Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 September 17 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falls Creek, Oklahoma[edit]

Falls Creek, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains zero notability , no references, and Does Not Exist on any Map search - the Closest Match identifies Falls Creek as a church in Davis, OK and not an unincorporated community Mikejones675 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center. There's nothing to the "community" other than the conference center and camp, and the only references I can find to there being a community here are just references to the conference center (for example, "Falls Creek Camp" on this county highway map). The conference center seems notable, but we don't need two articles on the same place. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Unless some proof comes that it is an independent community; the fact that the county DOT map just shows the camp suggests it is not.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The USGS GNIS database has Falls Creek Assembly (1092757), a U6 unincorporated community with coordinates near the conference center. This is part of Davis, Oklahoma. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional comment. A check of the map confirms the subject is Falls Creek Assembly at 34°25′35″N 97°06′40″W / 34.42639°N 97.11111°W / 34.42639; -97.11111. USGS and Google maps show a modest cluster of streets and buildings at that location. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexon (Hungarian company)[edit]

Nexon (Hungarian company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does Not Appear to meet Wikipedia Guidlines on Significant Notability Company is only mentioned a few times in Local News Outlets and its own website only has 5 media references Mikejones675 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:33, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire Jubilee of Elizabeth II[edit]

Sapphire Jubilee of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT. Her Sapphire Jubilee was not publically commemorated, and is not comparable with her Golden and Diamond Jubilees. --Nevé–selbert 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event did occur, it was observed (see 1), even inspired the name of a building, and it does appear in numerous reliable sources. The fact that it is the first sapphire jubilee for an English monarch also points towards notability. So, even though Liz II evidently decided to stay in for the occasion, it still meets WP:EVENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As PohranicniStraze says, there's multiple substantial international coverage of this event and its commemorations, including stamps and coins, a building naming, etc. [[1][2][3][4][5]. "Low-key" it may have been [6] but notable all the same. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:00, 18 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) 19:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Perniciaro[edit]

Charles Perniciaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful primary candidate for Congress, and no notability as a dermatologist or as a installer of Christmas lights. None of his articles has been cited more than 67 times,--most fewer than 10 DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails GNG. The way this was created was obviously with some kind of undeclared COI. He apparently played piccolo in high school. So delete per WP:PROMO as well. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having intimate familiarity with a subject is not a rationale for deletion, nor is failure to declare personal acquaintance an example of Conflict of Interest. "Promotional" is only promotional if it is promoting something. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and if you can't see how promotional this is and has been since it was created, I cannot help you. You may not be aware but in the field of medicine, dermatology, plastic surgery, and for some reason orthopedic surgery, are probably the three most crassly commercial fields with respect to doctors out there hyping themselves and their practices, and this article is/was par for the course. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable as a medical practitioner or as a politician. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in party primaries — he would have to have won a seat in the State Senate, not just be a failed candidate for one, to pass NPOL. But the only other potential claim of notability here, being selected as "Practitioner of the Year" by his medical colleagues, is sourced only to a primary source press release from the professional society and not to a WP:GNG-passing volume of media coverage for the distinction. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Jytdog. 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough non-routine coverage that isn't a primary source. Thus, he fails our general notability criteria. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unelected politician. I enjoyed reading the bit about being a professional christmas lights installer, it is plausible that in the future notability could be extended on these grounds if the coverage becomes larger than a single human-interest piece. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator incorrectly described this individual, he lost in a run for the state senate nomination, not the US senate. State senate is a state legislative position, so he would not be notable unless he won the general election. The POV-pushing in the description of his run is why we cannot support having articles on every candidate for even national legislatures, let alone sub-national ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 23 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. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canva[edit]

Canva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. No indications of meeting the criteria for notability. While sources may be independent of the company, the articles themselves rely on company announcements and interviews, therefore PRIMARY sources and not intellectually independent. -- HighKing++ 16:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed !vote by nominator; your nomination counts as your !vote per WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a massive amount of independent reliable third-party coverage of this company. I don't believe the nominator has done WP:BEFORE. The state of the article does not represent the subject's notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is much to be found through a simple Google News search, honestly, I think even with the sources it has, it squeaks by as notable. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canva.com's alexa ranking is 393 worldwide, and 280 in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.164.126 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known alterative to Adobe's Creative Suite. Suggest this AfD be closed under WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with the decision to relist again. Consensus seems fairly clear. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 17 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Software[edit]

