lists you mention are travesties, and they serve as good examples of why we should not allow such unsourced content to remain; ie WP:OSE. Keeping them around leads to the creation of more nearly-unsourced lists that catalog the content product offerings without being limited to those with independent sources commenting on them, or expressing any interest in the items. The lack of third party interest in each of the entries -- or even one the entries -- on List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com is the fundamental problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about "how to simulate cars" nor does the article say anything about how to simulate cars. Each of these vehicles is additional content that is added to the game and has to be purchased separately, so if anything, this list should be compared to lists such as Mass Effect 3 downloadable content. Realistically, in terms of video games, each vehicle/series is its own game. I fail to see why this is suddenly such an issue when this list was stable in the main article for a really long time, and was only moved off of the main article to stop an edit war. Removing the separate list page will just result in it being added back to the main article in one way or another as it is very important to the article of iRacing. Drawing comparison to Forza and Gran Tourismo, again, isn't really fair to iRacing as games like Forza 6 has over 600 cars. Individual cars are not integral to the game itself, whereas with iRacing, the indivual cars carry a lot of weight for the simulator. MordeKyle (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com doesn't provide any information on how to simulate anything." directly refutes your statement that "WP:NOTHOWTO says guidance on how to simulate cars is not encyclopedic." If it's not there, it's not a HOWTO. Could you provide the reference to your statement that iRacing doesn't disassemble the cars it simulates? It would be an interesting addition to the article, possibly a contentious addition. Unsourced? This article is a start class article less than 1 month old has both US and international sources, reliable 3rd party sources. I'm sure the nominator knows that an article that has reliable 3rd party sources can then have references to primary sources and less (not national/international) quality sources. So your request for "even one" reference to an individual was provided prior to your request. Also, your nomination claims that "Non-encyclopedic sales catalog of content", this article does not, and never has, contained pricing and/or availability of simulation information. Cotton2 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of MordeKyle's last points is refuted at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I won't repeat (much of) that. Creating a list that doesn't meet minimum standards is a poor solution to an edit war. If someone adds more uncited list cruft back into iRacing.com, it should be removed, and disputes resolved by other means.

A credible case could be made looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Video gaming, where List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, List of The Last of Us characters, and List of Uncharted characters. They rest mostly on third party sources, and not primarily on the game publisher for the list's content. The independent sources are what drive the creation of Wikipedia content. No sources, no list.

Cotton2, MordeKyle said "The list is encyclopedic in nature by assisting someone in doing research on how to simulate a certain vehicle or racing series." I said a list of car names gives no assistance in how to simulate cars, and if the list were written as a how-to for that purpose, it would not be encyclopedic. The fact that primary sources may be cited does not mean those sources establish notability, per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:LISTN. List of typefaces is a list of bluelinks, nothing like this case, and the notability of the real cars adds nothing to the notability of the simulated cars.

The burden isn't on me to prove that "The vehicles in iRacing are taken apart and each part is weighed individually and a extremely accurate model is built based on this information and laser scans of the vehicle/parts." The company makes no such claim, only that they use a variety of methods to gather data. It's an irrelevant point anyway; it doesn't give us a reason to make a list even if they did take apart every single car.

The only real purpose served by this list is to tout the quantity of content in the game, and to give shoppers a list of items they may buy. This article, and the others nominated, are sales catalogs, and primarily promotional in nature. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MordeKyle is making the case that a reader might use the encyclopedia to find out if s/he can simulate a vehicle s/he is interested in and in a non promotional venue, Wikipedia. He is not saying anything about creating any simulator data files. Your assertion that the article is a sales catalog for the promotion of the game simply is not factual, as defined in WP:NOTCATALOG. Cotton2 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's on this list, that means it can be simulated? And if it's not, then it can't? This is not a definitive list of what can and can't be simulated. And such a purpose is totally unencyclopedic anyway. The whole thing is a red herring to cover for the simple fact that third party sources have not paid much attention to the contents of this list. WP:NOTCATALOG says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." This list is nothing but availability information about what you can buy in this game. Merely leaving out prices is not enough. Third party sources don't justify it. These entries need: 1) sourcing in mainstream media 2) the sources must indicate importance and 3) more than just product reviews. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that you are using "availability information" in the correct context here. That indicates release date and location availability to me. I may be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I do however believe that the content of a simulator is very important to an encyclopedic entry about the simulator. MordeKyle (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no list and The fact that primary sources may be cited does not mean those sources establish notability, both true. That's why the article has reliable 3rd party sources and then primary sources. Yes, this is wikipedia's best effort to provide that information. I doubt many articles about tech developments are up to the minute. This is a list of vehicles that a reader can use to find out if his/her favorite type of race car, NASCAR, Formula 1, has been developed. Cotton2 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG belabors this point, saying not once, but twice, that lists of products and services are not encyclopedic, and that single entries must have independent sources indicating importance and relevance. A list of iRacing cars that meet these criteria would be so short that it would easily fit in the main article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:LISTN each item does not need individual references, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Emphasis mine. Referenced in the reliable 3rd part sources. Cotton2 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger issue here is that we're splitting hairs when arguing "well, its different when cars are being in a typical video game versus being "simulated". I don't think that has any bearing on the various WP:NOT's its violating. Its a massive list of in-universe data, with no real out-of-universe importance. There's virtually no prose present. No content beyond barely identifying what it is, followed by a massive list. It's a crufty, unnecessary list spinout. That trumps any "its useful" type arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not being able to put this information in the main article is why this was moved to this split. Having the article without having this information in it is completely pointless. You might as well delete the main article as well. And to that point, we should delete just about every article on Wikipedia as some form of fancruft or another. People write about things they are interested in, that doesn't make every article on Wikipedia bias and full of fancruft. The content in the simulator, is vital to the article that is written about the simulator. These arguments are absurd. Everyone is upset about the information being in the main article, and everyone is upset about the information being in a separate article. I get all these rules that are posted, but to be honest, there are so many different rules it wouldn't be that hard to find 5 different rules that fit my argument and 5 different rules that fit your argument, all while contradicting each other. If we cant use SIMPLE logic on Wikipedia, then I'm out and this whole thing is pointless. This information is useful to people who are interested in iRacing and other simulators and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. A place where someone can find non promotional, non bias information about a topic they are interested in or what to learn more about. This fits exactly that purpose. If the list itself is a problem, I'll change it to a different format. Cleanup is definently necessary, but outright deletion of this is just pointless. This information has to be in this article one way or another, or the entire article should be deleted as it has no real information about the simulator and is just pointless. I just find it completely insane that this information can not be included in this article... MordeKyle (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you're adding is promotional, and biased, because you're not getting it from independent reliable sources. You're taking whatever iRacing says and copying it over to Wikipedia. You keep repeating that lots of people^[who?] want to find this information,^[dubious] but they want to find it in a "non promotional venue". What it is that makes Wikipedia a non-promotional medium? It's our policy of relying on independent sources, and that "we don't lead, we follow". Pointless? No, that is the point. We don't take content that reputable, independent media have chosen to ignore and elevate it, give it an imprimatur of Wikipedian neutrality, when in reality it's nothing but a warmed-over ad, whitewashed to seem like an encyclopedia article. This information does not have to be in the artilce. Let go of that. If it is so vital, how come not one single independent source has listed all this "vital" information? Can't be that vital if every good source can tell the world all about iRacing without reciting the name of every single car. Be guided by what the best independent sources have to say, not what iRacing wants to say about itself. These policies are not contradictory; they all lead back to one simple, common sense idea: verifiability in 3rd party, reliable sources. You've seen the Featured List examples. If the policies seem too contradictory, then learn by example. I mean good examples, not other pages that are just as much candidates for deletion as this one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With your argument, everything on Wikipedia about a product is promotional. You keep talking about sources and ignoring previous comments about 3rd party sources. MordeKyle (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that every Wikipedia page about a product is based primarily on the company's sources? No, that's not true. That's a blatant falsehood. Your false beliefs are the fundamental reason why your opinions are contradicted by so many other editors. Admit the truth about things like that and you won't feel like such a great injustice is occurring.

Tell me again what comments about 3rd party sources I'm ignoring. I don't know what you mean. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two previous comments made by Cotton2:

No sources, no list and The fact that primary sources may be cited does not mean those sources establish notability, both true. That's why the article has reliable 3rd party sources and then primary sources. Yes, this is wikipedia's best effort to provide that information. I doubt many articles about tech developments are up to the minute. This is a list of vehicles that a reader can use to find out if his/her favorite type of race car, NASCAR, Formula 1, has been developed. Cotton2 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

and

As I read WP:LISTN each item does not need individual references, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Emphasis mine. Referenced in the reliable 3rd part sources. Cotton2 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Every line in Wikipedia doesn't need a source. If you need a 3rd party source to be added to each vehicle, then I will add one, but that is just unnecessary. Again, if the list itself is a problem, the information can be reformatted. I'd actually prefer this myself, but I don't know that I have the experience to do it. I fear you don't understand the importance of each car being mentioned because maybe you don't know anything about simulation. This isn't a video game where every car follows the same model, just with a different skin and sound font, each of these vehicles is a "game" in and of itself. Not having this information would be like having an article on a factory and not saying what is made in the factory. If you'd like to contribute and make this page better, then by all means. Just seeing an article that needs help finding it's way and saying it should be deleted without attempting to make and improvements or offering any suggestions to make improvement is pointless. If this article NEEDS to be deleted, which I fail to see, then help fix the issues on the main page. You keep asking for the "mainstream media" to have reported on this, but that's just unlikely. CNN and FOX news are not going to ever report on something like this. Just as they wouldn't with COUNTLESS other things. This is an article about a smaller topic that is important to a smaller niche of people, which Wikipedia is just stuffed full of, and is helpful for people looking for this sort of information. Who? You tell me. Who is looking at Wikipedia? Who looks at any article about smaller topics? People who are interested in them. People who find this sort of information useful as they compare which simulator to invest into. Maybe I was to drive the McLaren MP4/4, then I should go look at Asseto Corssa. Maybe I'm really interested in the IMSA GTP cars and I find out iRacing has that, but it doesn't have the MP4/4. Go read some of the sources on why this isn't just another video game, and see that actual racing teams are using certain models of cars to get their rookie drivers up to speed before going to the track. They don't put their rookie driver in just any car, they are putting their driver in the model of the car that the rookie is going to be driving on track later on. In an F-16 simulator, wouldn't it be important to talk about the F-16? Just because multiple platforms are being simulated, doesn't make the subject of the simulation less important, nor does the availability of such simulations. As technology progresses, this sort of stuff becomes more consumer friendly, as does any other form of technology. MordeKyle (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, directories are vital. In sim racing, a directory or catalog of each car is necessary. In any endeavor, having a directory of available products/services/options/locations is vital, whether it's AKC listed dog breeders or a directory of AHA/BJCP sanctioned Beer Judges. Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not all things to all people. Many other media serve vital purposes not served by Wikipedia. WP:NOT is all about the things that are served by vital resources other than Wikipedia.

The confusion here over WP:LISTN is that while, in general every list item doesn't need a 3rd party citation, the policy at WP:NOT emphasizes, twice in #5 and #7 of WP:NOTCATALOG that products and services do need citations asserting some importance or relevance. These aren't lists of just anything; there lists of what iRacing offers for sale. They are products/services/equipment.

Again: I. Don't. Have. To. Tell. You. Who. Needs. This. List. To. Exist. On. Wikipedia. The burden for that is on you. Don't make claims and then tell me it's my job to prove your claims. You said it, not me. Don't put the burden on me to prove that your assertions are true. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked who and I told you who. So. I. Don't. Know. What. That. Whole. Mess. Is. And again, citations can be added to EACH vehicle. That is not a problem. And again if the list is the issue, the format can be changed. MordeKyle (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made a subjective evaluation of List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com as being a violation of NOTCATALOG #5 making the assertion that it is a sales catalog sans prices. It is so clearly, CLEARLY not against that policy. The policy is literally "article should not include product pricing or availability information" and the SPIRIT of the policy, not a price guide, comparison shopping guide or availability guide between different vendors, this is not in evidence in this article. Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering.

Since the article is not a catalog that leaves NOTCATALOG #7. Again, lists are not banned in Wikipedia and this article serves a purpose as does the example in WP:LISTV and no, the lists do not have to be clones of that example. One clear purpose is to explore what options are available. I've never used iRacing but if I wanted to, I would prefer a neutral source of information like wikipedia, of course because I participate here. The article seems to be a candidate for WP:IAR for this one specific case. Cotton2 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the ad homeniem. I guess everyone who wrote WP:GAMECRUFT was also acting in bad faith? Wikilawyers all? WP:NOTCATALOG was not written by people who don't understand plain English. The words are clear.

You know, if a reader takes comfort in the belief that the items on this list were chosen by a neutral third party, they'd be deceived. This list merely parrots what iRacing says, because independent sources don't support it. The illusion of neutrality is exactly why Wikipedia has policies against exhaustive catalogs or directories of game content, products, or services, that are mere glosses of the subject's own publications. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple list of a known thing that IS supported by 3rd party sources and does not advertise anything or promote "these over those" or anything like that. I don't see how saying, "these things are simulated by this simulator" is not neutral. And apparently the words aren't clear if you are reading from WP:NOTCATALOG where both of the points you made can be refuted. WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline that may not even be relevant to this article. It would be very easy for me to argue that this is not a video game and is a "tool" that is used to simulate an experience in the highest detail possible. Besides any of that, guidelines are not rules. Guidelines are to guide an article, and these guidelines barely fit the subject material. MordeKyle (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the ticket. Argue that it's not a video game. What could go wrong? I'm very sorry for spending so much time replying to all this discussion. Sometimes I get drawn in and can't help myself. There are plenty of other editors besides me who can reach a consensus on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little off topic, but it's been brought up as part of the fancruft stuff. As I have researched this article I have read a lot in the online media about iracing and sim racing in general. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Apparently iracing is about top dog in the simulator field. Comparing it to arcade racing is like saying a Dbase search function is the same as a Google search. Both use a monitor and keyboard as the user interface, but what goes on behind the scene is worlds apart. Who says iracing is not a video game, try Wikipedia, PCAuthority, Engadget, Wired magazine, actually just about every article I've read. Yeah, but this is not really a simulator. Not like an Airbus simulator or even a train simulator, there's no hardware. Check out that Wired magazine link. At $80 thousand I'd say it even qualifies in price. Would I sit in there for 24 hours simulating a Le Mans race and pay $80k for the fun, no way! Would I pay $80k for a sailboat and sail 24 hours, you bet! To each his own... Cotton2 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather troubled by the comment Not being able to put this information in the main article is why this was moved to this split. - if it wasn't appropriate for the main article, why on the world would it be appropriate for a stand-alone article? Comments like this lead me to believe these arguments stem from some fundamental misunderstandings on how Wikipedia works here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information caused an edit war based on the exact arguments that are invalid here. Again, this information is very important to the article, and was included in the main article for a VERY long time without too much issue until one or two people came along causing edit wars. Moving the information to it's own page appeased both sides of the edit war. The information can (and should) be on the main page, but it also can be on its own page. MordeKyle (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two fallacies are WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:BHTT. The meta-fallacy WP:EVERYTHING came up earlier. Saying "there are 50 cars, and that's a lot" has been cited. Nobody has cited the importance or necessity of a roll call of naming each of the 50 cars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have, multiple times. You can stop now. MordeKyle (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop making false statements. You did not provide any citation for your claim that there is a need for listing the names of each and every car. You made an implausible claim about researching how to simulate cars with this list, but provided no evidence that it is useful for that, or that this is anything but a violation of WP:USEFUL, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:NOTHOWTO etc. No evidence that any such researcher exists or has used the list in this way. You claimed there are people who want to look at the names of the 50 cars here, rather than at iracing.com, because here it's non-promotional. No citation given for this claim. It's true you've repeated these assertions, but it's not true that you offered any evidence for them. When I asked you to provide these citations, you said it was my job to disprove your claims. You said the problem was "maybe you don't know anything about simulation", rather than your own lack of evidence for your assertions. Red herrings to distract from the fact that your assertions lack evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said you have to disprove anything. What proof do you want, do I need to go do a straw poll of random people who may be interested in the subject? This is absurd. No evidence exists that anyone has used any article in any way. I have told you several times why this information is important to this article. You keep making up new reasons and ignoring previous statements that already contradict your new reasons. It is my job to defend this article, so I will continue to do so. You have made your case, yet seem to have way more interest in this article that just trying to police Wikipedia. You nominated the article, you made your case, and you continue to argue things that have almost no relevance to this discussion. You are arguing about something that you clearly know very little about. You have that right. Arguing about something that you have clearly done no research on, then acting like someone else's argument is out of line, is just absurd and disrespectful. Then, you say I am just trying to bring up "red herrings" to distract you from me not having proof that someone out there will find this information useful?! I have also made no false claims. I have told you numerous times that the things being simulated are important to the article about the simulator. I have been kind and tried my best to argue my point, yet you are just plain disrespectful with your snide little edit summaries and everything. I am only arguing to keep this page as continuing an edit war only harms Wikipedia. If the page is deleted, the information will just be re-added to the main page in one manner or another, as it was before, for several years. I'm done with you and your attitude, and as a relatively new Wikipedia editor, you have probably run me off from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no longer responding to this thread as you have just degraded this debate into personal attacks and accusations against myself. Good day. MordeKyle (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, well, okay, still not sure I understand how something seemed innapropriate for an article is somehow valid for its own article...Especially when it's one giant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above explanations about gamecruft. MordeKyle (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - delete as per nomination. We could end up with endlessDirectory style forks which not only clutter up Wikipedia, provide no new in formation and, presumably, must make it harder to find information for people who have an interest in the topic. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an officially sanctioned NASCAR eSport series, with real prize money on the line. The series champion gets crowned in the real-world NASCAR race weekend at Homestead-Miami Speedway every November. That alone is more than enough reason to keep this as an official Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayalmo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 October 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 per consensus, and move to Draft:Ameera Kawash per request of original author. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ameera Kawash[edit]

