Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 August	25 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manningham accent[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be an actual studied accent. The only reference I can find that doesn't lead back here and isn't a random pairing of the words is here, which isn't enough. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original essay. Virtually all of the massive 42 Google hits for the phrase related to Wikipedia or its mirrors. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it might exist, but the sources available are so poor that no article could be written based on them. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fastroi[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. The one notable achievement is reaching the finals in a 2012 healthcare solution competition - from what I could pull from the source they did not win the competition. Aside from that, nothing notable is really provided in the article, making me think that the company simply isn't notable enough, or covered in reliable secondary sources enough, to have its own WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete as G11 -- unambiguous promotion. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site, which this article is. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KTAP66 (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I am happy to provide additional content in the article right away, concerning the the significance of Fastroi. The company is the largest provider in its field; i.e. the market leader in Finland, and it has been growing fast; being one of the fastest growing technology companies in Finland for several years. So, I hope these additions (with third party references) will make the article better.

KTAP66 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)About the healthcare soluton competition - the company won the Finnish heat, which is mentioned in the article now.[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Fails WP:A7 but makes a WP:CCS. For crying out loud, it's spam spam spam. DrStrauss talk 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dotzler71 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)We are not looking to create a spam page. This is a legitimate and successful company with an existing wiki page in Finnish. The comments posted so far are very ambiguous, in that we cannot seemingly demonstrate our achievements or notability without being accused of spamming or self promotion. Instead of trying to delete the page out of hand without allowing the discussion to proceed, we would appreciate some guidance as to what it is specifically that the community is objecting to, so that we can remedy it and publish the page.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Dumplings: A Tasty Chinese Tale[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are reviews in Publishers Weekly[1], Kirkus[2] and apparently Multicultural Review (EBSCOHOST gives: Boy Dumplings, Lee, Ginny, Multicultural Review; Spring2010, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p66), and an article in The Mercury News [3]. Merge to author's page Ying Chang Compestine would make more sense than deletion, if a keep isn't merited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don;t think any of the reviews are substantial coverage. In particular, Kirkus is no longer considered a RS for anything--they do reviews for payment. DGG ( talk ) 12:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no independent, reliable coverage of the topic. The sources provided are wholly unreliable as they have had a history of selling reviews (e.g.). DrStrauss talk 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lay scholar[edit]

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

More like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one. It's a term, yes, but there is no notable uses for it and no references other than one to a use of potentially homophonous term that bears no relation. Almost no inbound links as well. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per agreeing with above. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no comments for delete. KTC (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adamjee Cantonment Public School & College[edit]

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

Non notable College and all information provided is unsourced NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Concerns have been answered and appears notable. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 22:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the links above clearly offered this, this, this, this and this which satisfy WP:V, the nomination's concern. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Taslimi[edit]

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

A non notable person. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:GNG as well (because of lack of sigcov). —usernamekiran(talk) 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a worthy person who has lived an eventful life but neither WP:Prof or GNG is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- The majority of facts on the page seem to tells us his religion, school, exams, wife and children without citation but not why he is considered notable. There is no significant coverage in independent published sources. I fail to see how he meets WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV Darthamender (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kandel[edit]

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

Notability. Loads of sources, but nothing that seems substantial enough; they are either mentions in articles about something else or routine directory entries. TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "director of marketing" is rarely a notable position, and this subject misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No convincing claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; reads like a personal promotion piece or CV. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. she's not notable. Jobscomforter (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meducation[edit]

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

Source searches are not demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails both WP:GNG & WP:WEBCRIT. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in the third-party reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum Newsweekly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just a poorly sourced advert with name-drops for journalists who, actually, mostly don't seem to be notable themselves (not that their notability would matter). Sitush (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlota Nunez Strutt[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability. She's claimed as the president of an NGO, but there's no substance here about her career beyond stating that she exists -- and the only sourcing present here at all consists of her own Twitter account and the her "our board" profile on the NGO's own self-published website, which are not notability-building sources. She could certainly be eligible to have a Wikipedia article if she could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but presidents of NGOs are not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, and "she exists" is all this article shows or sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about me, but I would rather not appear on Wikipedia and I don't think that the work that I am doing for this organization is especially newsworthy, as it is a student organization. I don't think I should have a wiki page, as I currently just am a student who chairs an NGO, and I'd also appreciate the privacy of not having this page. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Carlota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlota17 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject request. Not an inherently notable position so I see no good reason why the subject's desire for privacy shouldn't be honoured. Furrykiller (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tevana[edit]

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

No such coverage found. Fails the notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even according to the first few links by the original user "Greenbörg" who brought this up for discussion noted several links while at the same time listing above their reasoning "Not Notable" "No such coverage found. Fails the notability criteria", which in themselves pointed to the first few of several listings in the google search for "Thomas Tevana" including the US Based PEOPLE Magazine Article mentioned in itself, so not hard to find for an international celebrity with numerous media coverage and media endorsements. Was also quickly able to see under Google Video numerous Endorsement campaigns shot alongside other well-known Regional stars. Since when is IMDB the end-all for every film or TV Series or other projects shot in every country other than the US? Instead why not spend that time and find and add more citations and more media coverage found from other sources rather than use the Privilege granted you through TW (Twinkle) to randomly shoot down listings on what Bias? This also doesn't seem to be the first time this User "Greenbörg" based in Australia has attacked other listings in India or Pakistan including IATSE, Pak-Franco Alliance, OWN or Indian Women's Alliance, or the current CEO of HUM TV Duraid Qureshi, all well-known entities in their own societies and with their own place in those, but who may not necessarily have the resources or knowledge to update their Wikipedia pages that were ultimately upheld by people based in the Indo-Pak sub-continent.

Delete- No citations to establish notability. The page is more of a half-hearted resumé for IMBd (which is actually one of its only sources). Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthamender (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete August 16, 1984 in San Francisco, California) is an American actor and former model of Indian and Pakistani descent." When this is all the lede can come up with, it is obvious that it is not a notable topic for Wikipedia. Being a child of a "politically connected family" is clearly not enough, maybe a mention on the page for his father or great-grandfather (if those are ever written)?Sgerbic (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikidia[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Gave it a pretty good search. It seems like a great idea for a site, but I haven't found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It looks like most of the coverage isn't in English, but I found a few things. Blurbs like this, for examples. The best one is probably La Montagne, though I don't know anything about that publication. Then there are articles written by organizations connected to Vikidia, like OLPC with this article. I did an exhaustive search of GNews and went through many pages of ghits unfiltered by language and this is about all I came up with. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luney Tunez[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a record producer, who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them. There are just two references being cited here, of which one is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb about somebody else. These are not the kinds of sources it takes to pass a Wikipedia notability standard: Wikipedia is highly prone to abuse by publicity-seeking wannabes, so a person cannot get into Wikipedia just by nattering on about himself in interviews, but rather must be written about in depth and in the third person by people other than himself; and he has to be the subject of a source, not just have his existence namechecked. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him better than this, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON if this is the best anyone can do. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for "+"Luney Tunez"" turned up only a few results. without the + sign, it went for Looney Tunes instead. And no, I do not support a redirect to said page. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject has worked with notable artists but I can't find in-depth coverage for the producer himself; perhaps WP:TOOSOON. gongshow talk 03:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wilkins[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a technical and textbook writer, referenced entirely to his own self-published profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations and companies with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, every writer does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because his books can be verified as existing -- he must pass WP:CREATIVE for something, and must be the subject of reliable source coverage to verify it independently of his own self-created web presence. We are an encyclopedia, not a free LinkedIn clone. And while I can't prove anything definitive, I strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest since the photo was taken directly from his own website but claimed to be under public domain copyright permissions. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat I wrote the article with no affiliation or conflict. This individual has over 30 publications which are verifiable by numerous references and sources. I'm happy to continue to contribute, but maybe you should as well. The particular photo in question is also published on numerous websites, in addition to his bio in published materials. There are similar technical writers on Wikipedia with less verifiable information. Since this is my first article, and wanted to try and do something simple, I'm looking for guidance on what independently sources we are looking for here. For example Barns and Noble has his materials posted. Does this meet the criteria? From the WP:CREATIVE guidelines, Sean Wilkins is also cited and referenced in numerous works that he is not the author of, and papers with citations. Would these qualify if added? Thanks. --Toddman4 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, online bookstores don't count, because every book available for sale there will automatically have a profile. And no, simply being cited in other people's works isn't a notability criterion either — he has to be the subject of other people's works, not just have his name mentioned, before those works assist notability at all. The only type of sourcing that can support notability for Wikipedia's purposes is reliable source coverage about him in media: books about him, newspaper articles about him, magazine profiles about him, documentary films about him, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information. I was looking at Bill_Thompson_(technology_writer) as a reference, and see a lot of similarities between these two articles. I do see 1 reference where an article is written about the subject, however all of the other references are either broken or similar to this article. I believe there may be some available media sources that we can use for this article. I'll search and update based on the criteria. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddman4 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. This writer is obviously still at the beginning of his career, and hasn't made an impact as shown by lack of reviews about his works. There are very many technical writers, and we are not a directory of all of them, Bearian (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hall Enterprise Company[edit]

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

Currently no notable content. Shaded0 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete -- unsourced corporate spam and no claim of significance. We should expect better from company articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, with text giving no indication of encyclopaedic notability. The article was previously better before content removal by IPs, but was still short on references and anything going beyond WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. My searches are finding little beyond basic Taiwan Stock Exchange listing, which is insufficient in itself, and a negative consumer experience report. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no indications of notability whatsoever. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability. It is also short on references IMHO.--ClrView (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken[edit]