Intentional Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established for defunct company Ysangkok (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Struck !vote made in error above, was not my intention. While most of the references in the article rely almost exclusively on interviews and quotations from the founder or company announcements (therefore failing the criteria for establishing notability since those references are not intellectually independent) This technologypreview article meets the criteria. It is an in-depth article and although it contains quotations and interviews with the founder and customers, it contains intellectually independent analysis and opinions and therefore qualifies. There are also a number of books such as Dreaming in Code by Scott Rosenberg (page 208) that also meet the criteria. -- HighKing++ 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    People write about Intentional Software primarily because it is where Simonyi was. But in the link you gave, you can see that Intentional Software had nothing to publicly show, the WYSIWYG stuff was vaporware. Just like in Martin Fowler's article. I don't see the value in having an article about a company that was supposed to deliver something big, but never did. This could be a section in Simonyi's article. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep. At acquisition, a 15-yo company with over 50 staff, public papers about their methodology and approach, and plenty of national news mentions -- however vague. The acquisition by MSFT along w/ all staff is testament to notability, not a reason to erase. – SJ + 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion about anything else, but must point out that having over 50 staff comes nowhere near being an argument for notability. Your local supermarket probably has over 50 staff, but it is almost certainly not notable. There is nothing in either Wikipedia policy or common sense that says that a tech company is more notable than a retail company. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Microsoft has acquired 205 companies. Many of these blue links are just redirect to MSFT product name that was created with the acquired resources. But at least most of the blue linked companies resulted in an actual product. Unlike Intentional Software :P --Ysangkok (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:35, 18 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. Ok, first off I've opted to ignore all the SPAs, also because most of their arguments do not address any point about our definition of notability, or make unsupported assertions. I also think that some comments here ("self promoter") are unnecessary and jerkish for an AfD.

Now on the actual notability issue, there seems to be some disagreement on whether some sources suffice to establish GNG notability. With some - BBC and car crash news - the delete argument seems to be stronger but with others - The Christian Post - I don't see a clear cut consensus. Since the notability of the topic hinges on the sufficiency of these sources, a "no consensus" outcome seems appropriate. A previous AfD ended up deleting the topic, but "consensus can change" as they say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Andre Sawyer Jr.[edit]