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

Fails ~~WP:ARTIST~~ WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, Same as another article the creator removed the Prod from this article as well and I can't find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Note she is not an artist (per the article), so the GNG not WP:ARTIST applies. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Thank you for pointing it out I have changed it. GSS (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant number of sources either along with not passing WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are very, very lacking. Neither looks to be particularly reliable, but they are both short sources that say nothing substantive. I still have to wonder if she is really a graduate of American University as opposed to the American University of Beirut, but that has no relevance to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm probably going to userfy this, per article author's request. This is just an FYI, it hasn't been 7 days yet so I won't close, but just so any future commenter knows. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: As I can see abobe its already been 7 days so you can close this case and then refund it to draft. GSS (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to Draft:Ameera Kawash, deleted in article space. I'll come back and remind myself how to close an AFD in a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 11 October 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karontor[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giant deities. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge seems to be the consensus, please decide on a target. Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities where the subject is already mentioned. There's nothing to merge as this is an entirely self-cited essay. Anything potentially useful can be picked from the article history, although I can't say what this would be. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 9 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idar of Kabardia[edit]

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

The only sources are blogs, etc. Searching turns up nothing. The Turkish article is just a copy of this one. Then there's, for example, "He married firstly a Crimean Giray, Princess Nazdschan Khatun (ca. 1470 - 1520), daughter of Meñli I Giray," but that article doesn't mention her and I can't find her. See also this AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selimiye Hatun. And he had a son named Pete? I can't find the source for "Legends of the Circassian people" although it's true that Shora Nogmov (not Shore) wrote a history of the Adyghe people but again he does seem to have written about folktales and legends.[33] Doug Weller talk 17:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune -- Unfortunately I do not read Russian, so that I cannot verify what Nogmov wrote. However if the quotation is correct he was a ruling chieftain of a Circassian clan. If so, I would have thought he was notable. All the genealogical stuff is essentially unsourced, except from genealogical sites and a blog could be pruned off. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks : the text is partially an automatic translation of Nogmov's work. This Idar is sometimes alluded to, but often only as the father of Temryuk (father in law of Ivan the terrible) ([34], [35]). I don't know if it makes him notable enough nor if there is sufficient material to write an article. The current article was obviously created in the context of his alleged, unsourced and unlikely relationship to Mahidevran.--Phso2 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks @Phso2:, so that's where the "Pete" comes from. I see that it says "Tradition has preserved us an entertaining story about the grandson of the famous Inala, Prince Idar." - who is clearly the subject of this article. I don't think that a story about a tradition is sufficient for notability. @Peterkingiron: - pinging you about this, I don't know if it affects your opinion. The quote is from the link given by Phso2 - Google translate gives "Finally this terrible carnage is over the world, on the following conditions: "to the prince settled in Idar Kabarda where he pleases.Kabardians is obliged to check his senior prince in the whole obey him; oppose his will as it was decided to execute." Finally this terrible carnage is over the world, on the following conditions: [105] "to the prince settled in Idar Kabarda where he pleases. Kabardians is obliged to check his senior prince in the whole obey him; oppose his will as it was decided to execute." At the end of the negotiations and the unanimous approval of the peace treatise, the troops returned to their homes. Idar-Prince shortly after arrived in Kabarda and, taking the reins of power, possessed it unquestioningly. It owns a part called Idar.It's copied pretty directly gibberish and all. But it is tradition and not history. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @all, maybe User:Retrieverlove can help us be wise here since they created the page. Please if you can provide any reliable source about this Idar, would be nice. I would suggest to Keep as per my knowledge that this Idar existed. Unfortunately we must have reliable sources to back the claims this article contains. Specially to the family section. If no reliable source can be found even to back the beginning sentences and the lead then deleting would be better, as this would mean that this person is not notable enough to be on Wiki, since no publication has been made to even tell his full name, biography comes next. Thanks - Worldandhistory (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view is unchanged. I am assuming that the quotation is not pure invention, but as I do not read Russian I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - princes and beys are not automatically notable. There are just insufficient sources to make this person pass as notable generically. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a real historical figure: "In 1561, Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian sovereign to be crowned as czar, married Princess Gosheney, the daughter of Prince Idar Temriuk, in order to place the Kabardians of Eastern Circassia under his control" (Circassian History p.267 ISBN 146531699X), and as sovereign ruler and founder of a royal dynasty of some note, he must surely pass WP:POLITICIAN. "Civil war ensued, and Prince Idar emerged as the sole potentate" (Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, p.676 ISBN 1135193886). Even if there is not enough material for an article on Idar, per WP:RETAIN the material should be kept and merged and redirected to a new home, perhaps create a House of Idar article. The importance (and notability) of the House of Idar is confirmed by this scholarly paper "Originally relatives of the second wife of Ivan the Terrible, the Circassian princes of Kabarda married into the Romanov family and reached the pinnacle of power and wealth".

I agree that the genealogy in the article is suspect. The princess Gosheney referenced above, clearly real and important, does not appear in the article genealogy at all. This should be removed if not better sourced. SpinningSpark 22:42, 21 October 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) 11:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drywall (musical project)[edit]

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

Tried to find WP:RS for refs, found none (just Amazon and other music retailers catalogs). Seems to fail WP:N. Linked pages are all from infoboxes from other Stan Ridgway projects. Maybe a merge makes more sense? I'm not so regular around here. CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hows it going man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nl (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Stan Ridgway; not independently notable, and no sources offered nor available. Or simply "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N, as per several source searches. Also, the Stan Ridgway article already has some information about this project. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 11 October 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) 11:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connected Vehicle Technology[edit]

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

This is a would-be-expired PROD that was twice contested by socks of the blocked author of the article (without explanation and by two accounts whose respective only edits were to contest the PROD). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asarudeenm91. The original PROD reason was: Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Created for promotional purposes. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asarudeenm91/Archive and User_talk:Meatsgains#.5B.5BConnected_Vehicle_Technology.5D.5D. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unintelligible attempt to promote some product. E Eng 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the extra captial letters give it away: that is Marketese, not English. And not even good Marketing Speak either. W Nowicki (talk) 17:50, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring romances of significant age disparity[edit]

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

Listcruft. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Natg 19 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like a lot of original research is needed to put all these films together in one list, or even to say what is a significant age disparity...which of course could be different in different times and places. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too hazy a criterion. Everything from Bull Durham (seriously?) to Harold and Maude is included. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with the others. The definition of "significant" will differ depending on a lot of factors that include time period, country, and culture, so there's really no good way to clearly define this in a way that would satisfy Wikipedia. I do think that there might be some worth in having an article about films with age disparities between their leads, but it'd have to be approached very carefully. This just isn't that. I have no problem with someone wanting to userfy this content, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR with unclear criteria for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and per WP:LISTCRITERIA for ambiguous and subjective selection criteria. Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 11 October 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Falterman[edit]

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

He seems to have been just a guy promoting his own travel blog. No independent coverage of him except of when he killed himself attempting a plane stunt. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic death, but just not in any way notable. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 13 October 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) 14:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Ting Radio[edit]

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject is not covered in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet radio stations do not get an automatic WP:NMEDIA pass just because they exist — they get articles only if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG. But all of the "sources" here are the station's own self-published primary source content about itself, with no evidence shown of any attention in independent third party media. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform or a webstreaming directory. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 12 October 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 procedural close. Article was speedy deleted, rendering this discussion moot. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacroGeo[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this independent research provider. The article was deprodded by its creator William MI6. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 13:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - apart from the blatantly promotional nature of the text (it's straight from their web page), I'm unconvinced by the sources I could find - there's coverage in what appear to be decent RSes, e.g. [36][37][38], but it's reporting on just the publicity announcement just two weeks ago and are very crystal-ball. WP:TOOSOON I think. If kept, this would be a paragraph announcing its recent founding and the principals - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Subject lacks coverage in RS and appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 16:53, 4 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine (EP)[edit]

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

I cannot see that this recording is in any way notable. I originally redirected to the artist, but have been reverted twice, without any satisfactory reason, So, here we are at AfD TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minor national chart entry. Article is a breathless hagiography, but it has the chart entry and it has (fluff) coverage, so here we are ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I guess the chart entry (added since I nominated) means this gets over WP's pathetically low bar for pop trivia. Article needs a really severe haircut.TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do feel free to take an axe to it though ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but since it's almost all fluff the haircut turned into a scalping.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Cheung[edit]

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

The firm isn't notable and neither is he. Part of a promotional campaign for a number of inter-related articles see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99.co. Trivial awards, and the res are promotional notices about them. DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the listed sources are unconvincing, and I couldn't find anything more convincing in a basic BEFORE - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also opined for Delete at the other article, and I would've also nominated this had I noticed it existed, because, like with the company, the sources and information sinply empathize what they want to advertise about themselves, and it's clear simply by the contents and environment of them, thst it was simply churnalism news, not substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is part of an extensive promotional campaign. The sources are thin, they usually quote the person or talk about the company. I prefer solid coverage about the subject and this is missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, DGG, SwisterTwister I have reason to believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshni Mahtani is also part of this same series. The article subjects are closely related, and the article seems to have been created by someone affiliated (similar writing style and some offline knowledge as well). It seems there are more entries here though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm (Malagasy band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NBAND: Due-diligent BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 13:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no indication of notability. My PROD was contested on the grounds of a systemic bias concern (which I recognize as noble), but sometimes a subject just won't make it. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article not sourced. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:06, 4 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Oarhe[edit]

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

this subject fails WP:BASIC and generally WP:GNG; as no in-depth coverage could be found about the subject, except passing mentions from primary sources —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article failed WP:GNG, References are not reliable, I think the article was not properly constructed to meet wikipedia criteria before moving to main space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzy4 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. South Nashua (talk) 01:54, 6 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Overacker[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:BASIC notability. The cited sources range from unreliable to trivial mentions. - Mr X 12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. A search for more references comes up with little. IMDB mentions he had a number of minor credits XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 19:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 9 October 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. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Johnson[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant figure within the Assembly of God, the leading figure in that large and growing Church in New Zealand in the 1970s, and probably also in Australia and other surrounding areas no.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He looks like a significant figure in the AoG movement in New Zealand and Australia. Unfortunately, I could not investigate the Living Word Foundation website, as it was apparently down when I tried. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 10 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebridge School of Arts and Communication[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company and fails GNG / ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this company passes WP:COMPANY Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and article reads like an advertisement. Anup [Talk] 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 October 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 redirect to Mughal-e-Azam. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal E Azam (Musical)[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Merge: Meets GNG. Sources: Times of India, India West, Indian Express, United News of India, News Kerala, Economic Times, Hindustan Times, Huff Post India, Can India News, Big News Network. These are all what I was able to find. I doubt if nominator performed WP:BEFORE in present case. Anup [Talk] 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughal-e-Azam. This is basically a theatre adaptation of the film (which itself is an adaptation of the play but we don't have an article on the play). Sources exist, but this can easily be covered in the article on the film. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge appears to be a better option. Just noticed, this article is created under another title, Mughal E Azam Play (turned it into a redirect). Looks like it is a part of some kind of promotional campaign by organizers of the play which is scheduled to premiere on 21 Oct. Anup [Talk] 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to merge, as the sources are only listed at this AfD and not in the article. Anything anything useful could be picked up from the article history. As part of a WP:PROMO campaign, it's best redirected (vs a merge) since we don't know who / when will actually merge this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recommendation to make on this article, but it is quite irrelevant to AFD whether or not the sources are actually in the article. They still confer notability (or not) to the same degree. SpinningSpark 23:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per K.e.coffman for now. NCPA and Sharpoorji Pallonji involvement are promising, but to me, the article doesn't justify its notability as is. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:50, 17 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AyyappaBhagavatam[edit]

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

Found this article while rolling through the underlinked backlog.

This is an entirely unsourced three-sentence article about a 20th-century "holy book" of a Hindu off-shoot sect, I think? A search for the stated author turns up very few Google hits with nothing reliable. The book is supposedly about the Hindu deity Ayyappan, whose article notably does not link back to this one.

I was initially hesitant to bring this to AfD because of the obvious systemic bias concerns -- especially because I assume the article subject will have most of its references in a non-Latin alphabet which complicates searches. But this article has no references and none are readily found (at least by me) after a search. I suspect this is a pamphlet by a non-notable sect. A Train^talk 10:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: the only source I was able to find is this one. To me, it appears to be failing WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AyyappaBhagavatam is a new philosophy? I am hearing first time, no reliable sources. Jessie1979 (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Topic under discussion is a book dedicated to Ayyappan (related to world's oldest religion). Anup [Talk] 13:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a redirect to Ayyappan or Sabarimala doesn't quite seem right, and there isn't really anything here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:01, 17 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whoppers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. No independent or reliable sourcing. Little nontrivial biographical content, Survived prior AFD based on remarkably lax, long-deprecated version of PORNBIO. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails the notability criteria. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of her past extreme surgical "enhancements", there are many passing mentions of her in books and magazines of dubious reliability published a decade or so ago. But these do not include significant biographical coverage of her as a human being, but rather brief mentions of her radically modified body. She is not a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable porno actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 9 October 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 merge to Victoria School. Pinging Lemongirl942 since they have it on their to-do list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Scout Group[edit]

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

notability tagged for 5 years, Scouting WPMOS does not support articles on individual units unless they are tremendously notable. Personal note, this is a beautifully-done article and a shame to lose the information, if it can be sifted for info to put in the Singapore Scout Association, that would be great, but a flat-out merge is impossible due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support a selective merge and redirect to Victoria School, per Lemongirl942--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kintetsubuffalo. It is a nice article, but notability is not demonstrated. It should certainly be moved to the Scout Wiki, but I am not sure how active that is these days. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about a selective merge and redirect to Victoria School. A flat out merge isn't required considering that a lot of the information (like recent achievements) is pretty routine. I can volunteer to do the selective merge. (Please ping me in case I miss this later) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:-If you're willing, I support a selective merge and redirect to Victoria School, and thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:-Don't You (Forget About Me)! :) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kintetsubuffalo. Thanks for pinging me! I almost forgot. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Victoria School This will be a very selective merge as above. I will do it soon and I've added it to my to do list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yōko Honna[edit]

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

Little to no inline citations, lack of major news coverage, and a lack of notable roles to display the subject's notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only see one extremely strong notabie role as Nagisa / Cure Black in the Pretty Cure franchise. In the first Pretty Cure! series, there are only two magical girls, Cure White and Cure Black. She's Cure Black. She reprises her role in films and all the All Stars films and specials. She is also the main character Ange in Koi suru Tenshi Angelique but it isn't as notable. In Mobile Suit Gundam 00 she voices Sumeragi Lee Noriega who's a major character. She voices Anri Yoshino in Sakura Wars: New York who looks to be supporting.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to argue that this still isn't enough for Yoko to warrant her own article. If anything, her page should probably be redirected to Cure Black, given that it's her most notable role. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources [39][40] give information about her life, and talk about her pregnancy. She also appears to have had a presence (I don't know how big) in the magazine Famitsu (February 21, 2013 issue). There is too much to indicate notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't sure of the subject's presence in the Famitsu magazine, you said. So I don't think you could use this as a valid point for this debate. Regardless of how many news articles you could find, the subject is only really notable for Nagisa in the original Precure, so I think her page should either be deleted or redirected to the Precure page. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple independent sources are giving details about her life then she would pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, more than enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. Redirecting to a single series is a ridiculous suggestion. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not ridiculous. I still stand by my claim that the subject is only clearly notable as Natalie in the original Precure series. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG met. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have no choice but to withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:15, 8 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Nomura[edit]

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

One insignificant source was used (World Cat), otherwise there are no secondary sources. No significant roles done by this non-notable voice actor, and neither are there any news coverage or strong significant sources. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 274 roles in VADB [41] and not on obscure things like adult visual novels. Starring roles as Mitsunori Kugayama in Genshiken, Chairman Harabote in Kinnikuman: Ultimate Muscle, Lorenzo in Ristorante Paradiso, Gilles de Rais in Drifters. He's also in a bunch of supporting roles for shows Battle Spirits, First Love Limited, Jormungand, Kanokon, Valkyria Chronicles, Yes PreCure5, and Yu-Gi-Oh1 5D. A bunch of villains for One Piece. [42] Reason I listed as weak is that yes, there's not much in secondary interviews unless you dig into a bunch of the Japanese articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All starring roles are from niche, non-notable anime. The number of roles Kenji did is irrelevant; I still fail to see in what way he is known and notable for. Again, even with your claim regarding existing interviews, I don't see them on the article. Non-notable actors do not deserve their own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genshiken, Kinnikuman, Battle Spirits, Yes! PreCure, Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D and One Piece are not niche anime. Drifters and Ristorante, yes. Please also see WP:NEXIST Not all sources have to be immediately cited in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like with Omi's page, I'll step back a little bit - list all of Kenji's role in this format, then I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not list them in the infobox. They are not extremely tied to the voice actor as with Pikachu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I need the input of other members as well. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets NACTOR 1 as well as NACTOR 3 (prolific, anime) The Steve 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one looks like it passes our WP:GNG criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 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 on CSD-G4 grounds by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Sean Patrick Evans (performer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources, does not appear to meet any of the special criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. McGeddon (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blpprod removed as ineligible - presumably because the editor thought that self created websites at wix.com and webs.com qualify as a WP:reliable source. noq (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's because "the editor" has read and understood Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, which states "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". The article already contained a supporting source, and was thus ineligible. Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article fails WP:BIO. Note that several of the references in the article do not even mention the subject. A Train^talk 10:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with A Train, five of the seven current references don't mention him at all. XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4: careless of me to have missed this when nominating, but this was already AfD'd last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Patrick Evans and Sean Patrick Evans salted, hence the redundant disambiguation term. Have now flagged it as such. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 10 October 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. Per the claims of notability expressed later and not contested. Autobiography concerns can be addressed via the usual methods. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsita Pati[edit]