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken, this is not a topic that requires a dedicated article of its own. While I'll acknowledge that the question of whether a non-francophone Prime Minister's skills in French are adequate or not does come up as an issue in Canadian politics (usually in regards to their ability to participate in the French-language election debates), the appropriate place for any discussion of that would be in Prime Minister of Canada and/or Bilingualism in Canada, not a standalone spinoff list -- and a Canadian prime minister's fluency or lack thereof in Gaelic, German, Greek, Latin or Russian is simply irrelevant trivia. And this isn't based on sources which analyze the language skills of Canadian prime ministers as a topic, either -- it's based on glancing mentions of their language skills in sources which aren't about that, with the result that the comparison table is entirely missing seven of the prime ministers because sourcing for their language skills hasn't been located at all -- which means that the article is synthesizing sources to create an article topic that hasn't been comprehensively analyzed as such. There's a place in Wikipedia for a small amount of content about the English-French issue, certainly — but that place is in other articles that already exist, not as a standalone article in its own right, and there's no need at all for any content about whether they can speak Greek or Russian. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a very cogently-presented argument from the nominator. It piques my interest this early on a Friday morning, but that's about the kindest words I'll have for this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. English/French is all any of us in the Great White North take any notice of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike with List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken, for which I have recommended "delete" in the ongoing AfD, there are sources which discuss the comparative language skills of Canadian prime ministers; see http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/liberals/leaders-language.html and http://www.fluentfrenchnow.com/bilingualism-canada-prime-ministers-part-1/, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources, at least, only discuss their bilingualism in French and English (which, as per others, is occasionally an issue), rather than their command of other languages, although I note there's a passing mention of one claiming to speak Russian and not being able to do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fluent French Now" is a professional language coach's personal advertising blog, not a media source. And the CBC link certainly permits us to properly source something about this, but it doesn't really help us reach the depth of sourcing needed to support a full standalone article about it. A short subsection in Prime Minister of Canada and/or existing articles on language in Canada about the fact that it's considered important for a Prime Minister to be able to speak both English and French would be fine — but it's not systematically analyzed in depth by enough sources to justify a whole separate article about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might merit a mention in Languages of Canada but it still seems trivial. Just because news sources and blogs write about something doesn't automatically mean it's notable (WP:NOTNEWS). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the work that has gone into this but agree with Bearcat. That extensive lead section to this list duplicates content that is best found in one of a number of main articles linked to above. And the ability of prime ministers to speak other one or both of Canada's official languages does seem trivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. cant see the point of this article per WP:LC. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Eddy Saint Paul[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill academic. Edwardx (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Her profile on GS [4] claims 42 cites for a book that she did not write herself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thimbles (Card game)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources about this game. The blog post linked does not mention playing cards. ... discospinster _talk 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. I couldn't find any off-wiki evidence of this game and the use of WP:FAKE references does not inspire confidence. Furrykiller (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durgesh Kaushik[edit]

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

Non-notable person and article seems to be written by the person himself; Notability not estabished by cited articles; Citations are promotional in nature and Linkedin/Facebook/Social Media profiles cannot be used as citations on Wikipedia User:ParadiseStark (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are these enough? [5] [6] [7] Spiderone 12:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Spiderone CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

I believe that much more independent recognition and coverage is required for a person to be included on Wikipedia. Only two of the articles shown by Spiderone cover the mentioned person in detail. Citing [[8]], a biographical page can be created if the person fulfils the following criteria: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

The mentioned person doesn't meet any of the above criteria as of now. He may be on his way to become notable as he has achieved a lot, but as of now, the article doesn't deserve to be online. To cite a couple of cases, Rajan Anandan, one of the most prominent angel investors in India and Head of Google South Asia and Zishaan Hayath, Founder Toppr and another prominent angel investor do not have Wikipedia pages.

We need to maintain a certain standard for notability which, in my opinion, is not fulfilled here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseStark (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail GNG Spiderone 17:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Verified FB profile with 140K followers. 11K LinkedIn followers. Mentions in news - neutral sources like: vccircle.com/ten-stealth-startups-that-will-mark-second-coming-of-founders-former-cxos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.129.60.72 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2017‎ (IP comment moved from top of page and signature added.Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Facebook and LinkedIn don't count towards notability I'm afraid Spiderone 09:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J.R. Renaud[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. See previous revisions of the article for more references (I have removed sections for copyright violations), but those sources do not appear to substantially prove notability. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure spam. Clearly an employee has been tasked with the job of writing a promotional piece about her boss. Unfortunate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO of a non-notable, business promoter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is written like a public relations profile and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown whatsoever. It's also a conflict of interest, as the creator's username plainly identifies her as an employee of Renaud Investments. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn clone — people are not entitled to decide for themselves that they get to have a Wikipedia article, but rather we make that decision according to our rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Healer Project[edit]

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

While it pursues an admirable cause, this charity fails organisation inclusion guidelines as it has received little coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are some issues with the tone as the article is formatted more like a website Q&A than an encyclopedia article. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have G11'd it Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same but I've been getting speedies declined on grounds of age. Not that that's a valid rationale but... DrStrauss talk 22:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Sentimental Reasons (band)[edit]

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

Little coverage in independent, reliable sources. A Google search for ""For Sentimental Reasons" "bob devivo"" returns only 43 results, none of which are major reviews. Fails notability guidelines for musical groups. DrStrauss talk 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SLSP LTD[edit]

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

I guess there is a slender assertion of notability, but imo not a convincing one. TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy May Shead[edit]

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

Typical WP:BLP1E case. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no real claim of notability here.TheLongTone (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when you are notable because you got injured by an allergic reaction, you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bate[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Just a bloke doing a job.TheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Narsian[edit]

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

Not notable. Of transient popular interest. Not encyclopedic. Insufficient material to warrant a page. E x nihil ^(talk) 09:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper; this person is only 'notable' for one event Spiderone 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aalok Pradhan (film)[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. The title also is confusing, it should say filmmaker, not film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 12:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Wlassikoff[edit]

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

Unremarkable graphic designer. KDS4444 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The standards of notability in the frWP are in general higher than those here, and therefore I would not be comfortable deleting an article where there is an unchallenged article there on any Franch-related person or other topic. There is no indication that WP:BEFORE was carried out here. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, appears to be close to a direct translation from french WP article, so some sort of attribution will be required. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE, Wlassikoff has curated a number of exhibitions including: Signs of the Great War, The Clandestine archives of the Warsaw Ghetto, Signes des ecoles d'art: Centre Georges Pompidou @ EMAF, and authored books, including The Story of Graphic Design in France being held by around 175 libraries (so "well known), here are reviews by Communication Arts - "This new, massive book gives long overdue recognition to the varied history of graphic design in France ...", Eye - "But now, thanks to Michel Wlassikoff’s The Story of Graphic Design in France, the historical imbalance is being rectified ...", Library Journal - here. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and the French edition of the above book is held in over 100 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haysha Deitsch[edit]

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

Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and according to their resume they don't pass WP:NACTOR. The closest thing he has to a substantial role in a notable piece of work is his role in Jezebel. This article also calls Friend Me an "acclaimed series", which is curious, since the sitcom appears to actually never have aired. But that just goes to the entire promotional tone of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; all roles are insignificant. Significant RS coverage not found either. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobble Keyboard[edit]

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

Promotional article with only PR related sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unremarkable company building a free app for Android. The article itself does not establish whether it is about the company or the product. In any case, it's promotion. Rhadow (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the company simply isn't notable per WP:NCORP. I'd also like to note that the page creator has left a message on my talk page (link) which claims that there was an edit war going on months ago, possibly an invalid protection request as a last-ditch attempt to save the page. DrStrauss talk 19:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørnar Iversen[edit]

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

The CEO of Songa Offshore. He has plenty of passing mentions, but not the in-depth coverage required by the WP:BLP policy(WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8). menaechmi (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn CEO; the company itself is not major. Reads like a resume. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, agree with K.e.coffman, reads like a CV and of only local or trivial interest. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 10:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SLM Solutions Group AG[edit]

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

The article is entirely sourced from related references. Lack of independent, reliable sources for some of the claims (I have removed some of them by now). Internet search did not result in any significant results beyond regular corporate chatter, i.e. press releases, corporate results, stock analysis. Mention in passing around failed take over by GE. Therefore, fails WP:CORP. There is also some indication of WP:PROMO or WP:COI as this and related users seem to exclusively work on contents for this company, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OldMonk25. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, nor is the content right now irredeemably promotional. There's coverage beyond what is noted above, like here and especially here--if Handelsblatt reports on your company's financial health, you are worth noticing. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drmies first reference above meets the criteria for establishing notability. I disagree that the second reference from Handelsblatt does. But this book reference also meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a mid-size company of 200 employees and $60M in revenue; no indication of a cult following or significant impact on its industry. The sock creation is a concern. Any marginal notability is outweighed by the promotional intent. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ambassadors Group. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BookRags[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, per source searches. Sources are not providing significant coverage, just passing mentions or listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Koshy, Tessy (2012-01-26). "Bookworm's delight". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  www.bookrags.com showcases Argos as an active hound gnawing on the pages of a book. Like Argos, the site hopes its readers would enjoy devouring pages and pages of literature summaries.
  The site contains concise book synopsises, study guides, lesson plans, quizzes, essays and complete analysis of more than 4,000 literary works. You can also access e-books and biographies here. The site also positions itself as a research destination with a tagline that says research anything.
  ...
  From reading e-books to attempting quizzes on famous literary works, the website will keep you hooked. For the literature student it has all that they would need to write perfect literary essays and critiques. The site can also be used to research on a variety of topics. The search results consist of encyclopaedia articles, essays, analysis, news and write-ups from journals, teacher’s resources, activities and homework help. This academic website which was founded in 1999 by James Yagmin and David Lieberman has a simple and neat design. The emphasis is on books and there are few images on each page. Having eulogised the site I must admit the biggest grouse a reader will have is the fact that many of the resources are only for paid users. You will have to surf your way to browse the free samples.
2. Sowa, Tom (2011-04-25). "BookRags adds BrainyQuote to its online ad operation". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags.com, an education and book-reference site that is owned by Ambassadors Group, has signed a marketing arrangement with BrainyQuote, a website that provides quotes for students and the public.
  Ambassadors Group, based in Spokane, provides education travel for students and others. It acquired BookRags in 2008.
  BookRags has created a web advertising network, BookRags Media, that allows partner companies a way to direct ads to the teen and young adult audience using its site for education and research.
  BookRags Media did a similar deal earlier, forming a partnership with eNotes, an online education resource site.
3. Sowa, Tom (2008-05-22). "Travel company is buying online bookseller". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  Spokane travel-planning company Ambassadors Group said Wednesday it will pay $18 million to buy BookRags Inc., an online seller of books, e-books, study guides and articles to students and teachers.
  ...
  Privately held BookRags, based in Hamden, Conn., was launched in 1999. Ambassadors will pay $8.5 million in cash and $4.5 million in stock. The remaining $5 million of the purchase agreement will come from future BookRags revenue, the press release noted.
4. Smith, Annette (2011-05-19). "Book Summary Websites". Made Man. Defy Media. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags is a popular academic and research website. It features study guides, lesson plans, and other educational resources on demand. The BookRags catalog is compiled from more than 100 reference sources including Thomson Gale, a reputable publisher of resources for schools, libraries, and universities. Search for book summaries, reviews, author biographies, and bibliographies. Sign up for a free account and earn points toward free content and discounts.
5. Soules, Aline (2012). "Where's the bio? Databases, Wikipedia, and the web". New Library World. Vol. 113. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 84. doi:10.1108/03074801211199068. ISSN 0307-4803. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  The article notes:
  