Jared Andre Sawyer Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Found no sources using Google search, even on Google news. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Nom searched "Jared Andre Sawyer Jr."; "Jared Sawyer Jr." gets hits on a gNews search, and more hits on a proquest news archives search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has over 3 million views on YouTube, about 300K followers on social media and a good number of reliable sources because a lot of people want to know more about him. - YouTube is the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativeworld76 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Creativeworld76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - He was a prodigy and seems as though he's still a major influencer. He's clearly a leader in conversation around religion, politics, and philosophy. comment added by Paooola.mahe (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Paooola.mahe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - After a google search, he was in a car accident that seemed to gain extensive media attention, including but not limited to BET, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Joy 105, and local Atlanta stations from just one post on his social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon729 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Leon729 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - Article topic was named 200 Most Influential authors of 2016 by Richtopia. Additionally, the article's content asserts importance and significance for the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross724 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Ross724 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete This is a vanity page. The sources are either vanity pieces or fluff. It's interesting that he caused controversy for being ordained at such a young age, but it has not garnered enough non-routine coverage to merit an article. YouTube views are not a criteria for notability. The brief mentions about the car accident are not enough to convince me that the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Walter Görlitz as I agree with their point of view. I stand by my previous comments in the previous AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(struck as duplicate !vote) I'd think someone who has a supporting role in a feature film releasing next year with Taraji P. Henson is pretty notable. The movie page is disambiguated so right now. Additionally, there are some google references for his appearances in Tyler Perry films. He's apparently a familiar face and notable. Ross724 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Ross724 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a vanity page, as described above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Ignoring the likely meatpuppeting, this guy appears legitimately notable, even if a bit borderline at this time. The NAACP award and Christian Post articles are the two that anchor GNG compliance in my mind--others aren't as good of sources, but aren't solely vanity, either. The above delete !voters need to check the sources a bit more closely before just dismissing this as a vanity page: promotional language can be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, forget borderline, he made the BBC. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article merely has a picture of him as "another child preacher", the text doesn't discuss him at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is clearly promotional in nature, and it's likely WP:TOOSOON. This is a 20-year old, and it's unclear to me why/how he is notable: as an actor, an author, or a member of the clergy? References like [7] don't lead me to believe he meets WP:GNG at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has the most GNG coverage as a member of the clergy, which is international, mainstream, and has continued over years. I don't see RS'es covering his acting yet. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CLERGY is phrased in a way that doesn't really apply to BLPs, especially BLPs of people this young. I do agree this is a borderline case, but I still feel it's WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that he does not meet WP:CLERGY or have presumptive notability in any such manner. However, clergy members can meet GNG through routine means, and that seems to best apply here, as his coverage is clearly scattered: both the Christian Post and AJC articles cover him as a child preacher, now growing up into a college student. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Got significant publicity as a child preacher. He is now an undergrad at Morehouse College, in Atlanta and was recently injured in a traffic accident. Few accident victims get news coverage like Teen author, Morehouse student recovering after crash, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, [8]. That story revisits the child-star coverage and strongly supports notability. As do his film credits [9], although these small are not by themselves sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR. I am concerned about the fact that the article asserts that he is ministering at an importantGreater Piney Grove Baptist Church, but the Church's website does not list him on the staff page [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr, this should have been G4 eligible, but it was created under a slightly different title. No, this kid is not notable. He is a young cleric who is trying to promote himself. The BBC is just a picture of him, and the Christian Post article is a fluff human interest piece (and no, I'm not arguing that because its a Christian publication: I have a pretty strong record in arguing for counting religious publications towards GNG in AfDs, this one is just literally nothing more than you'd expect to see on local TV). NAACP award isn't at the level required for ANYBIO. No reason to keep this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the Christian Post article [11] Tony refers to, a reported article in a WP:RS for sourcing a bio. One man's fluff is another man's reporting on a modern example of an issue that has roiled protestant waters for 500 years; and Christian waters since the year 1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that article is not an analysis of the complicated theological questions. Its a fluff piece about a kid. You didn't think that it alone raised him to the level of notability 10 months ago, and nothing has changed since then. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the policy or guideline that says an article about a preacher has to delve into his theology? It's a detailed piece by major topical press, and you're arguing it doesn't go into the minutiae of the topic sufficiently? Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying its not substantial coverage that we would accept in any BLP AfD as establishing notability, and that the response above was trying to portray it as a commentary of how this subject fits in to a centuries-long intellectual struggle within Protestantism, and one that has taken place over millennia within Christianity as a whole is not remotely accurate. Reliable sources run human interest pieces all the time, and we rarely ever count them towards notability, largely because they lack intellectual independence from the subject and are borderline primary, which are specifically excluded as couting towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Play fair, Tony. I described it as "reporting on a modern example of an issue that..." (then I got verbose, thinking I was being amusing, in my description.) It is a pretty ordinary feature story, reporting not only the issue of child preaching without ordination, but reporting on details of his life, career goals, college how attending, and the fact that his ordination was broadcast live by a local radio station over Facebook. My opinion on that question is yes, I think Jesus probably would have had a facebook page.09:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The question of whether or not Jesus would have a Facebook page is irrelevant to whether or not a document that is largely based on primary sources that aren't intellectually independent meets the GNG. There is no policy based reason to think it does. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa. The Christian Post is a well-regarded, national publication. This is a reported article. There is no reason to suspect that either the reporter or the publication is connected to this young preacher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr) and for lack of any additional notability since then. The SPA activity at this AfD is concerning as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your timeline is incorrect: this is last month, when the previous, lightly attended AfD was in November, 2016. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Passing local coverage about a car crash does not establish notability by any means, and would be expected in many major cities in the American South its run-of-the-mill, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, no, Atlanta is one of the biggest cities in the country and the AJC is is one of the country's major regional dailies. It truly does not run an article every time a local kid is in a car crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the last response I will post here, because I don't want to make it more difficult for other to participate in the conversation, but I think it is important to demonstrate how frequent car crash reporting is in the AJC: [12],[13], [14], [15], and there are about 6 more from the first page of Google just from this month. Yes, major regional dailies int he American South run car crash stories all the time. No, none of the people who are involved in them are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, there's a fundamental difference between the four links you posted, and the one on Sawyer: his link says something about who he is. None of the other four talk about colleges, ambition, cite previous interviews, or books published, or anything of the sort. That's what I would call qualitatively different reporting by the AJC on Sawyer vs. other car crash participants. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It wasn't immediately obvious from reading the text above, but it appears there have been two separate prior AfDs under different titles:
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Sawyer Jr in May 2016 (no middle name)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr in November, 2016 (no trailing period).
    • Additionally, it appears to still exist now reside at Jared Sawyer Jr, despite the prior where it was moved during this AfD. What a mess. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for pointing that out. If this closes as delete, I'd request the closing admin to salt all titles. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • What would be the justification for that? It's been recreated with increasing evidence of notability. If you avoid reacting to the meatpuppetry punitively (AGF'ing that these are fans clueless about Wikipedia norms), you can see this young gentleman is at least borderline notable. I'll note that at least one of the previous AfD participants, E.M.Gregory, has changed his mind and is strongly supporting retention in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll comment in reply since you asked for the salting justification: it actually has nothing to do with the meatpuppetry above, but with the repeated recreation of someone who isn't even near notable from my estimation, and I tend to be very critical of the way the average NPP person handles religious biographies. I try to be involved in most AfDs involving clerics of any religion: the average Wikipedia editor will often look at an article about a significant cleric and not know how to assess notability because they work off the fallacy that publications within a religious group can't be intellectually independent from the subject of a biography. What I'm seeing here wouldn't near clear the bar for inclusion for any BLP, and I don't think lowering the bar for clerics to count local car crash articles and pictures in the BBC does the encyclopedia any favours. Salting is justified if this is deleted because we've now wasted time in AfD three times over this person, and the title has been at four different names now. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep argument, as I see it, consists of:

1. article in the Christian Post, Teen Called to Preach at Age 5 Sparks Debate ABout Needing a Degree to Preach God's Word, Christian Post
2. 2017 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Teen Author, Morehouse Student Recovering After Crach, [16]
3. 2009 article in the Baltimore Afro-American about speakers at a scholarship presentation at a Howard University School of Divinity scholarship award ceremony, relevant text reads "The guest speaker will be the Rev. Jared Sawyer Jr., who is 11 years old and is a spiritual phenomenon... Jared, a native of Decatur, Ga., and the son of Sebrina and Jared Sawyer Sr., is like any 11 year old youngster who loves to play sports and hang out with his friends. More than that, he loves to read and study the Bible. Another difference between him and his peers is that on Sunday mornings, he goes to the pulpit. "I was called to preach by the voice of God at age 6," Jared said. He was licensed as a preacher at Centerhill Baptist Church in Decatur where he began singing the gospel at age 2 and reading the Bible at age 3. Jared, now a resident of Atlanta, studies God's word and writes his own weekly sermons. Many of them , encourage young people to live for the Lord. He truly loves the Lord and is serious about delivering His word through his powerful sermons. He preaches every Sunday in front of hundreds of worshippers and asks them to forget his age and listen to his delivery of God's word."[17]
4. Too Much Truth: Minister Jared Sawyer Jr. 21 July, 2016 interviewed by Derrick Boazman [18] on CBS local (there's more similar, but I'm out of time.) 4. He is mentioned in a 2012 BBC article, "The curious allure of child preachers" [19].
5. Others stuff includes news hits on announcements of his appearances to speak/preach in various places.
6. Plus brief coverage, often just announcements, of activities undertaken by his Jared Sawyer, Jr/ Ministries. This includes stuff like organizing youth in Atlanta to plant trees along roads on Martin Luther King Day, putting on a one day "Teens Against Violence," seminar, and similar.
7. In addition, he has had some very small film roles [20] that do not appreciably contribute to notability. And books that garnered no significant coverage in RS.
Summing up, there is no doubt that he is a self promoter, not only on WP, but also, for example, on his imdb bio (which describes him as a best-selling author.) I did this summary for myself, and didn't complete the list (out of time) but looking at it, I do think that there's is enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I ducked in here due to what looks like at a glance either sockpuppetry or a voting campaign up top of this debate. I believe the subject's age at ordination, while still a minor, and the published controversy surrounding this gets us most of the way to passing GNG and the other unrelated sourcing already showing in the footnotes takes us the rest of the way home. Don't care about christianity, the economics of churches, and whether or not this subject is a "self-promotor" — the bottom line is that the subject passes GNG based on multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject in independently published sources of presumed accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emir of Wikipedia has moved the article since the start of this AfD. I have moved the article back and recreated the title with an apostrophe after the middle name as a redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was just a result of a request at WP:RM/TR. I take no side in this AfD. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 22 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) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert S. Feinberg[edit]