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

This promotional autobiography has a few sources, but does not really establish notability, and has tone issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Sources are cited in the article. @Robert McClenon: I guess, your concerns has been addressed. Although it initially gave an impression of autobio, I'm inclined to believe that is not the case. It seems like a fan created this page ([43], [44], [45], one can find more such instances here). Anup [Talk] 15:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It either is an autobiography, or someone is using the subject's name. (It is surprisingly common for a new editor to use the name of a real person because they conflate an article name with a user name.) The only real question is whether general notability guidelines are met. If the community thinks that they are met, we can keep. Not all autobiographies have to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In fact, the user name has been challenged as that of a real person. If the user is Ipsita Pati, then it is an autobiography, and there is nothing wrong with her name, only with the conflict of interest. If the user is someone else, then it isn't an autobiography, but they have to change their user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that username-violation message. Looking at the spamming of comments on subject's facebook page, I'm pretty much convinced that it is someone else. I will wait for community consensus, I just thought may be your concerns has been addressed and you will think of withdraw. It is all right if you want more opinions on this nomination. Anup [Talk] 15:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not planning to withdraw this one. The fact that I think it is an autobiography is secondary. I have notability and tone concerns. I understand that consensus will be against me. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a well-sourced article with good depth of coverage; note the profile about the subject in The Hindu and the subject's prominent role in a newsworthy incident. A Train^talk 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure where the tone issues are in the article, so I assume someone cleaned them up already. I agree that the article passes GNG with multiple RS over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davis (Selmer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Main source is a book by his daughter, Josephine. 1st and 2nd AfDs closed as no consensus only due to lack of responses. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show he passes notability guidelines. Article too heavily relies on sources produced by him, family members, or companies closely associated with him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The era he performed in was extremely important; however, as already stated, there just is no independent coverage to show how significant the subject was to the music of the time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 7 October 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. NOT NEWS and NOT ADVOCACY DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Arts Collective[edit]

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

It's only notability is for the single event, the lawsuit. No indication of any notice outside of Boise for anything else. Fails WP:CORP, primarily due to WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation would disagree. Furthermore, the VaC is an important regional artistic hub which has become an unusual federal free speech litigant (which is in and of itself notable). As per its cultural and artistic merits, I have cited the article accordingly. And litigation aside, the VaC is much more prominent locally than Surel's Place, which is Idaho's only artist-in-residence program. Inasmuch as Surel's Place has remained notable enough for Wikipedia, the VaC is more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the federal litigation has only just begun. Alone or in the aggregate, given all of these factors, the article manifestly has an enduring notability. kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Little depth of coverage in secondary sources, except for the two sources cited in the article, which are thin articles in local media. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local media, schmedia. Boise has all the amenities of a much larger city, albeit on a more human scale, inasmuch as it is the only Metropolitan statistical area for hundreds of miles (Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN being the other conurbations). Our media market is such that we are it by default. That said, the VaC's federal lawsuit has received coverage in arts reportage, e.g. at ArtNet News. kencf0618 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note here, as a post script, that Surel's Place has survived its second nomination for deletion. kencf0618 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a post script. Then again, Surel's Place had no free speech litigation. kencf0618 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe an Afd nominator has the right to collapse opposer's comments as "irrelevant," even if they are judged by him to be off-topic What's more this template is generally reserved for long digressions -- that is not the case here. I've applied a nowiki tag to reverse this refactoring of comments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as you have objected, I have no problem removing the hat. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The VaC has won its free speech lawsuit, a very important case for symbolic speech and artistic expression in Idaho. Full accounts on the article's talk page, but here's the first citation: http://www.clearwatertribune.com/news/online_only_news/artists-win-lawsuit-against-idaho-alcohol-laws/article_140f2f8c-85c2-11e6-b94d-93ca92719eb7.html

kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another citation: http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article104747276.html

kencf0618 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting the two citations immediately above, please make note of the nearly identical verbiage in them. That's a pretty solid indication they were written off press releases and hence not truly the independent sourcing required to show notability. I also object to the article's creator's repeated use of the description "won" in regard to the lawsuit. It was settled out of court. That is not winning a lawsuit. Nothing whatsoever was adjudicated. Further the fact that the entire incident lasted all of 10 days and the only coverage of it outside Boise was more of the press release stuff shown above, puts the whole thing squarely in WP:NOTNEWS. That's an arguement best made on the article's talk page I know and if the article survives, I'll make it there. John from Idegon (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Idaho State Police have a news release on this matter. It pertains to the enforcement of the law according to the Constitution of the State of Idaho, having had worked with the VaC ACLU attorneys in conjunction with the Idaho Attorney General's Office. The cops themselves say that are committed to "We are committed to working with the Idaho Legislature to correct any deficiencies in Idaho Code, so we can effectively uphold the Idaho Constitution and related codes." https://isp.idaho.gov/massMailer-web/loadNewsRelease.action?domain=opr&newsReleaseId=8071

The permanent injunction was issued, not ten days, but two weeks after the lawsuit was filed. The ACLU attorneys involved believe that this permanent injunction may be a first in Idaho legal history -in any case none of them could recall this ever having happened before. Ever. Too, the sheer speed of the court order of the permanent injunction is in and of itself notable. The permanent injunction was a court order; I believe that is adjudication. Correct if I'm wrong. (The lawsuit itself, according to all parties involved, is in hiatus, pending legislative action in 2017.)

As to my usage of "won," it is a de facto matter, particularly given the constitutional, artistic, and law enforcement context. The VaC was operating under severe unconstitutional constraints from May until September; it no longer does so. The Alley Repertory Theatre may now perform The Totalitarians without concern about the hernia examination scene; Let's Do The Time Warp Again from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1977) may now be performed (simulation of sex act though it may be); underboob may be shown and liquor served.

Not only is the VaC a mainstay of the Boise artistic community, it has become the locus of an important constitutional, law enforcement, and artistic matter to which certain other states shall pay heed. So no small matter. kencf0618 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the settlement affects artists throughout Idaho, not just those who perform at the VaC.

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/spotlight-idaho-state-police-settle-lawsuit-will-stop-enforcing-liquor-law-tied-indecency

kencf0618 (talk)

It has bearing on local ordinances too.

http://www.idahopress.com/news/local/state-settles-alcohol-lawsuit/article_9661bd51-0ff4-56f2-b83b-1b3ab8035106.html

kencf0618 (talk)

Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Every single source (and all of them local at that) seems to mention it in context of an event about falling afoul of some liquor laws. There is no independent indept coverage of the gallery beyond this single event. In addition, art galleries need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH which is not happening here. There needs to be in-depth secondary sources which are independent of the gallery itself. It is also problematic to use local media in these cases (WP:AUD applies) as they tend to disproportionately report on incidents of local interest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratan Rabari[edit]

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

This appears to be a fake page that doesn't actually have any substance to it. The imdb link is dead, and the talk page is pretty much someone begging for it not to be deleted. Snorlaxative (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any evidence that this passes any categories of WP:GNG? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 09:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a likely hoax. Absolutely nothing out there about this so-called actor. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax? If not, not notable. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, this article has virtually no chance of being genuine as far I can see, so I've speedy tagged it as a hoax. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 15:15, 4 October 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Langrial clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even discounting the usual unreliable Raj sources, the mirrors and unreliable modern sources such as B. S. Nijjar and S. N. Sadasivan, there appear to be quite a lot of references. Alas, they're mostly GBooks snippet views here but, for example, passing mention, Christophe Jaffrelot, someone who may or may not be reliable, Beckerlegge. These sources are all suggesting that the Langrial are a "dominant" tribe in their region etc, so I suspect there is more information out there. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 4 October 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khatarmal[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 4 October 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khar clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 4 October 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. Per the sources cited by Alsee, which have gone uncontested for almost a week. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hawkins (musician)[edit]

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

Declined speedy - makes a claim to notability. Sources appear flimsy but may well have enough to pass AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like that I could use help with improving this article and making it more notable. Could you guys help out please? Thank you.@Alsee:@Ss112:@Earflaps:@Infopage100:@Jax 0677: - XPanettaa (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@XPanettaa It's a bad idea to call selected editors to a deletion discussion (or an RFC). This can look like a WP:CANVASSing attempt to bias the outcome. When the discussion is closed, votes by canvassed persons may be evaluated extremely skeptically, or may disregarded completely. Also we can't "make it more notable". Something is Notable if Reliable Sources have written about it. Either the sources exists, or they don't. We find Reliable Sources to show that it was Notable. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Either keep, or redirect to Armada_Music#Signed artists, his new record label. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I meant to say, redirect WITH HISTORY. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that this article has quite the potential to be a highly notable effort. Considering the fact that Mike Hawkins the DJ has been in business for nearly ten years, there's probably a lot to write about concerning him. It takes time to build a masterpiece, and sometimes it takes more people to help fully develop it. "Mike Hawkins (musician)" is that masterpiece; all it really needs is faith and obviously, time. So put forth the page with enough faith and time, and it surely will be completed. In my opinion, deleting this page would merely be the same as aborting a not fully developed, beautiful work of art by an artist, all because of the art's status at the current time. Just like the artist needs more time to perfect what he invisioned, us Wikipedians need more time to do the same as well. So in culmination to my argument, I declare this page's notability as "great," and I ultimately say, "yes" to keeping this article alive.

Infopage100 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Infopage100:, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:RS. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "Background" section to this article, in which case Infopage100 should add information about this artist. XPanettaa (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was effectively canvassed here, but that doesn't matter because I've got sources to cite. The first thing I did was go through all the sources in the article. I almost !voted delete because the article sources are either not Reliable, are of doubious Reliability, or are indiscriminate catalog listings. But then I did a search and came up with solid Reliable sources:
- Billboard_(magazine): here
- Vibe_(magazine): here
- DR_(broadcaster): (Denmark's national broadcasting corporation) here (in Danish)
- There is also minor coverage in multiple internet-music-news sites that may debatably pass as low end Reliable Sources. Plus whatever sources I missed. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in more detail later, but let me just note that the creator thinks that Beatport and Facebook are reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, there's canvassing here, which is not OK, and--this is important to note for the creator, XPanettaa--the sources provided with the article are unacceptable. However, Alsee did a nice job coming up with references that are more than just a mention of the subject, and the Billboard article, for instance, suggests that this is not just a flash in the pan. (Thank you.) So I'm going with keep and urge the other to look at the abovementioned sources again--Xpanettaa, please provide more better reliable sources, and base your articles on those sources, not on these terrible sources you routinely use in the articles you write. AfD is not for article improvement (well, it shouldn't be), and all this is just wasting time which wouldn't have been necessary if this had been done right from the get-go. Thank you also Black Kite for getting this show on the road. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 12 October 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaura clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 4 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyal[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: didn't find anything that would suggest WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya & WP:DIRECTORY. I would also possibly suggest a group AfD in the future for similar articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 10 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kang clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. There is another clan who shares the name and have decent coverage; that is the one Wikipedia should have an article about. Anup [Talk] 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya. I would also possibly suggest a group AfD in the future for similar articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 10 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhindsa[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya. I would also possibly suggest a group AfD in the future for similar articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 10 October 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. a strongly negative BLP like s needs much stronger sourcing i DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linjie Chou Zanadu[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Google search yielded the articles that were cited - but which appears to be all press releases with no basis in reality (Baron of Xanadu? Really?) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of public relations noise, no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have further improved the article with major controversies with reliable sources. The subject meets GNG criteria. Birikhani (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think these references makes him sufficiently notable, not even as a notable charlatan. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the person is notable and interesting even though controversial, but that's why it makes wiki also a interesting reference site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.252.138 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Xanadu? Charlatan, this person is indeed a character, the question is not the notability, looks like he got some reasonable coverages in the media. but the truth. Looks like this entry generate some heat from certain people. Being a charlatan or not is not up to any unsourced comments. But his controversial character can be more expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandradiliges (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as their are some credible sources such as this[46] which shows the subject is note worthy. Katnimara (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is some kind of a hoax and there is no indication that the subject exists. How can I ever believe stuff like this and this? This article actually questions the credibility of the subject itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously unable to find anything here. Hoax or not, the subject is clearly not notable. I do not have enough reliable sources to verify the information, so this is a delete per WP:DEL7 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Lemongirl942 - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per good sources. per WP:GNG. also per improvements since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "good sources"? We require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. All I see are press releases and one tabloid report. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being hoax doesn't affect the notability, enough sources have been provided. The two main attackers all sound Chinese, I wonder why Zandradiliges (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

Yes it does. We only keep notable hoaxes and we require reliable sources. I don't see any. Also "sounding Chinese" has nothing to do with notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huffingtonpost, CBS news page, and major Icelandic papers, I don't see anywhere that the sources are not reliable!!!! Zandradiliges (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This editor's only edits are to this deletion discussion and (one) to the article in question. --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have tagged the page for speedy deletion under G3. JetBlacker (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC) JetBlacker is now blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. [reply]

And I have removed it because it was not a blatant hoax. This needs discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Biscuit Factory[edit]

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

Has only received local coverage of questionable independence and/or reliability, with one writer as a possible exception. —swpb^T 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What jumped out at me on this one was that it has been covered by the BBC. That alone is significant coverage by an independent source, but there is a lot more. Some links to sources that appear to be reliable coverage and not just tourism sites. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC):[reply]
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/culture/2002/11/biscuit_factory.shtml BBC piece
- http://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/articles/newcastle-upon-tyne-s-10-best-contemporary-art-galleries/ Listed as one of the 10 best art galleries in the area
- http://narcmagazine.com/feature-the-biscuit-factory-and-the-art-retail-network-launch-new-app/ magazine article
- http://www.northeastlifemag.co.uk/out-about/newcastle_art_gallery_the_biscuit_factory_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary_1_1779964 magazine article
- http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/walk-through-biscuit-factory-whose-11007712 review of gallery
- http://www.livingnorth.com/northeast/food-drink/restaurant-review-artisan-biscuit-factory review of in-house restaurant
- Several of those sources are less than great in various fairly obvious respects:
  - http://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/articles/newcastle-upon-tyne-s-10-best-contemporary-art-galleries/ - user generated site
  - http://narcmagazine.com/feature-the-biscuit-factory-and-the-art-retail-network-launch-new-app/ - minor RS, not terrible for substance, but free sheet where editorial-advertising separation is thin or nonexistent
  - http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/walk-through-biscuit-factory-whose-11007712 - local paper, similar editorial separation considerations
  - http://www.livingnorth.com/northeast/food-drink/restaurant-review-artisan-biscuit-factory - review of in-house restaurant adds nothing to considerations of Wikipedia notability
- These two are pretty good:
  - http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/culture/2002/11/biscuit_factory.shtml - this is pretty good
  - http://www.northeastlifemag.co.uk/out-about/newcastle_art_gallery_the_biscuit_factory_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary_1_1779964 - this is pretty good
- But please don't just throw up a WP:REFBOMB of dubious links like this (and this is something you do far too often), that's two out of six that are apposite to the question - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I probably sorted through 50 or 60 hits to glean these. If you agree that at least two are sound by your standards, that's progress. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Unless evidence is produced to the contrary. I am disregarding these personal opinions by an editor about sources, unless evidence is provided to substantiate them: "editorial-advertising separation is thin or nonexistent" and "local paper, similar editorial separation considerations". Certainly, the Chronicle is a long established (1858) newspaper. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Chronicle. I have no connection with this article or its subject, but I do know of it. Just passing through wiki when I shouldn't have been... Sockforeditoronwikibreak (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just accessed ProQuest online newspaper database. There are 1223 results for the Biscuit Factory. I've looked quickly through the first 100, which are established city/regional papers of repute. Here is some material from three. Obviously it is an important regional centre and that should be adequate for notability.

The Biscuit Factory, the UK's largest arts, craft and design gallery, located in the Ouseburn Valley - Events co-ordinator gets her teeth into gallery, Evening Chronicle [Newcastle-upon-Tyne (UK)] 03 Dec 2015: 5.

Two leading North East arts venues have crystallised their new working relationship to raise the profile of glass-making in the region. The new partnership between National Glass Centre and Newcastle-based art gallery The Biscuit Factoryaims to support the work of local glass artists and champion the heritage of glass making in the region. ... The Biscuit Factory - the UK's largest art, craft and design gallery - exhibits a range of contemporary glass each season, including ... one of the world's most widely respected glass artists, Peter Layton. - Arts venue partnership is a real glass act, Sunderland Echo [Sunderland] 01 Oct 2015.

as one of the biggest commercial art galleries in the country, it opened in the same year as Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art and was an instant hit, adding to the cultural attractions in the nearby Ouseburn Valley. It used to be said that people disgruntled with the contemporary art on display in Gateshead would find solace at the gallery in Shieldfield. ... The happy truth is that they complement each other in a region where art galleries have never existed in abundance. ... The speciality of The Biscuit Factory is art that people would be able to accommodate in their homes - and would actually want to. - A few crumbs to tempt art lovers into Biscuit Factory, The Journal [Newcastle-upon-Tyne (UK)] 30 July 2015: 28.