  For example, BookRags offers biographies (see www.bookrags.com/ browse/biography/) but aims at college students to sell and rent textbooks, and offer study guides and other course-oriented content. Their 11,250 “literary” biographies are not all free. Of their 25,616 total biographies in all disciplines, only 13,466 are free. The rest provide a “teaser”, then seek payment. In the free section, there is no indication of the author of the biography or the currency.
6. Byrd, Shayla (2002-11-13). "A Study Guide of Study Guides". Versus. Archived from the original on 2008-02-22. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags
  The site has an impressive 1,500 literary classics online, in full text, for free. The list of books isn't quite as expansive as pinkmonkey.com, but there is an added bonus, especially for those students who have to pull quotations from a book. The summaries in the book notes at bookrags.com are littered with quotes that contain chapter and page number. This makes it easier for the reader to find and cite the quotations in their work. Another unique element to this website is the topic tracking of different themes in each book. Examples of the major themes of the novel are taken chapter by chapter and are conveniently laundry-listed under the appropriate heading. Even though there are fewer titles, this site is definitely very thorough. All of the titles can even be downloaded right into a Palm Pilot or other PDA device!
7. Furchgott, Roy (2010-09-15). "A Professor's Review of Online Cheat Sheets". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags, offered only partial summaries free, and Professor Fisher said what he found there was too elementary. “BookRags is for really desperate people,” he said. “It’s simplistic and it forces people to pay up front.”
8. "Web Sites". Computers Today. Living Media. 2001-01-31.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags.com has a collection of more than 1,500 classic texts in various categories. The site is a good resource centre for students and teachers with an accumulation of guides to classical literature. Book notes are comprised of chapter summaries, character descriptions, author biographies and plot summaries.
9. Chatterton, Sally (2001-03-09). "The Daily Website". The Independent.
  The article notes:
  
  www.bookrags.com/mob name.html
  NOT DISSIMILAR to the pokename, white trash and Star Wars name generators, this site measures you up for an assumed character name. In this case, the site will come up with the perfect handle should you wish to masquerade as a mobster. What does mark it out from the other similar sites is the effort it makes to ensure that the name suits: in order to conjure an individual and appropriate moniker, you must divulge rather more intimate details than usually requested. You'll probably end up with a name more at home in a Guy Ritchie movie - Snaggletooth Tony, or Half-cocked Harry - than gangland London, but that'll teach you to waste your time.
10. "Free books online". The Hindu. 2004-04-29.
  The article notes:
  
  http://www.bookrags.com: Book Rags is one of the premier online sites for classical guides and free texts. The website offers the complete e-books of approximately 1,500 classical texts.
11. McClain, John (2009-07-14). "7 Alternatives to SparkNotes & CliffsNotes for Book Summaries". MakeUseOf. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  BookRags has a sizable collection of free literature summaries and study guides. Along with chapter summaries, the site covers author/context, plot summary, major characters, objects/places, and quotes. Important topics about the book are also tracked and analyzed throughout the summaries.
  Keep in mind that all of this is free and you don’t have to pay for BookRags’ premium service.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BookRags to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), would you reconsider your support for deletion? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources above do not contain significant coverage, and some are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph's 637-word review provides substantial coverage of the subject and the Versus 142-word review provides significant coverage of the subject. Neither are passing mentions.
I provided multiple sources that provided less than significant coverage because of WP:BASIC, which says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Although WP:BASIC is under Wikipedia:Notability (people), I consider the principle applicable to other topics like this one.
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree about applying WP:BASIC toward non-biography topics; I don't feel that it should pertain to non-bio topics, because when it was written, it was intended only for bio topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we do not apply WP:BASIC to websites, there is significant coverage in The Telegraph and Versus.
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The References are not providing the correct coverage, the article does not get enough support/views, and it does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. I totally agree with NorthAmerica100 on this. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to your contributions, your account was created 21 July 2017 and this is the first AfD you have participated in so you are not experienced in AfD discussions. To clarify about Wikipedia guidelines, WP:NOBODYREADSIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed all the references cited in the article, and none provide sufficient depth of coverage. They are either corporate announcements, trivial mentions or self-published. Cunard has provided some additional references in their 'keep' !vote that are not used in the article, though they needn't. Of these, only the review in the Telegraph India's CareerGraph ("a special four-page colour guide for students and graduates on the lookout for jobs and career opportunities") [9] by freelance journalist Tessy Koshy provides the type of in-depth coverage required to establish notability.

I have looked at each of the articles about competitors listed in the 'See also' section and there's questionable notability on some of those, too, and York Notes has no references at all - I have tagged it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs), and Curb Safe Charmer (talk · contribs), I would like to merge BookRags to Ambassadors Group, where BookRags is already mentioned, in lieu of deletion. Would you support that?
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard (talk · contribs) Definitely. It would make more sense than deletion and it would also give opportunities for expansion on Ambassadors Group

AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard hss the right idea here--merge to the parent company, as is customary for relatively borderline notability . We could avoid a good number of AfDs by doing this more often. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cram.com[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 68 million flash card sets sounds significant. Google scholar search on "Flashcard Exchange" yields studies about it. --do ncr am 04:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ingvarsson, Ásgeir (2008-08-17). "Ómissandi rafræn glósuspjöld" [Essential electronic notebooks]. Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  Þess vegna kemur Flashcard Exchange sem algjör himnasending inn í líf námsmanna á öllum stigum. Strákguttinn Culley Harrelson fann upp á þessu árið 2001, og segir sagan að hann hafi hannað forritið sem vefurinn byggist á til að hjálpa sjálfum sér í náminu.
  Vefurinn er sumsé eins konar rafræn spjaldskrársmiðja. Notendur geta búið til eigin spjaldskrá eftir sínum einstaklingsbundnu námsþörfum og síðan flett í gegnum spjöldin í tölvunni. Það sem meira er, þú getur notað spjaldskrárlista sem aðrir hafa sett saman og sparar þér því alla vinnuna.
  From Google Translate:
  That's why Flashcard Exchange comes as a complete blending to students' lives at all levels. Culley Harrelson discovered this in 2001, telling the story that he designed the web-based program to help himself in the study.
  The web is some kind of electronic card template. Users can create their own calendar according to their individual learning needs and then browse through the cards on the computer. What's more, you can use a list of lists that others have put together, saving you all the work.
  This is a review of Cram.com (then called Flashcard Exchange) in an Icelandic newspaper.
2. Doe, Charles (March–April 2014). "Electronic Resources for Schools". Internet@Schools. Information Today, Inc. ISSN 2156-843X. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Cram.com has developed a modified version of the Leitner system, a method of using flashcards, called "Cram mode." When studying flashcards in a given level, you go through the set normally and choose if it's right or wrong. When all of the flash cards have been answered, you are presented witha summary of the results.
  Cram.com has flashcards available for many subjects, at many levels, in multiple languages. They can be used for assessment as well as study. As of January, Cram.com has 1,092,646 members with almost 75 million sets of flashcards.
  ...
  Recommendation: Cram is an excellent means of memorizing information and reviewing memorized information for test and other situations. I highly recommend it for third grade through college students and maybe even for younger ones. Highly Recommended
  Here is more information about the reviewer from the bottom of the article:
  Reviewer: Charles Doe(charliegd@sbcglobal.net) is a 39-year teacher, including 10 years as elementary media specialist in Hastings Area Schools in Hastings, Mich. For the past15years, he has written articles and reviews for Internet@Schools.
3. "What's Working". Curriculum Review. Vol. 51, no. 5. January 2012. p. 6. ISSN 0147-2453. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Users can keep their flashcards private if they prefer not to share, or team up with classmates to share the burden of flashcard creation. If they've chosen to make their flashcards public, they are automatically added to the database for other users to search and use. Teachers can also create flashcards for their students to study online.
  Flashcard Exchange has also made it easy for users to print out flashcards. There are a variety of templates, layouts and fonts to choose from and users can even synchronize their flashcards directly to their iPhone, iPod Touch, Android or other mobile device!
  Find out why more than 400,000 people are using this unique website today.
4. Battaglia, Danielle (2014-09-28). "Website for students gives learning tools a new twist". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  That’s because teacher Will Murphy uses a website called Cram.com to teach students their vocabulary words using online flashcards.
  The website, which also offers games, testing options and mobile apps, was developed in Los Angeles in 2001, originally under the name FlashcardExchange.com.
  Rebranded last year, Cram.com has 1.3 million users, including elementary students and doctoral candidates. North Carolina has the sixth-highest number of users, according to the website.
  “Flashcards are a proven learning tool, but the idea of carrying around a stack of dead trees with you seemed antiquated,” said Todd Clemens, co-founder of Cram.com.
5. Allen, Jules (2005-06-06). "Flipping out". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  The article notes:
  
  FlashCardExchange.com/
  Flash cards have never really resonated with me, but others I trust swear by them. The concept is simple: Write material on cards, flip through the cards and memorize the information. The computer version on this site is similar and favors keystrokes. There are oodles of prepopulated cards, and subjects include child development, real estate, computers and lots of goodies for educators (prekindergarten though high school). Power users can even upload their own to share with the world.
6. Allardice, Linda C (November–December 2001). "Homeschooling made easy". Link-Up. Vol. 18, no. 6. Information Today, Inc. ISSN 0739-988X. Retrieved 2017-08-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  At the elementary level, flashcards are always a delightful way to learn the alphabet, numbers, colors, and simple words. At Flashcard Exchange [www.flashcardexchange. com] parents can download a wide variety of flashcards, make flashcards, print flashcards, and even download them to a PDA. Kids can use the flashcards on the computer-which teaches them computer skills at the same time-or the cards can be printed out and laminated to be used over and over again. Culley Harrelson, a computer programmer, started Flashcard Exchange in December 2000.
  "I was studying for a technical exam and I had created about 900 flashcards to help," Harrelson said. He bought some other flashcards, but found these cards weren't much better than the ones he created. Harrelson never finished the exam and instead went on to learn a new computer language-Java. "As an exercise to learn this new language I built flashcardexchange.com," he said.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cram.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the only active participants other than myself of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashcard Exchange: Onebravemonkey (talk · contribs) and S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard: Those sources come across as passing mentions, rather than significant coverage, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (368 words about Flashcard Exchange), second source (at least 500 words about Cram.com), and third source (410 words about Flashcard Exchange) are substantial reviews of the subject. They are not passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough mentions, including a NYT. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Of note is that a check prior to deletion using Earwig Copyvio (results) did not demonstrate any copyright infringement in the former article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Toon Twister 3D[edit]