Herbert S. Feinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure advertisement for a dermatologist with no encyclopedic notability The likely situation here is that this was written by an undeclared paid editor, because nobody else would write an article where the lead paragraph lists the procedures they do, just like advertisements for dermatologist in the subway. . As for notability, he wrote one book, now in only 120 libraries which is trivial for popular medicine. Only one published paper, cited only twice. The third party references are the usual PR. (if I were a paid editor, I would never even have accepted this job) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Written as WP:PROMO fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG--EC Racing (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dermatologists are only a little below plastic surgeons as being overly self promoting doctors. OK, way below plastic surgeons, but in either case we have nothing beyond promotional sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 23 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darby O'Gill (band)[edit]

Darby O'Gill (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A notability tag has been stamped on this article for years. While that in itself is not a reason to delete, during that span the only source that has any in-depth material on the group is their own website. For that, the band clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 16 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Sang-woo[edit]

Yoo Sang-woo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is nothing more than a filmography list for an actress who, after a search for sources is not notable per actress notability standards. The corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia is merely an extended filmography with similarly poor sourcing. DrStrauss talk 20:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search for "유상우 성우" (her name plus "voice actor" in Korean) on Naver News finds no significant coverage. Even if we don't know how she prefers to romanise her name, it doesn't matter; it's wildly unlikely that there would be more coverage about a voice actress in English than the language in which she actually performs. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naver cannot use the reliable source. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not using Naver as a source, I am using Naver News search engine, which searches reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, The Hankyoreh, The Dong-A Ilbo, etc. If you search for a modern South Korean person and find no articles there, it's reasonable to conclude that the person lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The voice actress is not popular job. And she is also narrative voice actor of KTV etc. So we cannot found information in news. But she's name is mentioned by Database (as MBC radio program Simsimtapa's main guest of sub-program) of Korea Creative Content Agency, member of Korea Broadcasting Actors Union and etc. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:33, 21 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrea Yeo[edit]

Alexandrea Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little evidence of biographical notability. A Google search reveals fewer than 1,000 results, most of which are self-published or affiliated with no coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete leading contestants in reality TV shows are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 16 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yctc[edit]

Yctc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails corporate notability guidelines. A Google search reveals only Bloomberg-esque directory entries and the only third party review is this which is full of puffery. DrStrauss talk 20:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 16 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Hospital[edit]