Sockforeditoronwikibreak (talk) 15:12, 12 October 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) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky Southcoast[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability IagoQnsi (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the subject, a local radio show, meets the GNG. The sources given are either primary or a fleeting mention, and no kidding: any radio station with streaming capability has a "potential worldwide audience." Well, no kidding; I've had blogs on LiveJournal and Blogger going back 15 years or so, and I've got hits from the UK, Russia and Uruguay. Doesn't make ME notable. Ravenswing 03:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-station local radio programs don't pass WP:NMEDIA unless the sourcing is really solid, but of the three sources here two of them are primary sources and the third just glancingly namechecks the show's existence rather than being substantively about it. And Ravenswing is entirely correct that in 2016, when almost every radio station in existence has a live webstream and individual programs frequently get reupped as podcasts, almost every radio program that exists at all could self-promotionally claim to have a worldwide audience — so "worldwide audience because stream/podcast" isn't an inclusion freebie under WP:NMEDIA either, if reliable source coverage about the show isn't present to demonstrate that the program is actually getting any significant degree of international attention. So no, none of this is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 12 October 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) 10:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Stokes[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a person whose primary claim of notability is that he unsuccessfully ran for political office in 1977 against Harvey Milk, and thus appeared as a minor supporting character in the film Milk. Neither of these constitutes an automatic notability pass in and of itself, but the only sources here are the film's IMDb page confirming that his name appears in the character list, and an interview with him on a podcast. This is not the kind of reliable source coverage it takes to satisfy WP:GNG in the absence of any subject-specific notability claim. And even in EBSCO's "LGBT Life" database, where I'd expect a noteworthy gay activist to be sourceable out the yin-yang, I still can't find any real coverage of him besides glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of Milk. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 4 October 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) 10:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convertigo[edit]

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

Software company advert based solely on press-releases. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After research I could find no sources suggesting this company meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is an advertisement for a non-notable company. --damiens.rf 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This company has some coverage in french-language sources, for example:

La plate-forme de mashup de Convertigo désormais Open Source (The mashup platform Convertigo now open source) by Antoine Crochet on 06/12/11 in Le Journal du Net (JDN). Crochet is a staff writer[47] covering information technology for JDN since 2001.

but not yet seeing enough to pass WP:CORP. No prejudice against recreation if better sourcing, in any language, is found. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as this information itself is advertising by literally going to specifics about what the company has to advertise about itself, the history noticeable suggests advertising intentions and actions since not only was the one authoring account an advertising-only account, the ones that followed were also, therefore it suggests this was only ever actually planned as an advertisement and that alone, no matter what someone thought was acceptable by sheerly listing "sources and information". SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing to discuss or debate about this one. Complete non-sense. Light2021 (talk) 10:29, 11 October 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 redirect to Raja Bundela. Sandstein 11:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bundelkhand Congress[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable local party. Has not won any elections and the article itself claims "....failed to make an impact". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raja Bundela: The target article already has all contents of the article under discussion in their Political career section. There are some coverage of this party but they seem to arise from the fact that it was founded and headed by a notable person. Some coverage: Times of India, Times of India-2, Indian Express. (Notability is not inherited). Anup [Talk] 19:43, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Hall[edit]

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

A BLP that does not list reliable secondary sources. Does not meet PORNBIO and GNG; two awards listed are either scene related or not notable. No significant RS coverage can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all for the applicable notability and none of thid listed suggests otherwise what would actually be convincing, so there's then nothing to accept and substantiate. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial RS coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 9 October 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 redirect to Simple Plan (album). The parenthetical qualification makes it pretty unlikely somebody would stumble onto this by accident, so I'm going to respectfully disagree with Michig. A Train^talk 17:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What If (Simple Plan song)[edit]

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

No evidence of wp:Notability. None of the sources significantly covers the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. A song does not qualify for an article just because you can add one brief soundbite from the bandleader about what or who inspired it — the notability of a song is conferred by whether it meets certain specific markers of achievement, such as charting on an IFPI-certified national pop chart, and (even more importantly) the depth of the reliable sourcing that can be added to support that. But apart from the interview in which he gave the Heroes quote (and even that's in a blog, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source for NMUSIC claims), this is otherwise sourced to a band fansite, a user-generated directory to which anybody can add random and not-necessarily-sourced WP:TRIVIA about any song that exists, and a user-generated directory of song lyrics to which again anybody can add the lyrics of any song. And that's not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a song Wikipedia-notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and we shouldn't create redirects from titles that are unlikely to be entered in searches simply because someone previoulsy created an article with that title. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 11 October 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 Redirect to Sidecar (company). Michig (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jahan Khanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people). Johan Khanna was cofounder of a defunct competitor of Uber, serving as chief technical officer of SideCar. No WP:RS coverage found on Google beyond a few lines in a few articles covering SideCar, GM or Uber. Currently employed at Uber. Neonorange (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means please, everything listed is about the company (which is in fact notable) so there's certainly nothing actually substantial or convincing about the man himself. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sidecar (company) as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sidecar (company) to forestall recreation - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sidecar (company); not independently notable. Or Delete and then redirect name only. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 8 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiten Shah[edit]

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

Delete: Person not notable and fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I came across this article via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics and the founder appears to be even less notable than the company. No WP:SIGCOV can be found; mostly promotionalism and a vanity page, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman. This is an encyclopedia, not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both of the articles are the clear conceptions of PR advertising and the history logs show it also therefore the only solutions for this is deleting them and ensuring it stays at deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. K.e.coffman, that's where I noticed this article and immediately nominated this page for AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There hardly any independent coverage about him and notability cannot be inherited from the company. Even if there was coverage, this would be a BIO1E. But there is no independent coverage, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 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 Merge. Consensus is to merge, but specifically to merge Victa lawn mower to Victa. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victa[edit]

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

We have an article, Victa lawn mower. A COI editor recentrly started the article about the company which prodiced Victa lawn mower. The company is likely not notable, and currently there is only one reliable source in the article. Since everything happening on top of a redirect, with many reversals and recreations, we need to determine whether the article is notable. A redirect with a simultaneous protection is also a possible option. Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is all simply trivial and unconvincing PR information, none of it forms actual substance and certainly none of it substantiates a convincing article, and there's certainly not independent notability from the other article. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd argue that the existing lawn mower article be folded into a Victa article. I do think the company is a notable topic, given the signature product it produces. But as the current article stands, it requires more third party references. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ridiculously famous brand in Australia at least. I'd be surprised if we really had nothing to write an article from - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles to Victa As pointed out, Victa is a famous brand in Australia. Lawn mowers are the most well known product made by Victa - they even featured in the opening of the 2000 Olympic games - but the company has expanded its product line and continues to be a big seller. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Victa lawn mower into this title. There's a reasonable stub of an article there that talks as much about the company as the product. I think it's reasonable to have one article, written from neutral point of view, about the company and its products. (Given the relative condition of the articles, I'd favor a history merge to take place, since Victa lawn mower has an extensive history. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles to Victa Appears to be a notable brand. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to this title per above - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 5 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinita Kumar[edit]

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

Lacks *independent* sources that mention Vinita Kumar by name. : Noyster (talk), 06:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject non-notable. Fails NACTOR. Following is what I found on the citations provided;

This is YouTube video.
This is a Facebook page.
This is a hashtag search on Facebook.
This source does not even mention subject's name.
This source too does not mention subject's name.
This source also does not mention subject's name.
Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: seems like failing wp:bio and wp:gng. Anup [Talk] 18:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MetaMetrics[edit]

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

My extensive PROD quickly removed with the solely thin and unconvincing basis of source adding because my concerns were stalwart with the listed concerns and nothing else suggests this is an otherwise acceptable article, and that's because it's clearly an advertisement for the company and by said company, this has literally not changed and it's not expected to if it's a company-initiated advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete apart from the blatantly promotional tone of the article, all I'm finding in a basic BEFORE is press releases and corporate ownership coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete All in agreement with nom and David. Nothing to write about this organizations. Light2021 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 8 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IContact[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I honestly would've PRODed if not for the 2005 AfD which of course closed as Delete, since none of this actually substantiates and amounting to substance for an acceptable article, and it's certainly not something improvable since it's all PR-founded and that alone, every single source is PR itself and cannot be accepted as significant no matter what may be claimed, my own searches are blatantly finding next to nothing but a few PR pieces, which says enough by itself, and that's not surprising since this is a company which, not only restarted it after the eon-aged 2005 AfD (which was surprising itself considering it was 2005!) but it says it all the fact this company's environment is simply PR itself. It's also, yet enough and also worse to sa,y this was speedy tagged twice as G11 when it started in 2009 by a naturally unused account afterwards of course, but this has literally not changed which is also not surprising since company advertisements will not change! SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete bad sourcing, nothing convincing in a basic BEFORE - corporate ownership news, some PR-push churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- with sections such as "History" and "Awards", this is typical corporate spam. No value to the project and no indications of notability or significance. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing about the company which would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The 2 somewhat good sources are simply interviews of the founder [48],[49] which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. There's a plethora of mentions in PR and local business journals but nothing substantial. This company was later bought by Vocus btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld empire[edit]

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

Questionable whether this passes WP:GNG (and WP:NVG). There are a couple of reviews on some rather obscure app review sites,[50][51] but that's all I could find. No reviews on major sites, no awards, no assertion of notability in the article. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill iOS game. I'm not 100% sure what our standards are for such things, so interested in hearing others opinions. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and frankly this is an A7. A basic BEFORE shows passing mentions and that's it, not an RS to be found - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material. Unfortunately, an "unremarkable app" is not included in the CSD criteria so I cannot propose it for speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audicus[edit]

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

My extensive PROD was boldly removed with the thin basis of adding a source but my concerns were staunchly listed and clear in that, not only was this a company-initiated article, it contains anything and everything a company would want to say to advertise its company and, as we know, what the company wants and what an encyclopedia article should have never meet as they are entirely different states of mind and philosophies, and will never compromise because they are not easy matters and they never will be since advertising and non-PR are completely different. All sources are, of course, simply trivial and unconvincing PR and none of it comes to confidently substantiate convincing notability; I still confirm my PROD because they are genuine concerns and this should never have been accepted from AfC because of these advertising campaign concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete all coverage in soi-disant RSes appears to be part of promotional pushes (GNews also brings up the matching press releases). They work hard at promotion, but nobody seems to have actually found them newsworthy without the company pushing for coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete publicity puff piece for company, supported by nothing better than minor mentions. No hint of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but an advertisement with language such as: "...an e-commerce startup offering lower-priced, high-quality hearing aids by eliminating intermediaries". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 7 October 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. Despite concerns about the promotional intent of the article creator or their sources, consensus here is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, in terms of quality and quantity, to support an article about the company, and that problems with promotional content should therefore be addressed through editing. Sandstein 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squarespace[edit]

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

Entirely PR for a company that would of course be willing for PR itself since that's the environment it comes with, everything listed here is simply trivial and is not actually consisting of significant substance, all of the sources themselves listed simply list PR information and triviality such as the "hopeful companies to watch" and "best local companies of [this or that]" so none of it means anything but to advertise what the company is about and what its involvements are; my own searches are not finding better than the same essentials listed here which are listing what the company is about, its services and other information that is surely guaranteed to come from the information itself especially if it is close information about it such as what the business plans and activities are. I'll note the history logs themselves since this was in fact speedy deleted as it should have, regardless of the AfD since it was thin and unconvincing, especially coming from 2013 which was still rather questionable about substance and actually considering the consequences of such questionable articles like these, so technically, we have to renominate again considering that 2013 AfD. Something else I will note is the fact this has been restored, again enough times for noticing, but the company article has yet been touched by quickly-passing SPAs and IPs, nothing being changed of actual significance, and with what's listed, it's quite not surprising it would all be for PR campaigning; seriously, going to specifics about funding, clients, services and other company information is a flashy business listing and that alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Casalena. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fox News
CNBC
Wired
Fast Company
Squarespace 6 For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. 2013. ISBN 978-1-118-57543-7. 360 pages.
Building Business Websites with Squarespace 7. Packt Publishing. 2015. ISBN 978-1-78355-997-8. 392 pages.
The Huffington Post
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
New York Business Journal
VentureBeat
New York Observer
Tech Republic
New York Business Journal
Time
Mashable
Adweek
Adweek
Gazette Review
The Oregonian

Comment - All of these links shared the same things in common and that is that the sources are all filled with interviewed information, especially focusing with what the company wants to say about its company history, the blatant parts so far are "The domain names it wants to sell you!" and "The ads say follow your dreams, you should!" The absolutely blatant ones are "The goal of Squarespace is to empower anybody to be able to build, maintain and grow a beautiful, smartly-branded website. Prices start at $5 a month to maintain a simple cover page, an ecommerce page costs $26 a month to maintain and more complicated websites cost as much as $70 a month....Squarespace walks customers through every stage of the process from layout design to search optimization strategy, ecommerce features and post launch website analytics resources. In case the online instruction leave a customer feeling confused, however, live Squarespace support is available 24-7. To provide live support around the clock, Squarespace opened offices in Dublin, Ireland and Portland, Ore., in addition to the New York City headquarters. About two-thirds of the current employees at Squarespace are devoted to customer support....Growth at Squarespace hasn’t slowed. In 2015, revenues topped $100 million. There are 550 employees working at the private company....The success is nice, but Casalena only celebrates milestones because he knows it’s good for team moral. He’s already looking at where he wants to grow further. “Last year we crossed 1 million paid customers,” says Casalena. “Let’s celebrate. Goooooood. I am supposed to do that. But there is no reason that can’t be 10 million. There is no reason that can’t be 20 million, 30 million...." That's all that not only had he said himself, but then it's blatant advertising about what the company itself wants and hopes to achieve with the help of clients and investors, by showing them what and why the company offers. The article literally continues by consistently keeping close interviewed information and other advertised information about its business. The TechCrunch, which has become explosively PR-navigated, is simply stating trivial information about company activities and what has happened from those. The TIME article is literally simply focused with an advertisement the company, which is following along with what the other articles are insinuating and establishes with the contents. The TechRepublic, also a PR-minded and navigated website, is simply stating once again what the company would say (with the immediate "An interview with the...."), and there are no actual journalism efforts since everything was company-supplied. Some of them are quite notorious for paid-PR such as the BizJournals which are essentially no longer actually acceptable as they are simply repeating what the company says itself, it's one of the best and worst places for PR, it's the best because it's largely and frequently used for this, and the worst is that it's essentially showing that's the best attempts it can make, hence it's not actual news, and then because it's so obvious. Literally none of this actually came close at all for substance and non-PR, and that's not happening because of the sole basis of PR-minded and motivated efforts. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are some more sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think the company might actually be notable, but at this stage you're just doing linkdumps and ignoring the detailed response to your previous linkdump. Please go through that list of sources and tell us how it convinces you of the topic's notability and how it's an encyclopedic source rather than churnalism - that is, I'd like you do the same amount of work you're expecting of others. (Unless you don't ectually expect others to go through your links, of course, in which case please stop throwing up chaff.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "churnalism" doesn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia policy. It looks like it's just an excuse to dismiss any source that covers business and entrepreneurship, even if it's the New York Times (more Pulitzers won than any other news organization) or the Wall Street Journal (#1 newspaper in the US by circulation). Almost every company in Wikipedia is big enough to have a PR department, and when anything newsworthy happens, the PR department will put out a press release, because that's their job. The press release will talk about whatever facts are most likely to interest journalists, because that's the point of a press release, so it'll almost certainly overlap with article content. Virtually every story covering a company will use the company and/or its employees as sources - except in rare cases, where eg. the company is being sued and has to produce documents for discovery, where else would the press get its information from? Most stories covering a company, even very negative coverage, will quote the company's employees or spokespeople, because that's considered good journalistic practice. And of course, the spokespeople will try to make the company sound good, for obvious reasons. All this applies even when the reporter is very hostile to the company - look at., eg., the Wall Street Journal's expose of Theranos, and count how many times it quotes Theranos or its employees, or uses them as sources.