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

PRODded as "Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable computer game. No reliable sources in article or found to show the notability of this game. There are a few sites that mention it (confirming its existence) , and some fan sites that talk about, but nothing showing that it is worth an article." PROD removed but the issues were not addressed and the article has not been touched in over one month. Meters (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article also violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, with multiple references to the reader in the second person and an emphasis on instructions on how to play the game. I suspect that that portions are a copy of the software instruction manual. Meters (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WayForward Technologies. In retrospect I probably should have just boldly redirected this in the first place. Meters (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no real need to redirect as it's a totally non notable video game. It's doubtful anyone will be searching for it, so it would be a pointless redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either a deletion or a redirect, but I though the redirect made sense since the target article actually lists this piece of software. Meters (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per zxcvbnm, also no news was found about the game. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly WP:GAMECRUFT and doesn't look neutral to me. Wumbolo (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could the instruction manual possibly be a copyvio? Wumbolo (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Marie Denha[edit]

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

This article subject is not notable. It was prodded when there was only one imdb reference. Creator deprodded and added a plethora of unreliable references. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT and I'm not finding in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. gongshow talk 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone keeps removing sources that show the notability of the person. I see this as just vandalism of the page to remove sources before even discussing the reason with the page creator. considering there is pages on Wikipedia that shouldn't even be on as they arnt even referenced properly I would like a proper moderator to review the actions taken by some Wiki Users.User_talk:Manunited20 16:00, 9 August 2017
Also Added new refernces to the Article. Page is of a well known TV host and actress and I will continue to improve the article. The page is not an Orphan page anymore..User_talk:Manunited20 22:10, 10 August 2017
comment References are being removed by various editors because they are unreliable. I removed again today the re-addition of IMDb as a reference in the body of the article. It is considered unreliable. Please read over WP:RS before adding more references Manunited20. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed many of the unreliable sources, and note that Manunited20 never responded to my initial attempt to discuss the matter: User_talk:Manunited20#Famousbirthdays.com_as_a_source. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @--Ronz Am sure all the Articles you have created are reliable sources. that's why people like you ruin Wikipedia and make editors not post up anything anymore because you always think you are right. I didn't attempt to discuss the matter because all you do is come and remove any sources I put up because they all seem to be unreliable lol. we shall leave it to someone that knows better than you...User_talk:Manunited20 17:15, 11 August 2017
Delete: seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find anything in-depth. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.......Editors on Wikipedia just Nominate pages for deletion and remove sources. User_talk:Manunited20 17:25, 16 August 2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not found a lot here, but there is more than a passing mention here: http://www.chaldeannews.com/cousins-coming-to-town/ Given that we have a page creator here who is keen to keep the page, then I ask them to find more references such as this page to establish notability. As she's from a particular community, and her IMDB list is quite long, then I think she would have been covered as an Assyrian-American actress in some sources, but I don't know where. Ross-c (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Ross-c I actually had a lot of references on the page up, but the few users seem to remove them all because they all seem unreliable. so that link you just put up on your comment is also unreliable to them. as you said the person is very notable with a list of Credits...Sometimes I think its a waste of time in helping Wikipedia expand in information. Manunited20 19:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage of her, and her acting credits are far too weak to qualify her for WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ichraq Qamar[edit]

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

Self-written vanity page, doesn't meet notability for music and the claims as a model and as a TV celebrity also appear to be at too low a level. Looking at refs with Google translate, these seem to be poor sources too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional, COI, non-yet ready. This was left in my user talk page: Hey I don't know what is the problem in this article and this account is running by Ichraq Qamar And Her Team to bring the real contents and we created that article to show all the people her career and to be known easy. --IchraqQamar Ameen(Admin) Ichraq Qamar Team -- Alexf^(talk) 11:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional page on a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focaloid Technologies[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what's present in the article is passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided references are routine start-up coverage for the original proposition and a note about the company's change of field. The article makes no claim to notability and nothing provided or found in searches indicates more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Hudnall[edit]

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

There seem to be two sources, both of which are primary and associated with the subject — and none of which are any longer live. Carl Fredrik^talk 22:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this and this, which support some of the claims about the Harsh Realm lawsuit. This from Comic Book Resources covers them in connection to Harsh Realm. I found this, but can't view it due to an internet filter, so I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. This article from CBR and this one from Comics Beat talk about him outside of the HR work. I also found these two interviews. These took less than 9 minutes to find. I'm sure there are more available. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This notes that he was asking people to give Trump a change, this says he started working for Breitbart ? DS (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so add those sources. What you are saying otherwise is that the article is currently insufficient, but can be rescued. That still means it should be deleted. Carl Fredrik^talk 10:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: - There is no WP:DEADLINE. I have found sources that demonstrate notability, so deletion is not the correct action. Don't be so WP:IMPATIENT. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: — WP:the deadline is now. Deletion is not only about notability, but about whether the article actually stands up to scrutiny, for example see WP:BLPPROD

For unsourced articles about living persons created after 18 March 2010, adding {{subst:prod blp}} will propose the BLP for deletion. If sources are not added within 10 days, the article may be deleted.

Every second we allow a CV-type promotional article to stay on WP is a second that it decreases the overall quality of WP. Carl Fredrik^talk 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added all these sources to the article as external links. BLPROD didn't and doesn't apply, which I'm guessing is why you didn't use it first. The essay you linked is primarily about false information, not unsourced information. Please clarify which of the Reasons for deletion you think applies here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't apply, that is only through a formality, it still applies in essence (the 2010 cut-off is arbitrary). No, the reason is I wasn't aware of it, since I do not tend to edit biographies. EL:s do not increase the standard of the content, and do not exclude it from being deleted.

Wikipedia draws no line between unsourced and false information. If no-one is willing to source the information it may as well be false — and keeping unsourced information in the encyclopedia is akin to allowing falsehoods per WP:VERIFY.

You have the following reasons WP:G11, WP:DEL4 & WP:DEL9 Carl Fredrik^talk 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD doesn't apply because it's for articles that "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)".

G11 (pages that are exclusively promotional) and and DEL4 are jokes, right? What about this page seems promotional to you?

To DEL9, the solution is to remove the unsourced material, not delete the whole article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an unapologetic summary of his work-life, like a CV. Only two statements are actually sourced in the article. The one that he has been sued, and the one that he has received some award. None of them support the first sentence of the article.

So, what that means is that BLPPROD applies, because there are essentially nothing but passing mentions used as sources, and what you seem to have left out:

To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography.

That he is involved in a law-suit is not exactly a statement about him, (even though the source includes other information, but it isn't used to support that).

I'm surprised we allow so horrible articles to go unsourced, just because they could be sourced. If nothing else I will remove all unsourced material. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have understood the lawsuit. He wasn't sued. He did the suing. Because he wasn't credited as creating something. The whole lawsuit was about Hudnall and his work. You're calling that a passing mention? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Argento Surfer. BOZ (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sources. Artw (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Interchange[edit]

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

De-PROD-ed, was nominated because the article "fails to meet WP:GNG: lacks 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'." The de-PROD reason was that other large interchanges have articles, yet any with articles have to meet WP:GNG, which this article does not. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete First of all, I can't tell from the article which interchange this is, though I would guess that it's the one at the SW end of the bridge. But anyway, I'm not finding anything but routine construction coverage, and I note that GHits are considerably inflated by an unrelated railroad feature and by another interchange or two in the midwest. The candidate interchange itself looks unremarkable and the claim to notability is marginal at best. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I bet that it is a notable interchange. There have been several interchanges PRODed or AFDd recently, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brebes Exit, seemingly because it is believed that interchanges cannot be notable, but they can. The Orange Crush interchange is one big interchange. AFAIK there are relatively few articles about interchanges, and they are all notable, and there should be more of them, not fewer. --do ncr am 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it is the only interchange specifically mentioned in the introduction of the List of road interchanges in the United States article, so it seems pretty important. :) Also, while I !vote "Keep", a lesser alternative to outright deletion would be to merge/redirect to that list-article. --do ncr am 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's there because you just created that list article and you put it in the lead of that list, which I would presume is just a dump of the corresponding categories. I don't deny that interchanges can be notable, but as a rule the reason they are is because they are notorious for their traffic problems and/or accidents, and have required a lot of redesign over the years. There is no evidence for that here. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got me there, about creating the list-article, which was needed. :) An interchange can cost up to $1.7 billion, apparently. The list-article immediately has a dozen major interchanges in California, but just this one so far in Oregon. I do tend to believe it is one of the most major interchanges in the state, if not the top one, which is a claim of importance. I am not sure how to search for coverage of it, really. Wikipedia coverage in this area is spotty so far, I and some others are just figuring this out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of road interchanges in the United States was started but will likely be closed as SNOW KEEP. This Oregon interchange article needs a little time to get sorted out; I say keep and revisit in six months or a year, and I bet we will have systematic coverage of all the interchanges with $ costs and numbers of ramps and miles of roadway involved and more good stuff. If there is too much impatience here because some editors don't yet believe these topics (and this Oregon one) are important, then I don't terribly mind if this is redirected to List of road interchanges in the United States#Fremont Interchange for the time being, until I re-create it. :) --do ncr am 04:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a notable interchange, and that's all the list will contain, then how can such a redirect be justified? Look, the article really makes no claim to notability anyway. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you succeed in getting this article deleted on basis that it is deemed "not Wikipedia-notable", you will not succeed in getting the item deleted from the list-article, because list-item-notability is different, and sources exist, and there can obviously be a sourced entry about it in the list. I suppose we could have a battle at the list-article's Talk page about defining list-item-notability. Please note: having the list-article is a "good thing" for deletionists, because it can be the redirect/merge target for marginal articles. However, you have also nominated the list-article for deletion. Especially while that AFD is open, it is more important to Keep this article.