Surya Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A recreated article which was previously deleted through PRoD. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Obvious conflict of interest. Also requesting creation lock (salting). —usernamekiran(talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no indication of corporate notability or in-depth coverage. I endorse the creation protection request due to the conflict of interest and repeated re-creation. Unsourced comments like super-speciality do not belong in Wikipedia articles, the promotionalism in that article is borderline G11 material. Poorly sourced, again, source search turns up nothing to convey notability. DrStrauss talk 20:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that it is silly to complain about a PROD-deleted article being recreated; there was no previous AFD so no proper discussion. This source in the article, of Hindustan Times, is enough to convince me it is a legitimate and notable hospital. --doncram 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Hello again. An establishment doesnt become notable only because it has been once mentioned in a source (which looks like paid news by the way). Also, it still fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been speedy deleted under G11 -unambiguous advertising. Ajf773 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what happened exactly in the edit history, but the article exists again now. If it was speedy-deleted as Ajf773 says happened, that was improper, because an AFD was in progress. And it would have been proper for someone to restore the article / reverse the speedy. Again, it seems to me like a significant hospital; I voted "Keep" above. If the current article is promotional that should be dealt with by editing. --doncram 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yes the hospital exists, but its mere existence is not a guarantee of having an article in an encyclopedia. The coverage is shallow and incidental, or promotional in tone, as linked above. In addition, the SPA / IP activity has been concerning. For example, the IP changed the header of this AfD to Surya Hospitals: diff. It was a bizarre change; my guess is that it was perhaps a move to go around the deletion process (??) I cannot come with a different explanation. The same IP has extensively edited the article: Special:Contributions/219.91.152.73. On the balance of things, it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 19 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Linzer and Denny Randell[edit]

Sandy Linzer and Denny Randell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this partnership isn't really WP:NOTABILITY, and discussion on this is better served in the individual articles, especially considering that most of the songs SL and DR wrote were also written with Bob Crewe as well. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the original author of this article (back in 2008, when neither of the subjects had their own Wikipedia article) and haven't looked at it in a few years. Both Linzer and Randell have their own articles now, and all relevant content appears to have been moved. I concur with deleting this article. Engineer Bob (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with the nominator and the article author above – both individuals are notable in their own right, not just as a writing team, and as separate articles now exist for both Linzer and Randell, this "joint article" is now redundant. It can't be turned into a redirect for two separate articles. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 16 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Koskikallio[edit]

Olga Koskikallio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's only reference is to IMDb and a search for sources reveals little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggests that Koskikallio passes the notability guideline for actresses or the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 15:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, no convincing claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Finnish Wikipedia has different notability standards from the English Wikipedia. DrStrauss talk 17:32, 18 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. A redirect can be done independently of this debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total Dhamaal[edit]

Total Dhamaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cites no sources, scant content. No evidence of notability. Lineslarge (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Would have voted delete were it not for my fear of @MichaelQSchmidt: turning up to vote for keep. Anyway this fails WP:NFF as principal photography has not yet begun. Jupitus Smart 15:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jupitus Smart: Thanks. Here I am... but not a keep, something else NOT a flat deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That clarified, the issue is that it has not yet begin filming, but Hindustani Times(3) does imply that it will start later this year. So for now, as per suggested by policy and guideline, I urge a redirect to a sourced mention in the article of the film's director Indra Kumar and in the prequels at Dhamaal (film series). The article can always be returned and improved after filming is confirmed and, if anyone wishes a nowiki'd copy to work on while we wait, I'd say let him do so. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Total Dhamaal to star Ajay Devgn: Director Indra Kumar confirms Shivaay star's on board". First Post. 5 June 2017.
  • Iyeri, Meena (5 June 2017). "Ajay Devgn to play the lead in 'Total Dhamaal'". The Times of India.
  • Goyal, Samarth (3 June 2017). "Sanjay Dutt pulls out of Total Dhamaal; doesn't want his kids to see him in adult comedies". Hindustan Times.
  • "Sanjay Dutt quits film Total Dhamal due to its 'adult comedy'". The Indian Express.
  • Having further read what Schmidt wrote, I think his redirect option is in order. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has significant coverage by Times of India (1) and many others, passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. WP:NTEMP says once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This article topic has lot of significant coverage mostly by reliable Indian news media. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anoptimistix: While yes, the GNG IS met though the numerous sources in multiple languages speaking in detail about various aspects of the film's production. BUT under the guide WP:NFF and essay TOO SOON, we await confirmation of filming (in any language) first. UNTIL that time this topic may be spoken of elsewhere. Once filming has been confirmed, I'd be happy to restore the article or a better draft. 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Kovacs (fashion designer)[edit]

Agnes Kovacs (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 26 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) 12:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage in reliable sources. That a facebook mention by a fashion blog merits an article in a Hungarian celbrity news website does not mean the subject is encyclopedic material. Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Timbrook[edit]