In scientific terms, the "churnalism hypothesis" appears to be unfalsifiable - it's defined in a way that would cover virtually all business news, so it's impossible to disprove. I'd suggest advocates of the term "churnalism" write an essay, maybe at WP:CHURNALISM, that clearly defines the term, and gives several examples of business news coverage that both is and is not "churnalism". That still wouldn't be Wikipedia policy, but at least it would be more than a cheap excuse to dismiss sources people don't like. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism is essentially advertising as churnalism's article will show so in the fact the sources clearly show it's simply for capital gains and that's why the coverage only includes what the company would want to say about itself, it is a known fact that the news media has changed significantly and articles now consist of simply republished company information and this is obvious when the journalist either never actually says anything or quite minimally. Simply stating one instance of a WallStreetJournal being "hostile" is not what applies to this specific article here, and nor should it be, since they are completely and are not similar in any forms or contents, the other matter is that there's no actual significant amount of such "hostile" coverage for this specific article here at AfD, and it's not surprising since it's still a fact it was a company PR campaign, and so that's naturally not going to happen, as they only want to advertise what they want to say. Stating that the company PR agents hand what interests the journalists is not actually so and that's because it would still only be PR, and the actual meaningful viewers are the news viewers so involving journalists is the same thing, and we all know and as AfD has established, these companies intently and staunchly out whatever they can to seek clients and investors, especially when they go to specified about the current ones they have or the company's own plans to seek said clients and investors. Simply stating that our analysis is nothing is not actually noticing and acknowledging the concerns mentioned here. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company passes WP:CORPDEPTH, as per the source examples I have provided above. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: Per a request for clarification herein, the sources I provided provide ample evidence of the company's notability. They all address the topic directly, provide a reasonable depth of coverage about various aspects of the company, and none provide trivial mentions. Sources that provide positive coverage about topics are not automatically "pr" as a default. Furthermore, the sources I provided are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - It means nothing to merely copyedit an advertisement and an advertisement solely existing for advertising, because the only expectations from that is that there are no benefits to thus encyclopedia, in fact it causes things worse, as it is the links above mean noting for actual substance, and they are not coming close to convincingly suggesting otherwise of my extensive analysis. The fact this is entirely focused with PR and then the fact this was clearly submitted as a PR campaign, that is something unacceptable and therefore not open to simply making cosmetic changes. Simply publishing the company's words and republishing it multiple times means nothing because it's actuslly emphasizing what the commentd say above, it's not significant, substantial or convincing and suggesting then otherwise is actually also emphasizing there's only exactly that. Once we become a PR web host by satisfying company and business choices and anticipations of hosting advertisements, we are damned for anything that is otherwise acceptable because of the damages caused by said PR articles. SwisterTwister talk 09:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your view, what sort of coverage of a business would qualify as not "advetising" or "PR"? Consider a company that we are absolutely 100% sure is notable, say Facebook or Twitter. Can you give examples of Facebook or Twitter coverage that you think is not "advertising" or "promotion"? If so, could you explain the specific differences between that coverage, and the coverage Northamerica1000 cited? If not, then it seems like any coverage of a company would be "advertising", in which case the term becomes meaningless. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional sources are written at company suggestion; actual journalism is not. I'm actually surprised you're confused about the difference - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 per above, still waiting for you to explain each of your claimed evidences of notability, rather than just linkdumping - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing what Facebook and Twitter has is not the same thing as this one comoany because if the sheer fact it's not only not established independently yet but thst it still needs to advertise their needs of having money and investors, that explains it all clearly, which then fuels the needs of attention with PR. SwisterTwister talk 15:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-known company whose coverage appears to unambiguously pass WP:CORP. I'm befuddled that anyone could read this article and find its tone promotional -- it seems blandly informative to me. A Train^talk 10:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet my concerns are still exact in that this article was part of a PR campaign as it is by not only the history but also the contents, my anaylsis has also included why and where the sourcing concerns exist. It is certainly not the same thing to merely state "there's available sources!" if they are simply republished company PR and not substantial news. SwisterTwister talk 15:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think I'm being flippant, @SwisterTwister:, but I'm a little concerned about you. Your posts lately are walls of text that make only the most tenuous sense. I sort of get the gist of what you're saying: that the articles used as sources only exist because of a PR effort on the part of the subject. This point is, to be very blunt, naive. Almost everything you read in any newspaper or magazine has been influenced in one way or another by PR. You can take it from me, because I work in the media business. What you're essentially asking for here is that we disregard WP:CORP and use our psychic powers to determine which sources have been tainted by PR. That's ludicrous. This article is about a well-known company (I take it you don't listen to many podcasts) and the references meet our standards for depth of coverage and reliability. A Train^talk 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost everything you read in any newspaper or magazine has been influenced in one way or another by PR." That does not oblige us to treat it as good sourcing for an encyclopedic article. Simple test: was the reporting due to a PR approach to the outlet, or was it due to the paper scenting news and investigating and reporting on it? You seem to be making out that the latter literally doesn't exist. Per the George Orwell quote: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." The first sort makes for RSes, the second sort makes for Wikipedia as advertorial.

Also, I strongly suggest you strike your personal attack, it really doesn't become an admin - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you think that I was making a personal attack and not a genuine assessment of SwisterTwister's quality of contributions, I invite you to scroll up. The first sentence of the AfD nomination is nigh-unintelligible. "Rambling" is a fair description, I think. It gets worse from there.

I have deleted dozens of advertorials and other PR fluff articles over the years. This is unequivocally not one of them. I would love for everything on Wikipedia to meet the standards of the Orwell you're quoting at me. The guideline for inclusion (today, at least) is not an Orwell quote: it is WP:CORP. This article meets the depth of coverage criterion of CORP and it meets the independent sources criterion. You are entirely welcome to keep supplying me with Orwell quotes, because I have a lot of time for you and a lot of time for Orwell, but in the matter of deleting this article he is not relevant. A Train^talk 18:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are assertions above that all of the coverage relating to this company is "blatant advertising" and "promotion", and that it does not represent "actual journalism" because it has been placed or paid for by PR agents working on behalf of the company. That seems an odd assertion given sources like this, which is entitled "Former Squarespace employee alleges ‘overt’ racism," and which contains extensive allegations about racism at the company. Unless a PR person for this company really went rogue, it seems highly unlikely, to say the least, that such an article would have been "placed" by the company. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NorthAmerica has done a good job of listing a sampling of the many reliable examples of significant coverage this company has received. Examples of coverage that show that this company meets our notability guidelines are in Fortune, Entrepreneur, The Atlantic, and and CNBC. These are bylined articles by professional journalists in reputable sources with editorial oversight. They provide more than trivial coverage, as they discuss the company's founding, history, operations, leadership, etc. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NA1000's list o' links. THIS for example is first class coverage on the website of The Oregonian, the biggest newspaper in Oregon. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Let it be known these sources have been listed as it is, the mere fact that The Oregonian is a major newspaper is not meaning anything if the article (which I had found myself while searching) is merely advertising how the company moved between masses of interviewed quotes from start to finish, and of course all listed only consists of company information and business plans (not independent or convincing), and clearly that's only to interest clients and investors. It is unfortunate is AfD beginning to become overpersonal with unnecessary attacks of not only users but analysis as it is, and that's not only choosing to not acknowledge and consider the concerns about this article, it's blowing it completely. Blatancies include: The Fortune article literally begins with the businessman himself talking which then goes from quotes, to his career life history to then his company plans, all of this information literally comes from him and only him, therefore it's not substantial, significant or convincing, and merely stating "It's a news source!" means nothing if the contents themselves are unconvincing. Take for example, "Customers are attracted by Squarespace’s ease of use. Its tools allow anyone to quickly build a professional-looking website, and there are no upfront costs. Customers pay between $8 and $30 a month to host their sites on Squarespace. “They have figured out a way to build professional, high-quality, beautiful websites that people are proud of and that customers really love,” Braccia says. “What used to cost $10,000, $20,000, or even $30,000, now for you can do for $20 a month....Not surprisingly, Squarespace is hardly alone in the business of helping customers build and host slick websites on the cheap. Competitors include various blogging and publishing platforms, as well as startups like Wix and Weebly, one of the hottest companies to come out of the Y Combinator incubator in Silicon Valley. “For any business, having a place on the web that defines who you are has become ever more important,” Braccia says. “The market is so large.” which are not only named mentions of other companies, but actually specifics about business numbers and "how to use the company", which again is surrounded by quotes and information by the man himself. The last paragraphs are split between quotes again, so there was literally no actual words aside from the man. The Atlantic only merely mentions the company 6 times, and the CNBC is simpy a financial listing about the company finances yet again so that's no actual substance and it's not surprising it's not since it's simply a fill-time-also-advertise "article", literally starting again with his career and life story about where he took the company and what his plans are, "Investors are paying attention. In April 2014, Squarespace announced it had raised a $40 million round of venture capital from the investment firm General Atlantic. That followed an earlier, Series A round in 2010, led by Index Ventures and Accel Partners, in which Squarespace raised $38.5 million. After introducing a modernized version called Squarespace 6 in July 2012 and adding e-commerce capabilities for users' sites in early 2013, Squarespace saw dramatic sales growth, according to Casalena" is another blatant and that's not saying everything considering the entire article is still far from independent, by consisting of literal quotes and self-supplied information. Therefore, saying that any analysis here is "rambling" is yet another attempt of not actually acknowledging the concerns here, and these listed sources exactly follow my nomination as it is when I said this article itself was only started as a PR campaign, and that's why the founder's own article was also started, since it was only ever actually contributed by quickly-coming-and-going accounts, never focusing with anything else but this. With the CNBC, note again one of his own quotes is bold and enlarged with color to emphasize the effects; after going through masses of interviewed quotes yet again, it finally ends with a "lessons list". As with these AfDs, it's one thing to simply list sources and say they come from here or there, but it's another to actually acknowledge the trivial and unconvincing parts lest the entire comment simply be taken as an attempt to cause a linkstorm without any actual analysis. We've been stormed enough as it is by blatant PR and advertising and this is yet another example, the fact these 2 articles came along with other similar advertisements at the time, so that says enough as it is; no mere claims of "but there's sources" compromises the staunchness of actually considering the damages this causes to not only articles, but the website itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the huge lists of sources discussed above in the existing keep !votes. Review of those lists show notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is a keeper. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ITSNOTABLE is not the same thing as an actually extensive comment, including both the genuine comments and then the concerns that affect the article, because simply restating the comments even after they have been analyzed, is basically ignoring the actual analysis and concerns listed here, every single said analysis and comment has been clear about this, especially if simply restating "it's significant and a news source" is not the same thing as actually going through it and weighing and comparing the concerns such as if it's a "freelance journalist"-supplied article, heavily focused with PR and company achievements, interviewed information, etc. none of that is substantial or independent, and we should not be mistaken to think otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 16:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is not being ignored, it is simply unconvincing and seems to show a bias that is inappropriate at AFD. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: still waiting to hear how "Former Squarespace employee alleges ‘overt’ racism" is advertising or PR. Not all coverage of businesses can be unilaterally dismissed as PR. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Webbys, Fortune listings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. even if there is a chance of notability, the inclusion of such absurd sources as a fox reprint of a PR release for entrepreneuyr.com shows promotional intent. The first thing to do with subject like this is to delete the promotional articles; then, if someone wants to make a proper article, it should be done from scratch instead of trying to help out the incompetent promotional editors who should't be here in the first place. Otherwise what lwe're doing is help those who want to corrupt WP for money. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flaws in content are an editing matter, we are here to discuss notability — which you well understand. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pick your favourite three to five sources from Northamerica1000's lists; there're plenty of independent, reliable sources thereon offering substantive coverage of the company, which is enough to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. As an aside, deleting and restarting this article due to the spectre of promotionalism strikes me as an exceedingly bureaucratic idea. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been analyzed noticeably above as it is, and if it wasn't for the fact this was clearly paid and influenced advertising as shown by the history and contributions, that therefore establishes a No-Compromising to any such suggestions of keeping otherwise lest we actually be damned as a PR webhost encyclopedia. As it is, I have noted above that the advertising-only accounts clearly only focused and came to contribute for both the company and businessman articles. For the sake of this encyclopedia, we can and have made any choices whatsoever to delete advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. With sections such as "Awards", "History" (which also includes an office locator: "Headquartered in New York City, the company also has offices in Portland, Oregon, and Dublin, Ireland"), "Funding", etc, this is a typical advertorial on an unremarkable company. Created by Special:Contributions/Pixelgirl_(usurped) with no other contributions so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. See WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the article would need to be reduced to a couple of paragraphs to trim it off intricate / promo detail, which would result in a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable company/product. If it was created (9 years ago!) by an editor with a COI (which is far from apparent looking at the article's original state), we shouldn't ignore all the edits since on that basis. The 'everything is PR' argument is getting out of hand at AfD, and perhaps those people who see PR everywhere should get consensus that coverage about companies in reliable sources should always be discounted because it's 'all obviously PR', rather than flooding AfD with dozens of nominations making the same argument that totally ignores the real world significance (i.e. notability) of said companies. --Michig (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletion arguments here seem to be more than willing to see their nose in the sink drain than let their face have the last laugh. Clearly notable company. Parabolist (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox Adding infobox for previous AfD identified in the nomination:

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Krystyn Heide

05:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Encyclopedic coverage of a porn actress is not pornography. Encyclopedic coverage of a for-profit is not advertising. Encyclopedic coverage of a church is not religion. Yet if readers find no content about nudity in a pornbio, and no commercial viability (advertising) in a for-profit article, and no religious viewpoint in a church article; we are not presenting a neutral point of view. I agree with Michig. Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 12 October 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 11:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Casalena[edit]

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

Certainly not convincing for independent notability since he's simply best known for the company itself, nothing actually insinuating and substantiating his own convincing article since everything is about the company itself, which is deletion material as it is since it's all PR, and that's exactly what could be called about this one since it's all simply fluff-and-puff. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squarespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Entrepreneur

Comment - The link above is also trivial and unconvincing as it's yet another subject-supplied interview and information about his career and the company's, none of it forms any confirmed substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being "best known for the company itself" does not affect notability. Sergey Brin, for example, is notable entirely because he is the co-founder and co-president of Google. If he hadn't started Google, or if Google had failed, he'd probably be an unknown programmer at Yahoo or Microsoft or something. Yet the Sergey Brin article is not only notable, but has official Good Article status, which means it's been confirmed as one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like with the Facebook and Twitter comparisons, this man is clearly not Serve Brin as this current article is not only filled with PR, the company itself uses PR, therefore it suggests the company simply wants to advertise itself, something that Google or its founder is not blatantly known for, but thid current article is, simply comparing this and hoping to find them the same thing is not conceivable at all. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious option is to consider merging to Squarespace, as Casalena is its founder. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is nothing actually substantial to merge since what's only in fact needed is his name, basically, listed there, because with anything else, it simply becomes a company business listing, and those concerns about it are emphasizes here as it is. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to consider redirecting to Squarespace as a valid search term, as Casalena is its founder. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Squarespace as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable businessman. I don't see a need for a redirect as the subject's name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has received 2,692 page views in the last 90 days, which serves to qualify a redirect, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also concur about having no redirect since, as it is, he's not notable apart from the company which is also currently at AfD, and then this article as well as the company article were items of clearly advertising contributions therefore we never compromise with matters like that. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ematic Solutions[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the basis of the TechinAsia article but that one is essentially simply a profile for the company and contains noticeable amounts of interviewed information from start to finish, from A to Z, and the article contains images that suggest this also, my PROD included searches that showed nothing suggesting better otherwise and this is another AfC submission that should not have been accepted considering these concerns and the fact the history suggests paid PR, something of which is not surprising since both the history and account are similar in showing no new activities, aside from heavily focusing with this one article. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom the sourcing is bad and unconvincing, and the article clearly a promo - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly "corporate spam" and client prospectus in the form of a Wikipedia article. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 5 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Serakides[edit]

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

Questionable for actual independent notability considering she has simply participated and competed at continental American pageants for her own country, it was not an otherwise major event and my own searches are not finding anything to suggest the needed substance, and these 2 events, as it is, simply both happened in the same year, there's apparently been nothing else since then. I'll also note that the GazetaOnline link is largely simply an interview and, of course, about the pageant events, none of it is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO biography; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 7 October 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) 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter protests at colleges and universities[edit]

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

Black Lives Matter is not mentioned as the source of protest in ANY of the attached citations. Just because African Americans protested does not mean it is linked to BLM. This article appears to be based on fiction. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my concern when PRODding this article: "non-notable collection or subcollection". Looking more closely now that there are refs ("uncited" was my other PROD basis), I also agree with the nom. Even more/worse than these entries belonging to a group that is not cited as a notable group (fork of some parent BLM-events page?), the entries are not supported as belonging to this group at all. DMacks (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beside being offensive, "they all look the same to me" is not a valid basis for a list. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said "they all look the same to me"?--150.216.119.104 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going by "WP is not news." A list of events seems to just be news. And putting them together just because the protesters were black and the protest happened on a college campus is original research.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Lives Matter#Timeline of notable events and demonstrations. WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of assorted WP:NOTNEWS incidents. Unencyclopedic. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:LISTCRUFT that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not every BLM protest at a school of higher learning is notable. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 7 October 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) 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ActivTrak[edit]

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

My PROD was removed with the sole basis that the WashingtonPost suggests notability yet I listed my concerns and my concerns were all listed extensively and clearly, my own searches had not found anything better and the coverage listed is still only either PR, trivial coverage or company-supplied information, this should have never actually been accepted at AfC since it had been deleted as G11 (regardless if it was restored because of a technicality with a user involved), because this was still not what we would expect as substance and I'm not finding anything else actually suggestive of better. Examined searches at NetworkWorld, Forbes (even then, this one has become quite noticeably PR-navigated as a "news" source") and NYTimes, found nothing. Once we become a PR webhost, given this article was started as a PR campaign, which is currently not uncommon at all, given what we've seen, we're damned as an encycopedia and simply a churnalism source as several news sources have become now, in exchange for capital gains and advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Stare at Facebook all day? Watch out: Your boss could be monitoring you". The Washington Post. February 20, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
Melendez, Steven (May 22, 2015). "The Office Is Watching You". Fast Company. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
Stella, Rick (February 28, 2015). "Keep tabs on who uses your personal computer with this simple guide". Digital Trends. Retrieved October 4, 2016.