It appears (i am not sure though) that it is the biggest interchange in Oregon, and I bet that its eventual reconstruction will cost one or more billions of dollars when it has to happen, based on prices for others that I have seen now. Some comments on sources below. The list-article now has a reference to an article headlined "8 monster interchanges that blight American cities", where I think the author didn't write the headline. The article covers huge cost to construct some of these and huge consequences of millions of person-years involved in congestion before these were built or reconstructed, or if they are not functioning smoothly. These interchanges are not blights; they are amazing treasures which allow urban areas to function. I would say the Fremont Interchange is under-appreciated in Wikipedia, although I don't know if the Portland area or Oregon as a state properly/fully appreciates it or not, though the state Department of Transportation probably does; deletion of the article is not the way forward. Sources do exist; it is better to develop than to delete or even to redirect/merge. This is a huge item. As a matter of perspective, it is more important than many/most populated places in the United States, more important than most roadways covered by WikiProject U.S. Roads. --do ncr am 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any sources for this page. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Try searching on "i-5 i-405 interchange Portland". This yields, for example, the Oregon DOT's the "I-5: I-84 to I-405 Design Workshop Concept Report" which covers a lot about the interchange, as well as roadway leading to it. For context:

I-5 was constructed during the first half of the 1960s. This includes the roadway and the structures, so these elements are now more than forty years old. There has not been major reconstruction of any of these elements. The Fremont Bridge and the I-405 (Fremont) Interchange were constructed about ten years later in the first half of the 1970s.

and there's more in that document.

There's this report about i-5 closure there or nearby (i am not sure where the "Burnside Bridge" is. Someone local could understand the Google hits better than me, and/or find better hits with variations on the search. It seems that construction on related highway 84 and various bridges nearby might be more pressing in recent years, but anyhow, the Fremont Interchange exists and is huge, and will surely cost hundreds of millions to replace when it must be replaced. Coverage of its construction in 1970s and how it was no doubt one of the great marvels of the Western world, then, are not found easily online. But certainly there would have been tons about it, and notability is not temporary. --do ncr am 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an option to merge the Fremont Interchange and the Fremont Bridge into a combo article, if they were in fact planned together and built at the same time. I would leave that to local editors. --do ncr am 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails to meet notability guidelines, since few outside of Portland even know it has a name. Moreover, the only Oregon DOT documents about the interchange refer to it by a different name (East Fremont, to disambiguate from the West Fremont Interchange), so the article would need to be moved. The information contained is redundant to the I-405 article, which would easily be able to encompass the history of the interchange (which ties into the freeway's history as a whole). Sounder Bruce 21:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in this article explains why this interchange is special enough for its own article. Relevant details can be covered in the articles of the roads serving the interchange. Dough4872 00:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interchanges can be notable, and many are. This one isn't. I did a quick check of the first page of Google results for "fremont interchange" (Link), and the only result referencing this interchange in Portland is the list written by doncram, which is also at AfD. (For the record, I voted "weak keep" on that discussion.) Most of the results were for interchanges in Fremont, California, with another one for a project in (I believe) Iowa and another for an apparently non-road usage. This interchange doesn't deserve an article. -happy 5214 04:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Fremont Bridge (Portland, Oregon). The article creator seems to have conferred notability of the interchange from the notability of the bridge, for which the punishment is a {{trout}}ing. I had to do some digging, but all I did was confirm what SounderBruce found; Oregon DOT refers to it as "East Fremont – Exit 302B", but that seems to be more for department reference than for naming's sake. –Fredddie ™ 11:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below. –Fredddie ™ 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, i was not creator of the article. I don't think merely "exit 302" is the name for the I-5, I-405, I-84 interchange, which gets ridership of 135,000 daily and is apparently the highest-ridership interchange in Oregon. [in fact it does seem to be at milepoint 302 on the I-5, see accident reports comment below. --do ncr am 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)] (In a study of chokepoints posted at tripnets.org there is one non-interchange chokepoint, the "I-205 Sunnyside Road to Glisan Street", which has higher ridership of 130,000-164,000.) This factoid is not yet in article.[reply]

It is utterly silly to check just first page of results of just "Fremont Interchange", when yes that is not used commonly as the name for the intersection, just as in Los Angeles no one knows what is the "Pregerson Interchange", everyone knows it as the I-110 - I-105 interchange. And when there is a different interchange in Fremont, California, and when it has been pointed out above that searching differently gets more relevant results. Like I said before, try searching on "i-5 i-405 interchange Portland".

For example, this review of chokepoints in Oregon mentions "$800 million-$1.3 billion" cost of potential improvement to this interchange, with "$300-350 million for improvements to Broadway/Weidler and widen I-5 to 3 lanes" as a lesser improvement which is in fact happening. I was so far ignoring the large amount of available coverage on the Weidler-related construction which is going forward, and which can be viewed as is part of this interchange. --do ncr am 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that if "Fremont Interchange" were a common name, I would get some Google hits and I wouldn't have to search for "the I-5, I-405, and I-84 interchange"? (Fremont Interchange Portland search results) The hits that seem relevant are mostly talking about the interchange on the south bank of the Willamette River not on the north side.. For comparison's sake, here is Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange, where most of the hits are relevant. Nobody is doubting any of the statistics that you've mention, doncram, so I'm starting to think that since they're inextricably linked, maybe we should move the content to Fremont Bridge and all sleep better tonight. –Fredddie ™ 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you'd get far more coverage of the I-105/I-110 interchange in Los Angeles if you searched on how it is usually referred to, than if you search on "Pregerson", which no one in Los Angeles has ever heard of, it certainly is not mentioned in traffic reports about congestion/accidents/construction. That one in the middle of Los Angeles is a much busier interchange than the busiest interchange in the state of Oregon, so searching on its non-common name yields more than searching on the non-common name for the Oregon one. Using the Pregerson and Fremont names seems preferable for the titles of Wikipedia articles, but those aren't the common names.

About making a combo article with the bridge, that would be okay by me. I suggested that as a possibility above, but actually the bridge is different, and there is a usual style for bridge articles with categories and so on, and I actually think the interchange should be separate. --do ncr am 21:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC) --do ncr am 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because "I bet that it is a notable interchange." is not good enough. --Rs chen 7754 05:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Besides the couple references and the approach to searching which i added to this AFD after first "betting" that it would be a notable interchange, here's one more: 2014 "Most Dangerous Roads and Intersections in Oregon 2014" lists it as one of the "ranked high" ones (named as the "I-405 and I-5" intersection). Clicking through the 60-slide slide show gets one to:

#29 Most Dangerous
I-5 Near Exit 302A/Mile Point 302.76-302.95
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 34
Fatalities: 1
Injuries: 19
Property Damage: 14

and

#23 Most Dangerous
I-5 Near Exit 302A/Mile Point 302.52-302.76
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 140 
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 65
Property Damage: 75

and

#18 Most Dangerous
I-5/Mile Point 300.19-300.51
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 155
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 77
Property Damage: 78

which compare to:

#1 Most Dangerous
US-26 & I-405
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 381
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 213
Property Damage: 168

It seems one interchange includes more than one "intersection" and there is no total available for all accidents at the interchange. --do ncr am 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, among results found by searching on "Exit 302" within ODOT there is diagram of the I-5/I-405 interchange with daily traffic counts for 2015 in [http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Ramps_2015.pdf this ODOT document at PDF page 20 (its page 168), with 35,320 and 39,140 being the two busiest ramps of the diagram labelled "East Fremont - Exit 302B".

Another option which could be done after this AFD is to convert the Fremont Interchange article into something like Interchanges in Pennsylvania, which hasn't been questioned, knock on wood. --do ncr am 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, what? Should we create 60 articles, one for each of those interchanges? --Rs chen 7754 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be just 1 article for Oregon interchanges, avoiding future separate articles and AFDs. --do ncr am 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest railway stations in Europe[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of original research. Aside from the figures suffering from linkrot, making verification difficult, there's no easy way of proving this list is correct. Indeed, I note that several figures for the Swiss stations have been challenged as failing verification, and the London stations don't seem to match up either, which throws the whole list into question.

If an individual source summarising this list exists (I can see the Gare du Nord is mentioned as the busiest in numerous places, but nothing else), then we can probably resolve this, but I can't find one. If we can't find anything, the whole thing needs blowing up and starting over. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think List of the busiest airports in Europe should be deleted too? That also is sourced from various national statistics --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ritchie333, I have problems to understand your objections – besides the huge problem of listing rankings with different sources, i.e. without a coordinating body/organization normalizing the different approaches of statistics and the different approaches of collecting figures. But there are a huge number of such questionable lists on WP!! – Regarding the Swiss figures: the given figures are hardly easier to verify; the given reference is working and therefore easily verifable. What exactely is your problem with it? -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the problem is described in Notability of standalone lists - "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... 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". I have not found a source that shows the list itself is notable, and hence the article would seem to be original research. This explains why trying to improve it is a complete pain, as with these lists you can normally start with a source like that, which will get you most of the way there. This list doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination invokes essay wp:TNT, which for reasons listed at essay wp:TNTTNT is invalid. Including that the TNT argument acknowledges the validity of the topic for a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 16:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with this list is that we have no source saying that these are indeed the 71 busiest stations in Europe. We have figures for the stations listed but not for the stations not listed, and I find it difficult to believe that there is no station in the former Eastern Bloc (apart from Germany) with over 30 million passenger movements per year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any references or surveys of busiest railway stations in entire Europe. Without such a survey, this list is a collection of statistics from various sources and it not accurate. I agree with Ritchie333 that it is original research and it can be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If something like this [10] can be found, this article may be salvageable. Otherwise, I think it is better to keep country level lists for which proper data is available.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to my comment above, I can not follow the initiator's claims. All figures are sourced and most sources are valid. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The figures may well be accurate but they are only figures for particular stations in particular countries. We don't know whether there are other stations that may be in other countries with higher passenger numbers than those on the list. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perDreamLinker and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — fortunavelut luna 13:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Actually, I think this could be a useful article, but it needs a lot of work. Move it into the draft namespace for a while, until it is significantly improved. Elliot321 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as a valid topic with reliable sources, even if they are getting old. This is not OR, and plenty of excellent lists bring listings from a variety of sources - a single external list is not necessary. Concerns about missing any could be allayed by removing the numeric rankings. Should have see also links to List of busiest railway stations in Germany, List of busiest railway stations in Italy, etc. Reywas92^Talk

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 06:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call Connection[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EURACTIV[edit]