Corbin Timbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor. IMDB says he's "best known" for being ninth-billed on 1990's Ski Patrol. References are passing mentions and actor listings. Calton | Talk 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Neptune's Trident has a long history of promoting J.C. Maçek III, who is the producer of [Cargo]. Timbrook appears in (you guessed it) [Cargo]. I have mentioned Neptune's Trident at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard twice (here and here). In the most recent case, Neptune's Trident created an article about a publisher just before they announced picking up Macek's book. I think the inference is obvious and it is past time to deal with this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 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 redirect to ViuTVsix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Re-Viu[edit]

Weekly Re-Viu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of notability. All three references have no mention of "Weekly Re-Viu". Wcam (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ViuTVsix. No independent notability. Coverage by other news sources don't even seem to mention this programme by name even though they do talk about Reuters' involvement in producing the show. The relevant discussion on zh.wp has resulted in the same outcome for the same reason. Deryck C. 10:29, 21 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. ansh666 05:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ångel (musician)[edit]

Ångel (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Subject lacks coverage on independent secondary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 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) 17:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. According to the article, he only has self-released albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 17 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Cargo) (2017 film)[edit]

(Cargo) (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly released, run-of-the-mill film. No indication of awards, notability, impact, or even short-term importance. Calton | Talk 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage"? It's mostly what amount to press releases announcing that a trailer's been released.
And define "notable": you've been using the empty phrase "film/subject/actor is notable" in AFD discussion after AFD discussion of your articles without ever backing up that statement. --Calton | Talk 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't even have a date of release, and passing mentions issue per Calton. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neptune's Trident has a long history of promoting J.C. Maçek III, who is the producer of this film. I have mentioned Neptune's Trident at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard twice (here and here). In the most recent case, Neptune's Trident created an article about a publisher just before they announced picking up Macek's book. I think the inference is obvious and it is past time to deal with this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 17 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Pasir Putih[edit]

Kampung Pasir Putih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a small village in Pasir Gudang and no reference. angys (Talk Talk) 13:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 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) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ahner[edit]

Chuck Ahner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable politician who lost his only congressional election CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates for office are not automatically eligible for articles just for being candidates — since he didn't win the election, to be considered notable enough for an article he would have to demonstrate that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of the candidacy itself (namely, his career in business.) But this cites no reliable sources at all — the only "reference" present in it at all is his own self-published campaign website. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not seeing any passage of WP:GNG or any other measure here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unelected politician. My personal sentiments are that we should be including all major party candidates for national office, whether they win or not, but consensus is clear that I'm in a small minority on the matter. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates for congress are not notable for this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 23 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Epstein[edit]

Daniel A. Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable business person. References are not articles about him, but rather general articles about his company. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability; article is largely a personal resume. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 17 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) 22:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Rovati[edit]

Alessandra Rovati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG, no references, and external links point to a primary site revolving around the topic. ToThAc (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:06, 24 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Martinelli (journalist)[edit]

Daniele Martinelli (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, no references CelenaSkaggs (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 17 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption of Things[edit]

Encryption of Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay: original research, advocacy, problem-solving. personal opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 16 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) 11:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of No Such Thing as a Fish episodes[edit]

List of No Such Thing as a Fish episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No 3rd party references this seems to be little more than a page to host links to the podcasts I fail to see any encyclopedic value to it. Prod was removed on the basis that there are no 3rd party sources, which kind of proves my point Jac16888 Talk 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 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) 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SunTec Business Solutions[edit]