Comment and analysis - I'll note both of these sources are included in the current article as it is, and they are both trivial since the first one simply mentions the company itself a few times, and then the second never actually means this company and instead simply focuses with the subject of surveillance security. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources both in article, proffered by Northamerica1000 and in a basic BEFORE are entirely unconvincing - apart from the churnalism, the passing category reviews are the best coverage, and I'm not convinced by a couple of category reviews - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable software package and a WP:PROMO article. This is a product brochure in the form of a WP article. No RS to establish notability can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 6 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Parks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article, written like a bio-blurb on a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable only for serving on a school board. First discussion was a decade ago, but WP:NPOL has been tightened up considerably since then and serving on a school board does not confer notability under the rules that pertain now -- and the discussion hinged a little too strongly on the idea that getting coverage in the local media somehow made him special, which is also an argument that consensus now deprecates in the case of local politicians (all school board trustees always get local coverage in their local media, but that's not enough to make them (inter)nationally notable.) And furthermore, this article doesn't actually cite any of the claimed coverage -- it parks (no pun intended) its sourcing on primary sources, and just links to offsite directories of media coverage rather than actually citing any, and even those directories primarily contain glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things rather than coverage that's substantively about him. This is not the type of sourcing, or the substance, that it takes to credibly claim that a school board trustee is more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a minor local politician, a far cry of passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. Nothing compelling here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 10 October 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 by Sphilbrick (G 7) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centres in Chatswood[edit]

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

Previously proposed for deletion for the reasons "too specific topic" and PROD removed by the creator without citing a reason. Nominating for deletion for the exact same reasons as this is a too specific topic that doesn't warrant a separate article nor passes WP:LISTN. List of shopping centres in Australia and Chatswood, New South Wales already adequately covers the content in the article. Also pertains to be a retail guide. Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree it is too specific. They can all be included in List of shopping centres in Australia, but every suburb shouldn't be getting their own list. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete we don't list for each suburb. list by city is fine. this can be covered in Chatswood, New South Wales as per nom. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A directory listing of shops for such a specific area is not what we want here. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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) 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On an island (book)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was This topic is not ready for main article space. It currently exists as a user space draft here, where the author can continue to develop it. As it stands, there is no indication that reliable sources have written about this e-book at all, so the topic fails notability guidelines. I performed a WP:BEFORE search and only found mentions of an unrelated book with the same title. Since the PROD, the only additional source found is a blog, which is not a reliable source. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brings up nothing that would establish notability for this book. WP:ITEXISTS, but existing does not give something notability and the only things I can find for this are primary. This is kind of why we need a speedy deletion criteria for books, as this is a self-published, non-notable work that would've qualified for A9 if it was a music album. I wish the author well, but this book just isn't notable at this point in time. His best bet would be to hit up the book blogs - those can't be used as sources, but they can help make it more likely that RS will take notice and cover the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 5 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Bollinger[edit]

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

This page was actually redirected out of existence on the grounds it lacked indepdent sources back in January 2015. The rediect was reversed on the grounds it had been done unilaterally, but no argument was put up that Legacypac was wrong in assessing the article. It basically consists primarily of sources about thinks like a speech at a local high school by Bollinger, not the stuff notability is made of. My google searches turned up some PR and YOuTube fluff about someone who may be this person, and I thought I had found something on her selling Christmas trees in Columbia, Missouri, but then I realized it was a different Tara Bollinger. I found nothing that was even close to enough to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri -related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one source, a free local magazine in a Dallas suburb where she apparently runs a non-profit organization "providing positive, character-building programs for middle and high school students" since 2008. There are a few other hits on this organization's website. That is not enough.MB 03:30, 4 October 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) 10:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EAST-NMR[edit]

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

This article about "a European Union research project" clearly fails WP:GNG. It has no references, and frankly, seems like some bureaucratic advert with no encyclopedic usefulness. Maybe part of the project money was spend on an intern who was told "and write this up on Wikipedia". This should have never been restored - or as soon as it was it should've speedied or taken here. That this spam survived four years in the mainspace... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like pure advertising. It was written by the manager of the project ([52]) and it reads so much like a promotional brochure that I would not be surprised if it is simply copied from one. There are no independent sources in the article that support the notability of this topic, but if this topic is judged to be notable I think WP:TNT would apply. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:39, 9 October 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) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Acharya[edit]

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

Article about a Nepal based music-video director who formerly served as a journalist. His works appears to be of no significant coverage on the web, the references on the article appears to be self-published and of no reliable value. 1, 2. Article fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:N. References given or found on the web fails WP:BLPSOURCES. Jim Carter 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. One primary sources and additional sources could not be considered reliable. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:08, 4 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pell (musician)[edit]

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

non-notable musician. Page appears to be a promotional vehicle. No mentions in any WP:RS that I could find. Just music blogs. Releases are on a non-notable indie label. Rockypedia (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pell is a global touring artist. He has performed at Lollapalooza, Reading + Leeds, Hangout, and other festivals. His videos have been featured on MTV, Fuse, etc. He has over 40 million streams on Spotify alone. He's a verified artist on all social platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyarcade (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those things qualify a subject for an article on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTE for the requirements, and more specifically, WP:NMUSIC Rockypedia (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several reliable secondary sources are cited in the article. Not just one-line mentions either. The article may need some cleanup, but the sources are there. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as also an actual advertisement, what's listed is nothing of actual convincing for independent notability and substance, and the listed sources also show this, therefore with both questionability of advertising and notability, delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In theory, he passes WP:MUSICBIO due to his national touring. However, there are many spots in the BLP article that are lacking decent sources for some of the claims and assertions. I trimmed the worst cruft. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Getting coverage by the likes of huffingtonpost.com and bestofneworleans.com as well as others makes him different than multiple other artists that have their pages justly deleted for lack of sourcing. I do see, though, that the article needs work and that he seems pretty close to the notability line in either direction. I feel like retaining this to work on it further. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:59, 21 October 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) 07:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Data Center Data Vault Layout[edit]

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

Article nominated for deletion because WP:NOTMANUAL (and frankly I don't see how that could be changed/improved in this case). Noggo (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom what the - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes, please. Even has basic English issues, such as what kind of data is "mini-data"? The opposite of big data? Quite sad. W Nowicki (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Badly written product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 6 October 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. Note that the nominator withdrew in their 6 October 2016 post herein, and no other users have opined for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lucas[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there aren't enough sources to sustain this BLP of a child actor--about half the content is unsourced, and the other half appear to come from trivial mentions (if they mention her at all? in two of four cases it's not clear) better covered in a sentence at the relevant film's page. My searches did not turn up anything more substantial. Meanwhile, I believe a nomination (rather than a win) at NYFCC isn't sufficient for NACTOR or ANYBIO. It seems to me the best solution is to delete and let any reader looking for one of her film appearances find them via mentions of the films themselves that the search engine will bring up (since it's not clear which film would be the obvious redirect target.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator As I continue to look at the entry, I still think it's a bit thin but it's no longer unreliable, and I do see the value in collecting together some information about the other parts she played after the holiday special series, now that they have been confirmed. Especially since it's been 10 days without anyone else evincing interest in deleting, I'm fine withdrawing rather than ask anyone to spend more time on it. If someone would close, I'd appreciate! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems she was the main role in a series of 4 nationally aired TV movies, back when there were only 3 national TV networks, so I find it hard to believe that doesn't meet WP:NACTOR #1: "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...". --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, because the Christmas movie was a series? I appreciate your point about the rather larger significance of network television at that point but I still don't think a series of specials is what NACTOR has in mind; that seems much more like one role in a television series than roles, plural. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or a different way to put it is: if we tried to split out the different installments of the Christmas series into separate WP entries, I think there's vanishingly little chance consensus would find them independently wikinotable, i.e. as more than one notable project to meet NACTOR requirement of multiple notable projects. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there were multiple films, and in those days, a TV movie on a network was notable. Therefore, significant roles in multiple notable films. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for clarifying--so which four films do you have in mind? I see the Christmas one as one for sure, but it's not so clear to me that there are three more that were notable and in which she had a "significant" role. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that those four should suffice. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha thanks for all the clarifications! A good-faith disagreement then, I just don't think they are independently wiki-notable. Would be open to seeing sourcing that might show they are; it just doesn't seem like a given to me, and my own searches didn't turn up much. I was searching w/regard to Lucas's name but it was really little more than TV listings, I'm doubtful there's sufficient coverage of the subsequent installments could substantiate them as independently notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can give a bit more evidence for my view that the TV movies are notable. First, the movies weren't made from the books. Arguably, the books were made from the movies; the books were specifically written to become the TV specials. [53] Second, they got individual coverage at the time of release; here are multiple non-trivial articles about "The Easter Promise" [54][55][56] Since it's the third of the four, I doubt it is somehow more notable than the second or the fourth; I think we just haven't found the similar news articles about them. But even if it is miraculously the only one, that makes the series sufficiently notable, along with the coverage that the first got. --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm hoping we'll have some more editors weigh in because I'm just not seeing that this is multiple roles plural in multiple independently notable projects. That said, in the meantime I've gone through and cut out a lot of the unsourced material, so at least we have less to worry about in terms of the entry being unreliable. Still, the continuing research I've done to try to ref up what was there just keeps confirming my impression that this is pretty thin--even when I can find archival mentions of her, they really are just mentions, one sentence devoted to her or not even a whole sentence, just her name in a list. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 4 October 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 Merge to Pigeon racing. Michig (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doping in pigeon racing[edit]

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

This article is too narrow of a subject and does not merit it's own article per WP:N. It should either be merged with Pigeon racing or deleted. The topic is not covered widely enough and fails most of WP:GNG. Some noteworthy points are expressed by VanceJohn in the articles talk page. NikolaiHo^Talk 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pigeon racing, which presently has no mention of doping in pigeon racing. This will improve the merge target article for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To pigeon racing. An article about animal doping in general, including pigeon racing, horse racing, equestrian, greyhound racing, etc. would be notable, but does not currently exist. If someone wants to create that article, I'd prefer a merge there instead. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 6 October 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 merge and redirect to List of suicides that have been attributed to bullying. A bare redirect is not enough as the subject is currently not mentioned in the target article. While no editor has explicitly requested the merging, I assume the merging is nevertheless implied by their arguments ("He can be included on the list", "The subject can be mentioned there"). (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 09:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayden Keenan Olson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The concerns still stay as they are exact and genuine because there is in fact nothing for actual independent notability and substance, and nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see below; Original comment: ~~Delete~~ per WP:BIO1E. The subject is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of suicides that have been attributed to bullying. He can be included on the list in that article, but no need for his own article. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of suicides that have been attributed to bullying makes sense. The subject can be mentioned there, but no need for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 14 October 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 Withdrawn. I apologize for not looking more closely for sources that verified content in the article already, but it is clear that this is notable and that much of it is verifiable in reliable sources. Everymorning (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cham calendar[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. The Cham people do seem to have a calendar, apparently best known for the Kate festival, [57] which is not mentioned in this article, but I couldn't find a reliable source that verifies anything actually in this article. E.g. I googled "Balan tha" -wikipedia and only got false positives, ditto with the alleged name of "Thanuchan". Everymorning (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a reference, I don't think it is a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author does not appear to be a hoaxer. Inactive now, so just delete all unref stuff. I did find more refs and added one. - üser:Altenmann >t 09:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and remove the hoax tag, but also remove the "characteristic" column of the table. The reference "The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art" is reliable and sources everything as far as I can tell except the month names and these strange statements about dragons. FalconK (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hoax tag. I'm not sure if I should have let someone else do it, but I felt it was time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:34, 5 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Sleep[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Safe to Sleep is the primary topic. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to delete this. Just redirect it to the primary topic; that would be OK with me. wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Safe to Sleep. Most printed material from before 2015 still refers to the SIDS campaign by this name. - CompliantDrone (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page view stats suggest there is no primary topic. Evidently the Chris Brown song was quite popular. older ≠ wiser 10:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a couple of minor entries. — Gorthian (talk) 06:07, 5 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elin Phillips[edit]

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

Non notable actress, All 3 cites in the article are dead and I can only find mentions on Google News, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails WP:NACTOR in all points very obviously. She had starred for one episode in two different TV series in 2009 and 2010 and thats basically it. There is one article about her on this in a local newspager for Wales (Wales online) which looked promising, but apparently her career never took off and she never landed anything notable after this. She also does not satisfy WP:GNG, as this article is also the only significant article on her in almost reliable sources, and this single article in a local newspaper/webpage certainly does not establish notabilty enough. She nowadays does theatre work, but other than some passing mentions of her in "casts" list there is nothing substantial there too to be found. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly nothing for what we would need as independent notability for an actor and then we have nothing else suggesting otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a weekly cited vanity page; nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 11 October 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Balder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article had been deleted previously in 2008 following an RfD. It was later restored and sent to review in 2010, at which point it was kept.

About a year ago, all articles related to Artur Balder were deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia, based on a RfD I started. The article on en.wiki persists, just as many other articles on various other projects, which were all created by a bunch of users likely related to the described person. See the deletion review, where the user (Lolox76) states he "work[s] for a production company based on New York City, and my purpose was to make it easy for wikipedist in relationship with the work that pulled together the documentary "Little Spain". Without this documentary, almost a century of Spanish American history in New York City would not be known".

However, as I pointed out on the es.wiki deletion request, the articles lack a neutral point of view, and verificability is also an issue as not everything which is published on the internet, specifically on local and regional news sources, can be trusted, and much is likely to have been manipulated or otherwise played to seem reliable. For instance, checking one of the older versions of the article seems to indicate he was German and that he was born in Munich, while it is now claimed he is Spanish-American despite only living in the US since 2008. This fact is referenced with up to three sources, of which none really give certainty of him being really American.

I believe all articles related to Artur Balder are biased, and have been written while in conflict of interest - while doing a great effort to make them look encyclopedic and neutral or are based on manipulation & deceit. To point to a specific instance where deceit plays a role, notice the third and fourth awards listed on his article. The "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been founded by Balder himself, though that little fact is ignored. The first prize, "International Prize for Contemporary Art from Mainz", is referenced using that same "news website", so by the autors own measurement, it's a reliable source. Note additionally that the prize granted by this "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been reported in quite a few regional news sources, such as the Valencian edition of elpais.com and the culture section of Europa Press.

The other awards, specifically those mentioned in the first line of the article, IMO do not grant him the notability they pretend - both the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics and the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors are both minor organisations with no significant relevance themselves.

The section #Art_documentaries mentions two documentaries filmed for the MoMA, though except the Spanish sources from Europa Press and some other regional Spanish press editions, I have not been able to verify the exact relation with MoMA and the truth behind this affirmation. Because of the obvious lack of verification of Europa Press with regard to the award-giving organisation (see §4), I have my doubts about the contrasting of the information. The site of Artur Balder's production company, Meatoacking Productions, mentions "The Associated Press at the MoMA premiere. Museum of Modern Art, NYC, May 2013.", linking to a photo in AP's photo database which, as AP states, has been "provided by Meatpacking Productions".

One of the reasons I pick this up now is because a Spanish court has ruled that Artur Balder has to compensate a journalist for defamation, amounting to 30.000€. This defamation also includes articles on Wikinews, where the user FiloActual, a confirmed sock of Lolox76, insinuated the journalist was corrupt. The Wikinews article was sourced on a press release of the site of the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics (curiously, their last press release) and on a news article published on alicantecultura.org. The latter site is registered with 007NAMES and hosted on dreamhost, coincidentally the same combination as arturbalder.com's official site, and a review of the official twitter account of that news source revealed that, at the time of the RfD on es.wiki, 107 of 284 tweets directly mentioned either Artur Balder or Joan Castejón. On top, FiloActual offered, in the discussion that emerged after the deletion of the Spanish Wikinews article, the following:

Será necesario escribir a los medios que estén publicando criticas negativas sobre el proyecto y mostrar que esto es independiente y que es "libre". Eliminando artículos de nivel periodístico y de claro interés periodístico solo estamos dándoles la razon. Propongo restaurar el artículo y enviar una misiva desde Wikinews inglés a AlicaneCultura.org para que reconsideren la eliminación de cualquier artículo negativo sobre Wikipedia. Miremos hacia el futuro en lugar de enquistarnos en el pasado. Condición indispensable restaurar el artículo y abandonar la paranoia balderiana, al contrario.
— Deletion discussion of "‎Condenada corresponsal de RTVE en EEUU por 'falsas acusaciones e insultos ofensivos'" on es.wikinews.

This briefly translates that he offers to contact news sources publishing negative articles about Wikipedia/Wikinews, specifically mentioning alicantecultura.org, under the condition that the article is undeleted and the "Balder paranoia" abandoned - a request that obviously was not granted.

This bias also affects, in my opinion:

Joan Castejón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Joan Castejón is an artist related to Balder in some way or other - Balder produced a documentary about him. This article lacks similar verificability and additionally seems to be an automatic translation. The first sentence of the second paragraph ("His work has been exhibited in some of the most important museums in Spain") is clearly deceitful - only one of the museums listed could be in any top ranking of museums in Spain, the Institut Valencià d'Art Modern. He was also awarded the Total art work prize by the aforementioned "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante". I do, however, have the impression that he is more notable than Balder himself.

Many other related articles have been affected and are partially or equally biased. For instance, this change on the article "Spanish Benevolent Society" (a society in what Balder claims used to be called "Little Spain", and which is the central point of his so-called documentary), claimed "spanishbenevolentsociety.org" is the official website of the center, though this website really seems to be about Artur Balders film, focussing on selling the DVD & sharing registrar and hoster with Balders official site. The listed official webpage of the club has since been changed to "lanacional.org".