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

Importance of this organization is unclear and doesn't seem to be substantiated by reliable sources per WP:NWEB or other relevant notable guideline. The only really strong independent source in the article (niemanlab.org) suggests that they basically translate news from other outlets, this is not clearly what a Wikipedia article is for, vice a notable newspaper or online publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EURACTIV is a vital independent news source for the European Union^[1] supported by major publications throughout Europe.^[2] ScotKreek (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know they say they are vital and stuff, but are they? Who says so? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note By the sheer volume of its partnership with other MSM's and its own original content, I'm sure everyone here can excuse my thinking that this proposed deletion was some kind of joke--after all, even the most minimal of research shows who they are. (EURACTIV.com with AFP and Reuters)[11] (By Sam Morgan | EURACTIV.com)[12] (By Samuel White | EURACTIV.com)[13] (and here's a ton more too)[14] Thanks, and no offense meant either. ScotKreek (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, sorry. What you"ve given there are a bunch of stories published by Euractiv. By definition they are not independent RSes, which is exact what the article is lacking. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my searches I've found EURACTIV quoted by Forbes, the National Review, PBS, New Scientist, the Telegraph, and CNN, among others. It seems to be viewed as a reliable news source and generator of independent content. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"EURACTIV quoted" isn't what is needed here to demonstrate notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being covered by other sources is exactly how we determine notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline linked states "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine) but what was offered was not that. What was offered was random reprints with Euractive bylines like Forbes: "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said...". If crediting a news source creates notability, I'm puzzled. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The very first "source" linked there, Forbes, begins its article with "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said." First of all, starting an article with this phrasing, right before explaining why said EURActiv article was wholly inappropriate, really only helps to completely undermine the credibility of the content they are referring to; and given that Forbes is, well, Forbes, I am more inclined to believe their opinion on a source's credibility than that of a one-year-old wiki account with an attitude problem. Forbes then proceeds to call out EURActiv in detail and with examples, for highly inaccurately representing the content of the original UNEP report in question; however, this Forbes article is fairly outdated (2011) so their link to the original UNEP report is broken.
The second "source" listed, National Review, is extremely brief, wasting no time in highlighting EURActiv's extremely self-contradictory statements, and literally ending the article with a statement about laughing... at EURActiv. They link to two EURActiv articles; in the latter, EURActiv writes, "[this report] will also come as an embarrassment for EU officials who had hailed the results of the 2014 poll for finally reversing a trend of declining voter engagement..." seemingly oblivious to their article not even three full months earlier, to which NR also links to, wherein EURActiv does exactly that embarrassing thing.
To avoid becoming very TL;DR I will stop here at 2/6 but if needed I can absolutely explain why those other links are equally useless for establishing EURActiv's credibility. Zeebowbop (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can ignore current state and consider that the site has a large editorial staff and is itself is spoken of in many non-euractiv sources. Looks like it itself meets WP:RS, and WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues do not always require deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. A google search for the phrase "according to (source)" is not coverage directly and detail. Not to mention that WP:GHITS is a canonically bad AfD argument. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened that you did not appreciate my efforts to find non-EURACTIV sources speaking about EURACTIV. And please, WP:GHITS is bad to use as a dismissive as well, specially under policies of WP:V and the guideline allowances for suitable sources to describe themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a valid news source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Meaning...? — fortunavelut luna 00:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@fortuna velut luna... it's possible that due to its large editorial staff TonyTheTiger might feel the site meets WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots of editors and lots of content out there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large staff might be persuasive if it were independently verified, and there were a ENWP guideline automatically conferring notability on reliable sources. The first condition certainly has not been met. And there is no such RS=GNG guideline that I am aware of. The nearest is "frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NMEDIA, but that a) is an essay not a guideline and b) applies to periodicals only. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS may be seen as more useful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nzamba Kitonga[edit]

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

Unremarkable local politician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards "keep", however, I'm interested in what others have to say. Various sources state that he was chairman of the committee that drafted the Kenyan Constitution (e.g. [15]) which sounds like a big deal to me. -Location (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can be reliably sourced to more significant coverage about him than this. Being on the committee that drafted the constitution is indeed the strongest notability claim here, but the source provided above just namechecks his existence in that role and doesn't say anything substantive about his work in that role. And of the sources present in the article, one is a reliable source but not particularly substantive, and the other one (Kenyan Life) reads like a political campaign brochure: from what I can tell, it appears to be the kind of user-generated open platform on which people can freely redistribute their own self-published "coverage" about themselves, which is thus not a source that can be used to assist notability at all. So we need better sourcing than this before we can keep it. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly looks to be a senior enough official for an article, although the sourcing could definitely do with improvement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep an article just because improved sourcing might be possible — to earn a keep on inadequate sourcing, it would have to be definitively shown that the sources necessary to improve it do exist, not just asserted that maybe just maybe they might, who knows. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said it could do with improvement, not that it was non-existent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said it could do with improvement without showing any actual evidence that such improvement is possible at all. That's what I'm talking about: it's not enough to just assume that maybe the improved sourcing required might exist somewhere, but rather to get it kept on that basis you would need to actually show evidence that the improved sourcing required does exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage exists to establish notability: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. CJK09 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with CJK09 on sources. Agree that current state of sourcing in article is lame, but that really doesn't matter.L3X1 (distænt write) 19:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition and Custom Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. found no coverage in Malay or English for its current or former name. the 2 sources provided merely confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Public museums are routinely kept in AFDs, including numerous AFDs opened by the current deletion nominator. It's a public attraction. It's a museum. It's a sensible public service for Wikipedia to provide info on museums, like we do for other repositories/sources of knowledge such as academic journals, newspapers, etc. As it is a museum, we know it is covered at least briefly in travel guides and other sources. And there will exist reviews of the museum when it originally opened and when there have been major renovations/changes/new exhibits, although we may not find those sources online. It is reasonable to believe that such sources exist. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, but for those interested in developing the article nonetheless, try also:

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

--do ncr am 04:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a public attraction. It's a museum. It's a sensible public service for Wikipedia to provide info on museums". no, there is no inherent notability for museums. I have tried under those old names, you obviously didn't even bother to click the gnews search because it's zero results. your !vote is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please provide actual evidence of sources instead of WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, searching just by clicking on your "find sources" link doesn't work well. Try searching on "Alor Gajah" museum rather than "Alor Gajah Museum" works better.

It is covered in Lonely Planet guidebook, a very good one. "Malaysia, Singapore & Brunei - Page 254 - Google Books Result [23] / Simon Richmond - 2010 - ‎Travel: "Sights Right in Alor Gajah Square is the Museum of Custom and Tradition (admission RM1; h9am-5.30pm Wed-Thu&Sat&Sun, 9am-12.15pm&2.45-5.30pmFri), ..." and I can't see the rest of the information provided.
I saw a review which described it as having started pretty much as a local history museum, which later broadened to cover Malay culture. Sorry, i don't have the link now.

LibStar, your habit of responding ping-pong style to every comment which does not agree 100% with you is annoying. Please consider not replying to this comment, and not to other comments by other editors. --do ncr am 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot make another editor in an AfD to stop replying, you need to stop saying there are sources and actually list them in your first response, it's rather ping pong of you. and jumping to the conclusion that everything is suddenly inherently notable when it isn't. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Planet like any travel guide is hardly an advancer of notability, hotels also appear in Lonely Planet. travel guides tend to only prove the entity exists. and if Lonely Planet is the best source you can come up with it's hardly a case for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trying to stifle someone who has an opposing view to you in an AfD, is it because you don't want your arguments contested? LibStar (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a few lines in a 646 page travel guide hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unnotable museum with no significant media notice. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabthams Vision[edit]

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

Non notable company. The "23 industry awards" are movies and TV productions (and the people involved) who have won awards, and where Sabthams Vision wa in some way involved with the same production. No evidence that Sabthams Vision itself has won any notable awards or hasa received significant attention. Fram (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 100% advertorial content on a company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Bobby Vinton album)[edit]

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

Another unnotable compilation that lacks significant secondary coverage and/or chart entries. Would everyone be in agreement if I created an AfD in the near future that lists all Bobby Vinyon comps that have the same issues? I am finding a serious case of fandom. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with this recent AfD, the only coverage I can find is a short Allmusic review; not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a significant album and no sufficient sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.; not notable and no RS independent coverage. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Sidewalk Surfing![edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The album did not chart on any notable music lists. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find only listings in music directories and record price guides; no in-depth coverage. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 05:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 04:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AI Global Media[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; Seems to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Chris Troutman (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the notability lies in the number of magazines they publish which is why there are few sources for AI itself. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: I don't think that's what NCORP or GNG says. How do imagine number of magazines published is a criterion? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the GNG we should consider not just AI but also the coverage of the magazines they publish (and the awards) as they are all the product of the same business. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 02:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:PROMO article largely about the company's promotional awards. The article states:

"Awards made by AI are accompanied by publicity in the online magazines published by the company for which the winner pays."

This content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood. The article isn't promotional, the company's activities are to market bogus awards that promote their clients. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cumulative effect of numerous mentions of the company and its various magazines is enough to establish notability under WP:GNG, and the article itself has been much expanded since it was nominated for deletion. It is clearly not a WP:PROMO article, as evidenced by the extensive efforts by User:KatHallAIGlobal (presumably someone acting on behalf of the company) to remove content, or blank the article, or to replace it with promotional text. Where we have sufficient independent sourcing to do so, perhaps common sense suggests that we have a role in informing our readers about the operations of such companies. Edwardx (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayastan Jan[edit]

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

Not a notable song I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRM apologist[edit]

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

Original Research Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for NRM apologist[reply]

Delete This article is basically original research used to support/inflate/legitimize what is effectively a derogatory expression created by people aligned with the anti-cult movement. You can see this when you look at the edit note on the [first edit that created the page], "(Those dastardly evil-doers who whitewash the crimes of destructive mind control cults!!!)". In the time since the article was created the references are cherry picked like a word used in a book to, for lack of a better term "turn this into a thing" when it actually isn't really a thing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that I think this fails WP:Notablility. Most of the references are simply places where the word was used in passing in another context. Further, many of these instances are not even in locations that would meet WP:reliablesources. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is definitional in nature; violates WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the policy on neologisms, and furthermore, given the title of the article it would probably be impossible to turn this into an article that satisfies NPOV. CJK09 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though perhaps moving to cult apologist as a better title. There are clearly many sources and if this was really not notable, given how well-known the concepts of cults are, one wonders why the article has survived this long without an AfD. Even incidental common usage by multiple independent sources establishes that this is a well-established phenomenon and well-covered in the literature. The reference to an "anti-cult movement" in the OP also raises some alarm bells. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the title back to Cult Apologist would be even more a violation of WP:NEO. BTW- The Anti-Cult Movment is well documented. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHAREE (NGO)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG for lack of available sources independent of the subject. - Mr X 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth, arms-length, reliable sources. The cited sources are directory listings, a passing mention in newspaper Prothom Alo, and a brief mention by Oxfam in connection with a meeting SHAREE co-organized with support from Oxfam. Searches, by both acronym and long name, of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR found nothing more substantial. Yes, it's one of the 2,553 NGOs registered in Bangladesh, but it is not a notable one. Fails WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method[edit]

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

Article only provides generic sourcing from initial edits in 2008. Massive copyvio of https://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/5837fd04c28cb.pdf, http://www.iracst.org/ijrmt/papers/Vol2no12012/5vol2no1.pdf and possibly original papers describing the method. General notability not asserted in article. Also WP:NOTMANUAL.