In short, Artur Balder or someone with a strong conflict of interest has been abusing Wikipedia to create notability, based partly on truth (though unknown to what extent) and partly by deceit, abusing our projects and spamming this article across as many wikis as possible to pursue his agenda. Savh ^{tell me} 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Savh ^{tell me} 13:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Joan Castejón is also nominated for deletion within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 4 October 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 merge to Shelf (storage). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe shelving[edit]

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

Not specifically notable. Less than 300 google hits for "pipe Shelving" (if you follow the links rather than just take the initial number on the search - google does that). Nothing to distinguish it from "Shelves" noq (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelf (storage). Not a notable topic. Pipe shelving does not have significant coverage as an independent topic of shelving. Anything specific about shelving made from pipe can be covered in the existing short article Shelf (storage). MB 04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelf (storage). Nothing wrong with the topic, but for practical reasons readers would be better served with a section in the other article. If someone is looking for a "how to" that is outside of WP. Otherwise there is very little to say about the topic. It would be good to put it where people looking for info on shelf alternatives would see it. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:52, 4 October 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 vast majority of Wikipedia-policy based arguments here are in favour of keeping this article. Tokyogirl79 raises a number of valid points which are worth further discussion on the article's talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures for Sad Children[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The creator of the comic has asked that this page be removed. Forpfsc (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Forpfsc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Pictures for Sad Children

Snow Keep - This is a valid item for the encyclopedia and the rationale of author request seems to be an invalid deletion reason not based in policy. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The author has indicated that the comic archive will be posted if the page is deleted. By existing the page is actually limiting content and information. ^[4] Forpfsc (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Myers, John (30 July 2016). "Write-in legislative candidates win spots on the November ballot, in some cases with only a handful of votes". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
^ Smith, Dakota (1 September 2016). "Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian wins challenge over opponent's ballot designation". Los Angeles Daily News. LA Daily News. Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
^ Cadelago, Christopher (9 September 2016). "Did Mike Gatto recruit write-in challenger to Adrin Nazarian?". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
^ http://picturesforsadchildren.com/

That is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate to remain on wikipedia. The author can choose to do as they please but that decision will not impact the encyclopedia. Also, not that it matters but the domain has lapsed in the past and there is no way to verify it isn't a forged website or request just for the removal of content.-- Dane2007 ^talk 01:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of turning the "ref" link into a normal external link. Easier to follow and doesn't cause a malformed reflist at the bottom of this page. Hope that's okay. Yintan 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I turned it back into a ref. It's mentioned in more than one place and it is very hard to spot as a single number in square brackets. I moved the talk reflist to where the ref is first used so it won't keep getting moved. Meters (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are just kickstarter updates anyway. Regardless of the status of the archive returning, with the comic altogether gone from the internet, does the remaining coverage really demonstrate notability of a legacy? Parabolist (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was put best by Himynameishelen on the talk page: "Cleopatra isn't a queen any more; just because something no longer exists doesn't mean it ceases being notable." Notability is not temporary and enough of the sources remain intact to justify notability. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a break; this is no Cleopatra. Relaxing (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really is one event by a non-notable person.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the person is not in question; the notability of the web comic is what the page is about and what is up for deletion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article, and its sources, do not seem to assert the notability of the comic. They seem to be mainly about the unusual actions of the artist. "WP is not news."Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RECENT, WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual Relaxing (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted two essays and two policies. As deletion discussions are primarily focused around policy, I will note that the notability of the person (per your quotation of WP:BIO) is not the question, the page around their comic is. The notability of the comic is established by the reliable sources present in the article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article focuses on the author's actions in one particular matter, which was recentism then and not notable now. The focus on the author over the material brings the biographical nature into question. I challenge you to use the tools on this page to find evidence of the subject's notability. With a couple exceptions all you'll find are blog/news articles about the act in question dating from the time it occurred, and nothing since. This is not notability. Delete. Relaxing (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no real reason to remove it under the guidelines. Furthermore the deletion of the page could set a precedent for any artist to hold new (or in this case, not even new) works for "ransom" in exchange for removal of an (factually accurate) entry they just don't like.Kaitzi (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Kaitzi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. WP is capable of considering any and all deletion requests on their own merit. Relaxing (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope or no, there's still not a reason to delete the page, period.2601:40E:8002:1100:7C99:3EA4:DB79:BCA7 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for deletion within a mile of policy - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This comic was not notable while it was available online, and it is less notable now. NoThanks (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — NoThanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The comic has been referenced several times and continues to be brought up as recently as June 2016. A Google News search shows this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Google News search has one mention of the kickstarter campaign, from June 2016. The previous Google News results are also about the kickstarter campaign, one from June 2015 and several from February 2014. The only google news result not about the kickstarter appears to be from 2010, and is about an art show held by the author. There are no Google News results about the webcomic "Pictures for Sad Children." NoThanks (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Brought up', the Kickstarter gets referenced in clickbait. That's not notable, that's media companies profiteering off an individual's suffering. If that's the standard for a justifiable source then Wikipedia itself should be your own source text but it isn't, follow your own protocol. Delete. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This webcomic doesn't exist, there is no information beyond the (manifestly false) hearsay of a few gatekeepers. The name of the author is wrong. It's not notable insofar as it has zero manifest presence w/i the space of 'notability.' Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to provide a reliable source stating that the name of the author is wrong? -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide one indicating that it is not wrong? Their Twitter account has the bio line 'please don't refer to me as 'john campbell' thank you". This is obviously not the first time this has come up. There's no extant original source for the name 'John Campbell' and the only original source for anything in this article, the 'controversial' Kickstarter, itself has no remaining instance of the person themself using this name. The only conceivable purpose for retaining this name is to save face and authority and retroactively justify the sickening harassment of an individual who has made their wishes expressly known. WIkipeida's sanctimonious wielding of its own protocol as edict is transparent bullying-- no one can produce justification for the existence of the article beyond something someone said making some people upset. That's not 'notable', it's not anything.Delete this. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The source from "Slate" references the author as John Campbell as do most if not all of the other sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the source from 'Slate' nor any of the other sources can be considered an authority on an individual's current name in light of that individual making all apparent effort to dispense with that name. WP:BLPSELFPUB Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A reliable source must be cited for this claim - as anyone can register a Twitter account, we cannot confirm that or use it as a reliable source. As such, we will use the current reliable sources that state the authors name is John Campbell. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the account in question has been registered since 2009 and has consistently been used by the author of the comic in question. Anyone who is following the account started doing so because they intended to follow the person in question. In the question of a person's name their own self-assertion by a personal social media account should easily be taken as more reliable than old unsourced news posts, or at the absolute barest least should give adequate cause to strike the use of a proper name altogether. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm going to drop the stick on this matter as it's obvious we don't see eye to eye on what is required here. Our arguments will be judged by the closer and they can do as they see fit. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say The New Yorker is a pretty reliable source to show that, at the time of Pictures, the author went by the name of Campbell.[58] Yintan 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS The page primarily discusses the kickstarter rather than the webcomic itself, which was not notable. This is not appropriate content for an encyclopaedia but rather a gossip article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The author's 'ransom' is irrelevant: the page's content is the issue. Niamhdh (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Niamhdh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and possibly WP:SOAP aslamp (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not written in a news style nor is it written in a way that WP:SOAP would apply. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is absolutely written as an account of events that were current at the time. Relaxing (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have reliable citation for anything about the comic itself excepting that it existed (via the New Yorker article; the WCCA source is a dead link). The bulk of the article and sources are given to recounting only a single incident (WP:BLP1E) in the form of a timeline (WP:NOTNEWS) and describing the actions of a person who has not sought attention (WP:LPI) The final section on the website's 'Closure' is unsourced. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author has asked, on multiple accounts that have always belonged to them, that this page be removed. As someone who struggles with mental illness, listening to what people say will make their lives easier, no matter how odd the request may seem, is important to me. As others have pointed out, the majority of the article is focused on the kickstarter campaign and also deadnames the author. I hope others will listen and opt for respecting the author's wishes. Bottleofink (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to cite regarding the dead naming? As it turns out though, we don't remove content merely because an author requests to do so as that would jeopardize the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point's that the article's subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's own notability standards doesn't clear any burden of citation, traffics in gossip and hearsay and willfully and defiantly maintains biographical data that's untrue, such that the purpose of the article can only be construed as to abet ongoing harassment and character assassination of an individual who's repeatedly asked that it stop. How's that square with 'the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole'? Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you dispute the information, then you should request the sources to correct themselves as that's what Wikipedia uses for it's articles. As for the notability claims, see my responses above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well requesting external sources to edit their content is not a realistic resolution here. Relaxing (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that the article is about the webcomic and not the individual, in which case the article contains no substantive information regarding its subject. If it's that the comic continues to be referenced, in which case it's only ever referenced in association with the Kickstarter, and the article is not about the Kickstarter, the Kickstarter doesn't meet any standard of notability as evidenced by its total nil impact on culture excepting being referenced with no investigation or factcheck by blogs or reports of different Kickstarters (which themselves don't get dedicated Wikipedia articles). Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked up the domain picturesforsadchildren.com on http://www.tucowsdomains.com/ and it says it was registered by someone named John Campbell. Also, although the website expired last year, the tucows entry says it was renewed this past March. Thus, I consider it pretty certain that Campbell did really ask for this page to be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURO The policies cited in defense of keeping this page are completely arbitrary. The existence of this page is preventing access to the actual work it's about. How can anyone claim generic guidelines are more important than this? (Clearly fans of the comic all know that the author no longer goes by John Campbell. The insistence that we find 'reliable sources' is ridiculous given that the author is known for their lack of an online presence.)Dollotron (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Dollotron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether or not this is a case of deadnaming is irrelevant to deciding if this should be deleted. If it can be reliably shown that the cartoonist has changed names/gender choice (or whatever this is) then the article can be changed. As User:Dane2007 has already pointed out, the cartoonist trying to force Wikipedia into removing the article by removing the cartoon's online archive is also irrelevant to this AFD. Meters (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be irrelevant but the insisting on impeding all efforts to at the very least redress the harm of using manifestly incorrect names and pronouns with the question of 'reliably show[wing]' that this person has 'changed names/gender choice' is willful obstinance. There are countless ways the article could have been fixed prior to now based on manifest data but the encyclopedia has instead opted to apply a rigid standard respecting 'reliable' documentation to an individual whose entire m.o. has been the refusal of this. This seems political. This goes beyond deadnaming but the standard may be usefully considered: the use of any name is incorrect and harmful. The article itself is incorrect and harmful. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that the issue is irrelevant to this AFD, please stop raising it here. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, where it belongs. Meters (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an extension of my point that the defense of keeping this article and general unquestioning adherence to policy with respect to this topic are irrational and arbitrary. And User:Dane2007's claim that the comic's accessibility is irrelevant is part of what I'm refuting. To claim that this brief article is more important than the existence of its subject matter is unreasonable. The guidelines being cited here serve no real purpose.Dollotron (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the author removing the archive and requesting the article come down may be irrelevant to Wikipedia's deletion protocol. But also note that there's no evidence that removing the archive was an attempt to 'force' Wikipedia to do anything, and that assertion shouldn't be considered. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that the archive issue is irrelevant to this AFD please stop raising it here. It's odd that you don't see the author posting "pictures for sad children returns with archives when the wikipedia entry has been removed" (see the ref already on this page) as evidence of the attempt to manipulate Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that you don't think the author wants the Wikipedia page removed? Meters (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter what the author wants or doesn't it? How exactly is Wikipedia being 'manipulated' by the notion an archive it doesn't own or control might be reinstated if it makes an edit already in accordance with its own policy? Or by a person expressing that they are being caused harm? Is the question of the archive relevant to this AFD or isn't it? I think it's not-- I think the article is bad, uses trivial non-verifiable sources, barely treats the subject it's ostensibly about in lieu of any verifiable information, is given predominantly to hearsayish discussion of a non-event only referenced in passing to dissimilar 'events', (WP:GNG) and uses Wikipedia for a destructive purpose in that it gives misleading unsubstantiated impressions of a person of intentional low-profile (Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, WP:IAR). Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not irrelevant. It's very related to my point that all challenges to the existence and/or validity of this article have been met with references to policy with no reasonable justification nor consideration for the nuances of this particular situation. Dollotron (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you're failing to convince us that the claimed nuances are sufficient to ignore all that - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is generally the nature of disagreements. I'm simply explaining my argument. Dollotron (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator filmed himself burning books people had paid for and posted it online. That doesn't seem like someone who has "avoided high-profile activity" to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't matter that it is offline now, the comic's history makes it notable. It was a finalist for an award, there's been an expo about it, the whole 'burning books' thing, etc. In my opinion it (just) meets WP:WEBCRIT. If the author doesn't like being on Wikipedia, well, bad luck, that's completely irrelevant. Yintan 07:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just found another source, notability-wise; an interview with the New Yorker. [59]. Yintan 15:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is that irrelevant? This is a unique situation and should be treated accordingly. There's no reason for this page to exist other than an unquestioning fealty to guidelines which are specifically stated to not be taken overly literally. Dollotron (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question why Campbell's wish is irrelevant has been answered three times already. And no, it's not a "unique situation" at all, there have been other people who didn't like being mentioned (or see their work) on Wikipedia. Yintan 17:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and my point is that this insistence of irrelevance is unreasonable. WP:BURO Dollotron (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. In that case I suggest you start a movement, get consensus, and change the way Wikipedia works. Yintan 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to since I just referenced a policy which specifically states that the guidelines are not always meant to be unreasonably interpreted to the letter. Dollotron (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You said so before. And before. But repeating your argument doesn't make it any more valid in my book, sorry, and I don't like going round in circles. You may call me unreasonable (again) but I'm dropping the stick too. Yintan 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you seemed to either not understand or choose to ignore that point, hence my repetition. I don't expect you to agree, I'm just explaining myself. Really not that complicated. Dollotron (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm on the fence about this one. I think maybe, possibly this could skirt by WP:WEBCRIT as stated above but, I'm just not seeing it. This one is close, but the article seems to be more about the artist and their Kickstarter issues more than anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between full Google searches and news-only searches, this seems to be on the bubble of notability. It averages 100+ views per day, so users are still interested in it. It has a high ratio of primary to tertiary sources, but that's no reason to delete. Nominator's rationale isn't in line with policy. Assuming the claim that the archive will be put back online if this page is deleted, then Parabolist's argument becomes self-defeating. Thoughtmonkey dismisses it as an event by a non-notable person, but the comic and events themselves seem notable per coverage. NoThanks fails to understand WP:NTEMP. Relaxing links to relevant essays, but does not actually make a point with them. A quick search of Google News shows at least two articles from 2016 that give coverage to the story, so the WP:RECENT claim doesn't hold water. Xaxxyxxxyx makes a lot of unsupported claims. aslamp is refuted per Dane. Bottleofink makes an emotional appeal, but I side with Dane - removing sourced (and undisputed!) information because the subject doesn't like it damages the integrity of Wikipedia. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the 2016 links Google News turns up, you'll find they are clickbait-type sites making passing reference to the book/kickstarter issue. You can't even call that "coverage". This is not good evidence of the subject's notability. Refer again to WP:WEBCRIT's use of "non-trivial" and "reliable" when evaluating sources. Relaxing (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take your word for it - I can't view those websites at my work computer (content filter). Perhaps merging this information to Kickstarter#Controversies would be a good compromise? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would the deletion of this page damage the integrity of Wikipedia more than keeping it around solely to demonstrate baseless allegiance to guidelines which are meant to be interpreted by their 'principles?' Right now this article is nothing but a barrier preventing access to the work it's about, and the author doesn't want it removed simply because they 'don't like' the information; they are struggling with mental illness and want their internet presence minimalized, especially when they are being referred to by an incorrect name. What is integrous about ignoring these factors? This isn't some noble preservation of information; there's nothing in this article that can't be found elsewhere. Dollotron (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. "this article is nothing but a barrier preventing access to the work it's about" That's the creator's decision, and the availability of the material actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. "[the author] want[s] their internet presence minimalized" Baloney. You've already implied that if this page comes down, the author will return content to the internet. Furthermore, if the true goal was to minimize internet presence, why bring attention to this issue on Twitter instead of...not being on twitter? "referred to by an incorrect name" This name was provided by the author, and it's who published sources credit. I'm more than a little confused that no one in this discussion has mentioned what the "real" name is supposed to be, let alone provide a source for it. "There's nothing in this article that can't be found elsewhere" That's true of every Wikipedia article that follows WP:OR. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~'If you hate protesting so much why are you protesting'.~~ Please don't presume to have a semblance of understanding of the motives of this individual. We don't know what the 'real name' is-- we have no verification one even exists. All we have is the currently published one is not verifiable as currently in use and has been actively denied to be in use by the human it at one point referred to. Its use by private publications is non-pertinent-- they share none of WIkipedia's burden of standard. ~~The source is that there is no source, just as with the rest of the article.~~ Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't presume to have a semblance of understanding of the motives of this individual." Is this directed at Dollotron? Because that user is the one who mentioned the motives. I just point out the lack of coherence in them. "the currently published [name] is not verifiable as currently in use" It doesn't need to be verified as "currently in use." It's verified as the name used at the time, and it's the name used on the work being discussed. Created works are always listed as being made by the name used in the credits. Hence why the Wachoski Brothers wrote The Matrix. "The source is that there is no source" I don't know how to respond to this, other than that you don't seem to grasp how Wikipedia works. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood a few points. Xaxxyxxxyx was referring to the motives of the author, as you clearly aren't very aware of their history and behavior(; that's not a dig, it's just true). The availability of the material actually has plenty to do with Wikipedia, since the article's existence is preventing it; ignoring this because it does not fit a policy does not make it untrue. As far as the supposed inconsistency in the author's wish to minimalize their internet presence, I don't think either of us can pretend there is not a clear difference between their own publishing of their original work and a Wikipedia page about them. It's not unbelievable for them to be OK with one and not the other. I'm not really sure why there is so much suspicion with respect to this and the matter of their name. And my point about this article containing no unique information was a further example of my assertion that there is nothing integrous about its preservation. Dollotron (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Xaxxyxxxyx was referring to the motives of the author. I pointed out that you are the one who stated the motives, not me. I only responded to your statements. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation is not preventing the creator from making the material available. If I said I won't eat any vegetables until you change your vote here, would that mean you're responsible for my unhealthy diet? The creator is choosing not to make it available, and could change that decision at any time regardless of any action taken here.

And sure, I see a difference between publishing your own work and someone publishing comments about your work. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of dictating when, where, or what other people choose to talk about. Nothing in the Wiki article is a copyright violation. The only thing reproduced from the comic is the logo, which is fair use. If John Campbell (or whoever) chooses to publish accurate (or even inaccurate) information about Wikipedia, I doubt anyone would suggest it be taken down. I'm certain no one would remove Wikipedia from the internet until he complied with the request. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a deeply strange AFD. Is there any policy-based reason to delete this article? We wouldn't delete the Harry Potter article if JK Rowling asked us to. A Train^talk 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the webcomic had even a sliver of that sort of notoriety, this discussion wouldn't be happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forpfsc (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that if the creator was more notable, that we would remove the article? Or that we're keeping it because the creator isn't notable? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forpfsc seems to be saying that if the author of the comic was notable (he/she now has no article) then there would be no nomination for deletion. I agree. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? Notable works can be created by non-notable people, and notable people can create non-notable works. SeeWP:INHERITED. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's suspicious that since this started the demand for the "Wikipedia entry removal" has been taken down on the supposed official website. Not that it has any bearing on the AfD but since it's been brought up so much I thought I would comment on that. What reason would the author have for suddenly removing this if not trying to manipulate wikipedia? -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the best way to avoid being manipulated be judge the article on its own merits and ignore the other stuff going on? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Whatever is happening on that website is not important for this AfD and should be ignored. If the owner of that site has anything to say about this AfD he/she can do that here. Yintan 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if that's not the author's name, then of course we should use their current name. Do we have a good source on the current name? - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked earlier, and the answer was that, apparently, we aren't even sure the creator has one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Campbell was the author's name when the webcomic was online and the books were printed, sources in the article prove it. Current name could be the same, could be different, it's anybody's guess. So far there are no reliable sources for a name change. Yintan 21:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A creator asking for their page to be removed is not a Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion however if there are other personal issues such as a desire to avoid deadnaming or a desire to erase their work from the Internet then perhaps the article can be adjusted to be sensitive to that without erasing all mention of the comic itself. The comic is notable and it existed. Would we delete Why_the_lucky_stiff just because the person asked? A creator puts their work out into the world with a certain desire for its effects, but they don't get to dictate to the world what those effects will or won't be. Sorry Prince, I respect you, but there's no File:Prince logo.svg key on my keyboard. -- Tollsjo (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that we are being manipulated regardless of how we decide. After all, an artist has to sell him/herself.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page views for the article have gone up 482% in since this AFD went live, so there's that. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was talking about. :)Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is irrelevant except for the issue of notability. Can you point to what makes it notable? The sources turned up by the tools on this page do not suggest notability. Relaxing (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The creator of the comic has asked that this page be removed" isn't a valid reason to delete an encyclopedia article, therefore at least as currently stated I don't see a justification here. --Delirium (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a mistake by the nominator to take that position, but aren't we still allowed to consider the topic's notability? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Unless Campbell were able to convince The New Yorker, Mashable, The Daily Dot, Killscreen, Slate Magazine, Bleeding Cool, and Comic Alliance that their work isn't notable, I see no reason for it to be deleted here. We could rename it to Pictures for Sad Children controversy for all I care, the topic is highly notable. Hell, Campbell is still making webcomics. ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but wouldn't an article about Campbell him/herself make more sense? I don't see a person's work and actions being notable without the person themself also being notable.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources, save for the Comics Alliance one covering Birdman, are about this work. A think an article focused on either subject could work, and have no strong feelings about a change in focus. It would take some work, though. ~Mable (chat) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the author of "Pictures for Sad Children." I asked for this entry to be removed according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which was not done. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Am I an acceptable source for my name and gender, or do I have to get interviewed somewhere? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A reliable source must be used to confirm any name changes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender change can be announced through any kind of confirmed social media post or whatever. I'm not sure you still have such a thing, though. We can't confirm your identity based only on your IP address. As you can imagine, if we trusted your word for it and you ended up being an impostor, we would end up misgendering the actual Campbell. Do you know any way to announce your gender that we can confirm? ~Mable (chat) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would I confirm that I am me? What would we be confirming this "with"? If the announcement is that I don't have a gender or a name, and to take them both off this page, would this be respected? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably not. Wikipedia wants reliable sources and an announcement made on (for example) Twitter doesn't count as such. Yintan 20:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If some "reliable source" runs an announcement by me, and in it I say that I do not have a gender or a name, would Wikipedia stop referring to me by my old name and gender? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a source said you didn't have a name, I would discount the source as reliable. Legally, you have a name even if you don't associate with it anymore. As such, likely it would just change the article to "was known at the time as". -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about gender, if I say in a "reliable source" that I don't have a gender, would you "discount the source as reliable"? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say something like "Campbell does not identify to any specific gender" or remove it altogether, depending on what consensus was. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't refer to me as "John" or "Campbell" or "John Campbell" even if the rules say otherwise. That's all, please. Gender neutral. The New Yorker is not going to interview me again. Thank you for your time. Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have no way of knowing if you really are who you claim to be. I believe it is possible to make requests such as this through the WP:OTRS system. The user would have to contact the OTRS team, and prove his or her identity first. Meters (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comic was published under the name "John Campbell". I did try to edit the entry to the effect of "past name John Campbell - current name and gender unverified" but it was removed. However, the work was done by an individual named John Campbell at the time. Caitlyn Jenner has gone through a very public transition in both body and name, but nobody pretends her name wasn't Bruce when she won an Olympic gold. IMO, even if a new name (or non-name) could be verified, it would (should) not change the article, besides a footnote.Kaitzi (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations, Dane2007, Kaitzi, Meters, Yintan, and Maplestrip: Hello! I came here following a notice on the WikiProject LGBT Studies talk page. The notice said that it would be useful to provide support to correct a name and gender in an article. The Wikipedia community is still developing its process for managing new information like this, but we have some processes which have resolved this in some cases. If any of this seems like too much, then I would offer to advocate for anyone who emailed me. Here are some ideas for how this is usually managed:

By default, Wikipedia will reflect what has been published in third-party reliable sources. See WP:BLP and WP:RS.
If there is information available about gender beyond what has been published in third-party reliable sources, then Wikipedia might be updated with that information. Some source is needed, because Wikipedia should not misgender anyone, but it need not be a published source. Sources which have been accepted in the past for a name or gender correction include any of the following:
1. Post an update to an established online identity which was known to be used by the person. An update to an established website or twitter account might work. Anyone should be able to see and confirm this.
2. Send an email to Wikipedia's email queue with an image of an identification card with the publicly known name and a note saying what kind of correction should be made. Corrections which can be made are name and gender. There is not a dedicated review team for this, but I work with Wikipedia editors in New York City who have more LGBT-related partnerships than any other wiki-organization. That does not mean this group has authority, but at least it demonstrates that this group is trying to offer support on this issue and wants to make this process quicker and easier for all involved. Wikimedia New York City can handle this request if anyone writes to wm-nycwikimedia.org. A phone call could also be scheduled through this email address.
3. A reliable third-party publication is always acceptable but may be too complicated to manage for these things.
In cases in which a person was publicly known and described by one identity, then has a change to their public image, Wikipedia might still reflect old publications in some ways. However, the intent in Wikipedia is to present a person's identity in whatever way is the most respectful to all involved. If there is something else to discuss or anyone wants Wikipedia's best practices or rules to change, then as with everything else on Wikipedia, changes can be made.

Further documentation on this issue is available at Manual of Style:Identity and WP:Aboutself. I hope this helps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on available sourcing and cut down on the primary sourcing in the article. Name issues are separate from deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was ready to come in here and argue for inclusion until I saw that the artist formerly known as John Campbell (who has since changed their name to something I don't know after revealing that they are transgender) has repeatedly asked for this article to be deleted. Here's my rationale for this:

Ultimately it all boils down to coverage. The coverage in the article is predominantly about the whole Kickstarter debacle, which looks to have come about because of issues with severe depression. For those of you that haven't dealt with this as far as yourself and your family goes, consider yourself lucky. Severe depression doesn't mean that someone sits in a corner and cries all day - people can act extremely erratically and so some pretty "crazy" things. As someone who has family members with severe depression and who works in a hospital that deals with mentally ill patients, what Campbell did during the Kickstarter debacle is actually not all that surprising. My point in going into all of this is that I don't think that it's appropriate for us to decide notability when notability is being primarily based on coverage of a person in the throes of a mental illness. Especially when the artist herself is asking for the page's removal because they want to vanish from the Internet.

The coverage that doesn't deal with the Kickstarter is fairly light. Two of the sources (both by Comics Alliance) are about non-PfSC material. Of the other sources, this one is an interview that talks about PfSC but is also more general. This one goes into how much Campbell really, really wants to vanish from the Internet as far as PfSC goes and likely in general.

Now what's left after that is a brief article from CBS Chicago... and that's it. If we remove the non-PfSC coverage and the Kickstarter coverage, that leaves us with at most three sources to establish notability - and one of those is about how much Campbell doesn't want any material about PfSC on the Internet. If we were to turn this into an article about Campbell then the material about the Kickstarter issues would pose a BLP issue about what, if anything, should be included much like we'd have a similar discussion about anyone who had a visible mental breakdown on the Internet. Odds are that it'd be a 1-2 sentence mention at the most and we'd still have to provide a lot of coverage to justify including even that.

My basic point is that ultimately we have a webcomic that was popular but didn't receive a lot of coverage. Most of what it did receive comes from something someone did during a very dark point in their life. This isn't the equivalent of Megatokyo, to where Wikipedia would genuinely be the worse for its removal. Maybe if the author wasn't lobbying for the page's removal my answer might be a bit different, but the point here is that she is and she's asked for this multiple times. I'm really uncomfortable with us keeping an article that is apparently causing Campbell no small amount of personal distress. I say that if Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations wants to disappear from the Internet then we should let her. I can't remember the name of the article, but I remember deleting an article for an artist's work that had more coverage (and in academic sources) because the retention of the article was actually hurting her life and career, which had taken a far different turn since she made said artwork. This situation is no different, except that the coverage is smaller here than it was there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all TL;DNR, but the basic is that the coverage here is light and primarily based on something that happened due to a mental illness. Considering that the author has apparently been asking for its deletion for years, I don't see where it would hurt Wikipedia to remove it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very sad situation, I agree, but the thing is, even if the Wikipedia article was taken down, a single Google search still brings up all of the other sources. Kill Screen decided long after the controversy that the incident was still worth covering, while Comics Alliance has covered some of the author's other works. Everything this Wikipedia article has to say has been covered by all of the other top search results. I find it important that we don't hurt this person, but their actions just got a lot of attention from sources, good and bad. I just hope we can somehow get through this whole gender situation, though it seems like Elmyr de Hory has left the discussion... We could use the Kill Screen blog as a source for the author being transgender, perhaps, but based on what they said in this discussion, that doesn't even seem accurate now. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really, really uncomfortable with the fact that the bulk of the coverage for this webcomic center upon one event, an event that came about because of the webcartoonist's public breakdown due to what looks to have been a very serious mental illness. Wikipedia is under no obligation to record everything and ultimately what's on the article right now is essentially it. Ultimately what I see here is that we have an article that's of borderline notability. Most of the coverage came about because of something that would pose a definite BLP issue if this was a biography instead of an article on a webcomic, so we have to question whether or not it's really right to base this webcomic's notability on the author having what was by all accounts, a messy public breakdown. This same webcomic artist had repeatedly requested that the article be removed. While yes, the coverage for his mental breakdown is more than just one or two sources, the fact is that the bulk of the coverage is still for this one event. If this coverage didn't exist, it'd be far less likely that there would be as many keeps in this AfD. We need to look at this from an ethical standpoint as well as a notability standpoint. The webcartoonist has repeatedly stated that they want the page removed and has given every indication outside of Wikipedia that they want to disappear from the Internet (and have the webcomic disappear as well). The bulk of coverage comes from an event stemming from a mental breakdown and what's left over from that is actually pretty light. Wikipedia has generally granted requests from people requesting the deletion of their pages and the only time that they don't is when the article topic is so extremely notable that there would be a huge gaping hole left behind in Wikipedia by its removal. We wouldn't remove an article on say, Rosie Ruiz, but Campbell and PfSC haven't reached that level of notability. I also need to note that if we're going by the amount of Google hits, the top results that come up for me are places that Wikipedia would't consider to be RS, like Reddit, blogs, and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Basically, just because we can keep an article doesn't really mean that we should and we really need to take into consideration the potential for continued harm, the overall lack of non-mental illness related coverage, and the author's wishes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now as far as potential concerns that this is something that the cartoonist is doing in order to get things a certain way, this would actually backfire quite solidly because a delete here would prevent the article's recreation unless the webcomic has a very substantial amount of coverage beyond the webcomic currently has. Ultimately at the time of the meltdown Campbell was a WP:LOWPROFILE person who doesn't seem to have sought out coverage and has since seemed to have studiously avoided gaining any additional coverage. In other words, they'd be doing themselves a bigger disservice by seeking deletion rather than doing something like holding an interview with a reliable source and/or posting something in a verified location that contains whatever information they wanted changed or added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely going to place a note over at WikiProject BLP. Maybe someone there has a better idea of how to deal with the situation. I'm sticking with my opinion that there is too much coverage for this article to be deleted, but I agree that the situation is incredibly uncomfortable. ~Mable (chat) 15:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tokyogirl79 The BLP issues are valid concerns, regardless of whether the article is about the comic strip or about the artist. Meters (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many issues to address in detail (some are related by other editors above), but here are my big ones. This looks like a COATRACK about the non-notable author thinly disguised as being about the comic strip. It also has serious WP:1E issues as most of the coverage revolves around the claims of depression. If you take that out the alleged subject of the article has insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Nominations for awards generally don't count towards notability in the absence of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any actual, verified evidence that the artist requested deletion? The reference provided as proof that the artist wants the page deleted just links to a page with clouds. If we're going to consider deletion based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, we have to make sure that the request is at least real. The sources provided in the article show that the person in question has at times been less than honest in their dealings, but as Tokyogirl79 has shown, it's possible to make case for a BLPREQUESTDELETE even if it's not a perfect WP:LOWPROFILE fit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: There hasn't been any actual confirmed request from the author. Even the website has expired at one point so I don't trust that as reliable either for deletion request. The twitter account no longer exists. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without a confirmed request then, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE wouldn't apply, so I stand by my above !vote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Killscreen article does strongly suggest that the author would be interested in getting this article down and going through a change in pronouns and such, but that's probably all we can technically rely on... ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: As far as I can tell WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE wouldn't apply anyway since this article is about the comic. It's not a Campbell BLP. As an aside, disappearing from the internet is impossible, especially after you've been using it the way Campbell has. Even if this article would be deleted (which would be a big mistake IMHO), other articles about Campbell and the comic are still all over the net. And will be for years to come. In that respect this deletion request is pointless. Yintan 11:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been longstanding policy to apply WP:BLP across all Wikipedia pages where living people are discussed and given how so much of this article is about Campbell's actions it would apply if the consensus was that both Campbell and the comic were sufficiently low-profile to warrant deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (which is debatable given the facts). I would support your viewpoint if a debate were to be had, but without a verified request (Killscreen just confirms that the artist wants the actual comics themselves off the web, not the Wikipedia article), it's academic to have one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:14, 13 October 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.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictures for Sad Children

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) 07:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June Mack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I originally tagged as a PROD, but it had previously been speedy deleted at AfD for being a copyvio. I'm assuming that this version is different than the deleted version, so I'm bringing it here. Non-notable actress who only appeared in one film. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - could not locate reliable sources covering the subject of the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NACTOR applies, but she fails it. Zero^talk 23:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She would need 2 significant roles to pass our guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 7 October 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) 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aryanna Gourdin[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Pretty clearcut case of WP:BIO1E in my mind. Young girl who had her 15 minutes of fame, but that doesn't amount to notability. If she becomes notable as a hunting activist later, the article could be recreated, but right now we don't have enough to establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about the girl herself, and the event that she's associated with also just seems like an unfortunately routine occurrence of social media harassment. Benmite (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of lasting notability. Zero^talk 22:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this event got a brief flurry of online hype (although nowhere on the level of Cecil the lion), and will (and should) be forgotten in a year. It should be pointed out that the subject is a minor, and while not all 12-year-olds make in the news, this article should not remain indefinitely. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This basically boils down to one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 6 October 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.

[1] Myers, John (30 July 2016). "Write-in legislative candidates win spots on the November ballot, in some cases with only a handful of votes". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 8 October 2016.

[2] Smith, Dakota (1 September 2016). "Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian wins challenge over opponent's ballot designation". Los Angeles Daily News. LA Daily News. Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 8 October 2016.

[3] Cadelago, Christopher (9 September 2016). "Did Mike Gatto recruit write-in challenger to Adrin Nazarian?". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 8 October 2016.

[4] ttp://picturesforsadchildren.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]