Either nuke the article per WP:TNT or do a complete rewrite to summarize the method and its relations with other articles covering the field of safety analysis. — JFG ^talk 07:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hell out of it. CREAM is only one variant of Human reliability analysis, and not any more notable than many others. None of these methods has been proved to be better than the others, just more acceptable to engineers and designers. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Famous _dog (c) 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artricle. See Hollnagel's own disclaimer form 2012 on ^[1] Rjdeboer29 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) rjdeboer29[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cooper Stimpson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, his most notable role seems to have been in Chubby Funny, but in general he hasn't received significant attention yet. Fram (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources with sufficient coverage to establish independent notability. CJK09 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Brockwell[edit]

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

Subject fails General Notability Guideline. "Notable" only for being a person hired by Jimmy Wales for his new commercial enterprise, "WikiTribune." Includes personal medical details that are nobody's fucking business, non-newsworthy. A letter to the editor of the Guardian (op-ed) and a sensational Daily Mail follow up (does not count towards GNG per consensus) does not cut it. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject had an article before WikiTribune was announced and launched. There are plenty more sources out there including BBC, Look and Telegraph. Andrew D. (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, and to quote every Star Wars movie ever, "I have a bad feeling about this." →StaniStani 08:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. She's attracted some ink, but the most solid coverage is for her publicising her effort to have a tubal ligation. The coverage of both her website and her hiring by WikiTribune is shallow, and on all three topics it's interview-based. I've added some references and fixed up some that were already there, but the references were and still are heavy on her own writing, there's a Daily Mail article in there, and many of the recent news hits are the kind of emotional stuff I'm reluctant to cite. (I checked what The Memo was and it appears to be RS, so I did cite it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, by having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Edwardx (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Her notability lies in her activism, most prominently her questioning why doctors have the right to make choices concerning women's bodies contrary to the woman's own wishes. Clearly her campaign brought nationwide discussion on the subject, as she was interviewed on television and many, many articles were published on her fight. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. Her earlier campaign against Hyundai was also widely covered [30], [31] Plenty of RS cover her campaigns, but IMP she only weakly meets GNG, as I question whether "over time" is fully met, since I find little before the last five years. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to meet WP:BASIC and comes pretty close to WP:BLP1E. An activist who went public with her demand to be sterilized while still in her 20s, she published some mateirla on her decision and was interviewed in come media. Mostly sourced to small, non-notable websites, the latest claim is that she is being hired by a publication that has not yet launched, Wikitribune, which, according to the self-description quoted on our page, will operate on a wikipedia-like model, covering braking news with the public being able able to assist the paid "journalists" creating news coverage in real time. She calls herself a journalist (or whoever wrote this page does, an editor with a handful of edits who may be a fan of hers, but who certainly follows Brockwell's activities closely.) Brockwell claims to be a "journalist"; she started a website. Sourcing is pretty marginal. I wish her luck with her career, but it's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as written is short on independent secondary sources and long on: interviews that are simply Brockwell talking about Brockwell without analysis by the interviewer, material by Brockwell, and tabloid content. However, SusunW has identified independent sources published by the BBC, CNN, News.com.au, and Tech Times, to which can be added an article in The Times (London)[32] and one in a Washington Post newsblog about another "campaign" of hers, against the app Stolen![33] These are enough to meet WP:GNG. Keep and rewrite using the identified sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes no claim to notability. Cheap publicity stunt (fighting national health over her sterilization request) does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a tech journalist and activist for female inclusion in tech and media, expanding on the article could be beneficial especially for the argument of making Wikipedia more open to women in the tech industry. I started this for that reason as I thought more women that have actively worked towards the inclusion of women in tech should have their pages. --Thissmileyface (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this, when do you add it back? How many articles does she have to write for her to be notable? Does a book count? Photomonkey (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of writing by a person makes that person notable. It's other people writing about a person (independently, and in reliable sources) that shows that person is notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Terra Holdings. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halstead Property[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, as available sources in various internet searches consist of routine coverage, passing mentions, quotations from company personnel, public relations content and directory listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was on the fence with this one initially as there are a ton of references. However, looking closer, it comes down to WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance, this Forbes reference is good except it is an interview. I found quite a few in Google Book search for New York Mag but the coverage is all announcements or brief mentions. Got excited to see references from The New York Times but again, brief mentions or routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the major firm in NYC, probably the major real estate market internationally. There have been major controversies and the stories on them will not be announcements. I'll check further when I get back to nyc after Wikimania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nominator and CNMall41. Sources consist of routine details normally derived from company sources, passing mentions, affiliated company persons as the only source, and so on. Trivial coverage means this topic does not satisfy CORPDEPTH and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and rewrite into Terra Holdings, the highly notable parent of this company. While I agree with DGG that the company is notable per se, I am concerned here and elsewhere with organizational fragmentation and suggest not skipping the parent organizations to focus on subsidiaries. Volunteering to the rewrite myself if the idea is adopted. gidonb (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would need redirects from Halstead Property and Brown Harris Stevens to Terra Holdings and would be able to cover all three in one article. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with you on this, and I should have mentioned it. It is pretty standard as a general practice to cover merged firms under the newer and comprehensive name with sections for the earlier-- unless when one of the earlier firm is very much more important, which is not the case here-- the name Terra \Holdings may still not be widely known, but as an actual business enterprise its the combination we want to talk about. (Or for unusually large and complex holding company situations, again not the case here) and in fact this would be a good technique also in with businesses where numerous semi-notable firms exists; WP:NOT explicitly suggests a combination article in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank you for your support and your ever so insightful comments! In this AfD I eluded to the pain with companies that organize a parent company into functional or spatial units. The units can be companies or non-companies and often are notable. See in the AfD how I had to plead for a sensible organization and my request was heard. With mega-sized companies these unit companies provide opportunities for structural organization of information, when the article of the parent is too large. With regular large companies, however, these units empty the parent of meaningful content or, more frequently and partially alongside, just duplicate the content with temporal and tone inconsistencies because each article lives its own life. With newspapers and magazines (in my example) the problem becomes even worse yet these companies are a general challenge. This is a side further to your comments. Glad to see that you continue to provide excellent feedback at AfDs, not focused on deleting or keeping but, rather, on making WP work! gidonb (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we (again) delete notable information and for clarity I wish to add that if the article is not rewritten into a new one, it should be kept. Hence keep was the first part of my opinion above. gidonb (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and rewrite into Terra Holdings, per Gidonb and DGG. A not-too-common suggestion at AfD which proves that thinking outside the box is a welcome change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There seems to be a clear consensus here that the AfDed company is not notable. There is also a suggestion that its parent company is notable and that someone should create an article about that company, which will be different both title-wise & content-wise to the above article. But that's outside the purview of this AfD, as this AfD is not about the Terra Holdings. If someone has the time to find out the relevant sources along with creating that article, there won't be any problem in recreating the above page as a redirect. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any consensus yet. But "clear consensus"??? gidonb (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I commented that it "seemed" that way. Secondly, consensus isn't !vote count. The delete !voters gave their policy-based assertions, but the keep !voters just made some claims of the above company's notability without providing in-depth coverage in third-party sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. If such bare claims can prove WP notability, then everything will become notable. In fact, the odd suggestion by you has resulted in the creation of its "highly notable" parent company's article, which also seems non-notable to me. As that article has been created now, I will request you to add in-depth third-party sources to the article, although that's irrelevant to this AfD. – NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. If an article on the parent company is created in the future, sure the content here can be merged. But since it doesn't exist and this topic fails GNG, the article should be deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the company Terra Holdings now has its own page. It needs help with referencing, but it seems people wanted one, so here it is. If this page is acceptable, then I change my ivote from "delete" to "merge" into Terra Holdings. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You created the article in good faith, but you should've asked the relevant participants to provide sources first. Anyway, now that Terra Holdings has been created & its notability isn't the concern of this AfD, I guess Halstead Property can be redirected there as there's hardly any relevant content to merge. BTW, only the very last sentence of the Halstead Property stub seems merge-worthy to Terra Holdings, but even that sentence's claims are outdated, as the sources are 15-16 years old. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terra Holdings, as per WP:ATD-R. I couldn't find in-depth coverage for Halstead Property in the third-party reliable sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The keep !voters made claims that its parent company Terra Holdings is notable, thereby there should be an article about that and that this company should be merged/redirected to the parent company. The parent company's article has already been created. And anyone is free to expand that. I would've !voted merge but there's hardly any merge-worthy content in the AfDed stub, as explained by me earlier. In any case, the redirecting will keep the revision history intact, so there won't be any problem in finding any useful bit. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terra Holdings. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain Software[edit]

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

Deemed non-notable in the 2006 AfD. It is possible for a company that wasn't notable then to be notable today, but I have seen no evidence that this is one of those cases. What I see is an article written almost entirely by a company employee citing sources that lack depth and/or independence, and that needs to be deleted again. Furrykiller (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The outcome of the prior AfD was speedy delete, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason there's two of 'em in there -- the Jan. one was a regular NN delete, and the Feb. was a G4. Furrykiller (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a G4, then where was the XfD that produced a "regular" delete result? —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here Furrykiller (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2016 PC Magazine article is in-depth. The longevity of the company, going back to 1982, easily satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. The sources in the article also include bloomberg.com, which is by itself a good indicator of Wikipedia notability. A long list of hits in Google books includes dates of 2001 and 1991. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just promotional 'cruft' and even includes an end-of-life message:

"Cougar Mountain Software previously produced CMS Professional, but this legacy product will reach its end of life in September 2017." Etc.

Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Otherwise, just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Sources lack sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. Blomberg.com mentioned above is a user-submitted directory listing, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Bloomberg L.P in 2008 was worth 22.5 billion. "In 2000, Bloomberg News included more than 2,300 editors and reporters in 100 countries." Bloomberg depends on reliability of its information as part of its business model. Who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"? Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating: Although Bloomberg is reputable as a news source, the company profiles that it provides are not created by Bloomberg, but are a third-party product. For example, on the page linked in this article, it clearly says: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". This does not mean that the information is necessarily incorrect (or even promotional), but it does not carry the weight of Bloomberg's name as an editorial entity. bd2412 T 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Bloomberg is the publisher and it is their name that is damaged if readers find erroneous information? S&P Global is itself a global company with 17,000 employees, so they have the resources to provide editorial and legal oversight to protect both their own name and that of their customer. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, Bloomberg protects their own name by providing a disclaimer explicitly stating that this material, though hosted under their name, is not their work. I don't think it could be any clearer than Bloomberg itself stating "Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". bd2412 T 11:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The titlebar of the page is "Cougar Mountain Software Inc.: Private Company Information - Bloomberg". Bloomberg is the publisher of the profile and publishes the disclaimer, and we trust Bloomberg as the reliable source that says, "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global." Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I see in the refs entitled 'product reviews' is promotional material written by the company itself. Telltale signs are words such as "our", slick professional promotional wording, and mundane-routine coverage. The Bloomberg entry is run of the mill coverage of unremarkable facts about a company. This shows it exists, but does not satisfy GNG, ORG, and CORPDEPTH. No independent significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO, WP:NOTSPAM. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - this PC Magazine review and this review from CPA Practice Advisor. Arguably, the software is more notable than the company given that the software is being reviewed here but since most reviews I have seen of the software reference the company name up front, I don't believe that is a real issue. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Delete A news search brings back very little, and the sources already presented just don't seem sufficient to expand the article beyond a permastub. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No current consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: S&P Global Marketing is not a source that establishes notability. This has been discussed with you before; pls see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a source that establishes notability"? WP:GNG requires "sources", which is generally understood as "two good sources". As for "discussion", who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"? As for RSN, see [34] (note that this source was previously known as investing.businessweek.com). Unscintillating (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet [[WP:GNG] guidelines and not enough sources GSF 323 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above account was created today and !voted "Snow keep" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajat_Bhageria_(3rd_nomination), at which AfD there is another !vote from an account created today. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the sources presented by User:HighKing - it as he/she noticed. Both reviews are reviewing the software, which is a company product, not the company itself. I believe some of article references do the same thing. So, these are not indicators of notability for this company. These sources do not provide some sort of detailed coverage about the company. Also, as noted above, S&P Global Marketing is not a reliable source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On reflection, I agree that the CPA Practise Advisor review provides almost no details or facts about the company and should be disregarded as a reference. The first reference from PCMAG is still a good source since it provides a number of facts and information about the topic company (even ignoring the review of the software). Having searched further, I cannot find one more source that meets the criteria for establishing notability, therefore my !vote changes to Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odunsi (The Engine)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up and coming artist. None of his singles (as a lead or featured artist) are notable. Nothing in the article shows the artist being a major player in the Nigerian music scene. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets WP:MUSICBIO criterias, not just 1 but more:- (2:His song Situationship was featured on billboard chart in December 2016^[2]. Here is a source from Billboard ^[3] (4: UK concert 2017, the event took place at O2 Academy Islington in London. The event also featured guest artist like "Eugy" & "Maleek Berry"^[4]. (6: He is an ensemble of independently notable musicians, such as "Eugy", "BlackMagic", "Mr Eazi" and "Joey B". (7: He has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style Nigeria known as 'Indie electronic", "Afro-Fusion", "Alternative pop", "RnB", "Electropop" & "Indie pop". (8: He has been nominated for a major music award, such as Nigeria Entertainment Awards 2017 for "Most Promising" act^[5]. (10: He has performed music for a notable film known as " Isoken"^[6] & "Banana Island Ghost (B.I.G)" a movie which also breaks box office record in one week which grosses to 35 million naira.^[7] (11: He has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio known as The Beat 99.9 FM^[8].

Since Odunsi (The Engine) meets seven criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Also, the artist's is rated b-list or also called New Wave artist^[9] in Nigeria just like "Kah-Lo", " Moelogo", "Ric Hassani", "SoJay", "T'Jan", "Ajebutter22", "Boogey" & Mavin recording artist "Johnny Drille", etc. Note: Some of the artists mentioned haven't even charted on any country's official music charts. --Obari2Kay (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject's music career has not been documented by secondary sources and virtually all cited footnotes describes the subject as an upcoming artiste except the OkayAfrica source which looks reliable but not enough to establish notability. P.S: Article creator should note that Spotify and The Beats 99 charts are non-notable music charts. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Odunsi (The Engine) was featured on OVO Sound Radio, program that airs on Beats 1^[10] ^[11]. Also he was covered by Radr Magazine^[12] in February. Here is another source which is independent of the subject in details but a tricky one also, it talk's about the subject and his music if you read the article to end ^[13]. Here is also an event in Lagos called "NativeLand Lagos concert 2016" which he shared stage with like's of "Skepta", "J Hus" & "Burna Boy", named a few^[14]. All am trying to say is the article is worth being on Wikipedia, according to the law stated by WP:MUSICBIO which say's "May be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Since the article meet's seven not just one of it's criteria, also you said Spotify is not a notable music charts, yet Billboard listed it on their chart and it has an official link from Billboard website yet you condemn the category link it never exited on Billboard. I understand the subject it's a tricky one just like Kah-Lo & Emmy Gee, for you to had voted weak delete then you changed your vote to delete Oluwa2Chainz; it a tricky one. All i advice we do is to Keep the article, then in time we update the article as more reliable link's are available. Like i said earlier he is called "New Wave artist" or the future of alternative music in Nigeria, here is a link from Tush Magazine which discuss about the New Wave^[15], if you read the article you would find his name listed their as the future of alternative music in Nigeria. Pls note i never said Tush Magazine gave details of the subject, am only trying to prove a point here.--Obari2Kay (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per WP:TOOSOON & even WP:GNG. Article may be re-created at a later time when subject may deserve a stand-alone article but as of now it is salient article be deleted as soon as possible. Furthermore, it is imperative the page's creator & only exponent in defence of keeping the page, learn to properly organize his input in this discussion as things are starting to look a tad bit dis-organized.Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete Just another case of WP:TOOSOON Zazzysa (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://erikhollnagel.com/ideas/cream.html.
^ "Odunsi's latest release 'Situationship' feat. AYLØ listed on Spotify's Top 10 most viral tracks in the U.S | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 8 December 2016. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ "Spotify Viral 50". Billboard. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ "Odunsi The Engine & Nonso Amadi set to headline london show next month | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 22 May 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ Solanke, Abiola. "Wizkid, Tekno, Davido nominated for Best Single NEA 2017". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ Akan, Joey. ""Isoken": Here are all the Nigerian songs contained in Nollywood"s latest hit". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ "'Banana Island Ghost' breaks box office record - Vanguard News". Vanguard. 13 August 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ "Alternative Nigerian Chart | The Beat 99.9 FM". The Beat 99.9 FM. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ Akan, Joey. "New Wave vs Pop Artists: There's a huge difference between Nigeria"s 'Soundcloud Artists' and 'mainstream stars'". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
^ "Ep. 40 OVOSOUND RADIO Playlist - OVO SOUND RADIO". Apple Music. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
^ "Interview: Santi, Odunsi & GMK on More Life and the OVO Radio co sign". The Culture Custodian. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
^ "Radr Music Issue". Radr Music Issue. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
^ "HOW EMBRACING HIS ROOTS IS TAKING ODUNSI TO THE WORLD". Radr Magazine. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
^ Akande, Segun. "NativeLand 2016: Skepta, J Hus, Burna Boy perform as London meets Lagos at concert". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
^ "Let's Ride The New Wave By Osato Edokpayi - Tush Magazine". Tush Magazine. 13 June 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Polzien[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Was Prod: "No indication of any significance per WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR only sources in the article are the subject's website or relatives." Still applies. Kleuske (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No evidence of importance. Appears to be WP:NFT. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly autobiographical; WP:TOOSOON. Blackguard 08:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a run of the mill actress and dancer, one of thousands of hopefuls. Only very rarely do commercial-only actors become notable. FWIW, I just started as a teacher at a dance academy. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.euractiv.com/fondation-euractiv/fondation-euractiv/

[2] ttp://www.euractiv.com/about-euractiv/media-partners-network/

[3] ttp://erikhollnagel.com/ideas/cream.html.

[4] "Odunsi's latest release 'Situationship' feat. AYLØ listed on Spotify's Top 10 most viral tracks in the U.S | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 8 December 2016. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[5] "Spotify Viral 50". Billboard. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[6] "Odunsi The Engine & Nonso Amadi set to headline london show next month | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 22 May 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[7] Solanke, Abiola. "Wizkid, Tekno, Davido nominated for Best Single NEA 2017". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[8] Akan, Joey. ""Isoken": Here are all the Nigerian songs contained in Nollywood"s latest hit". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[9] "'Banana Island Ghost' breaks box office record - Vanguard News". Vanguard. 13 August 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[10] "Alternative Nigerian Chart | The Beat 99.9 FM". The Beat 99.9 FM. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[11] Akan, Joey. "New Wave vs Pop Artists: There's a huge difference between Nigeria"s 'Soundcloud Artists' and 'mainstream stars'". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

[12] "Ep. 40 OVOSOUND RADIO Playlist - OVO SOUND RADIO". Apple Music. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[13] "Interview: Santi, Odunsi & GMK on More Life and the OVO Radio co sign". The Culture Custodian. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[14] "Radr Music Issue". Radr Music Issue. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[15] "HOW EMBRACING HIS ROOTS IS TAKING ODUNSI TO THE WORLD". Radr Magazine. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[16] Akande, Segun. "NativeLand 2016: Skepta, J Hus, Burna Boy perform as London meets Lagos at concert". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[17] "Let's Ride The New Wave By Osato Edokpayi - Tush Magazine". Tush Magazine. 13 June 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]