SunTec Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill software business. Neither the references listed nor a Google search show in-depth coverage to meet corporate notability. Providing "solutions" is not notable (although that language could be trimmed out if the company were notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has a history of promotional editing. Two of the contributors to this article have been blocked, one as a spam account and one for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH.  FITINDIA  17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 possibly independent ref, the brief article from Hindu Business Line. The two financialexpress.com articles is PR written by Businesswire India - other pieces by this source show it is solely a writer of company PR stories. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes - I originally started this article many many years ago. But now it looks like a page entirely filled with promotional material. I would suggest to keep the article by reducing its size considerably. I shall try and edit the promotional material out. Shall try to add more authentic references too. If that appears fine, it is best to keep the article. -- Xrie (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits to the article, and have added additional references. Appreciate if all could take a look at the latest version. -- Xrie (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people a chance to evaluate Xrie's changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's this Times of India piece, and this one in The Hindi (which are the top two from a Google News search) - I'll also add my general caveat that Indian topics do not generally have the same level of online source coverage as those in the UK and US. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ritchie333. I've already commented on both the timesofindia piece below. It fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and also the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. The thehindu.com piece fails the criteria for establishing notability at multiple levels. There is no original opinion and analysis in the piece and therefore not intellectually independent and is a PRIMARY source, relies entirely on quotations from a company exec and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and has no attributed journalist so fails as a reliable source. The criteria for establishing notability are different from those for relying on claims made in articles. For example, while a published interview (with no independent opinion or analysis) will always fail the criteria for establishing notability, the same reference may be used as a reference to support a claim. If you've any more references, post them here and if we can find two that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm very happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing++ 18:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not enought references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and as such, topic fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. This thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND fails WP:ORGIND AND WP:CORPDEPTH since it is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no independent opinion or analysis. The next thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND as is a company announcement and/or fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is based on quotations from the CEO. This financialexpress article in relation to the company's inclusion in a list of 100 fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on company PR. Finally, this indiatimes reference fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. -- HighKing++ 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I originally created this article several years ago, I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My searches are finding the routine announcement coverage which befits a company going about its business, but, as with others above, nothing better than the brief Hindu Business Line interview. Without in-depth critical coverage this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshikawa Tomizo[edit]

Yoshikawa Tomizo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Few sources give any significant coverage on him. DrStrauss talk 18:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources here in fact satisfy WP:ANYBIO and the claims in the article are significant claims; as by WP:BEFORE, attempts must be made when relevant and, in this case, that involves offline searches, especially since my linked search shows pre-Internet sources. WP:BEFORE also says that there are alternatives to Deletion in the chances of such offline sources. I'll also add that I found this this significant albeit non-English source; the nomination cites no attempts at searching beyond English, since the subject wasn't American or English at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: here we are again, SwisterTwister citing WP:BEFORE and not at the list of sources he's cited. Who'd have thought it? The Google Books link shows nothing but passing mentions. In fact, the majority of the sources are about an army deserter of the same name. Read all of those sources on that list and you'll find no significant coverage. And the specific source you've mentioned is a list of photographers and says nothing about him in-depth. Google Translate might be of some use in future. DrStrauss talk 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: SwisterTwister, you talk of "the sources here". Which sources? (I see a lot of mentions of people who happen to be called Yoshikawa Tomizo, and of Yoshikawas and Tomizos; I see very little about this Yoshikawa.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you have some offline sources, please do tell us what they are, we don't have magic powers and I have no reason to suspect there might be any. It's fairly obvious that this fails WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a source in the article. Have you read and understood it? If not then how can you have no reason to suspect that there might be any sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you direct that comment at me? It's a good place to start for those who question whether it is a valid source, or those following WP:BEFORE to look for other sources to determine whether this is a deletion candidate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @86.17.222.157: you asked if Aguyintobooks had read and understood the source. And nope, it isn't valid if you're wanting to assert notability because it simply doesn't. Have you read and understood it? DrStrauss talk 20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I have not read the source because I don't have immediate access to it, so I haven't said whether or not it confers notability, but you and Aguyintobooks have both said or implied that it does not confer notability, a determination that can only be made if you have read and understood it. Why can't you answer the simple question of whether you have done so? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes is the answer you're looking for. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's great. As regards your suggestion to use Google Translate, did you find a digital version of that book that can be put into Google Translate? I have been unable to find one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have immediate access to the source. The book's in front of me as I type this. Yoshikawa is described as a portrait photographer. (Actually I think I have a book of his somewhere, but I can't be bothered to look for it right now.) It points out that he won an award in 1965, and that he was chairman of Tokyo Shashin Kenkyūkai (東京写真研究会; literally, the Tokyo Photography Study Group) the following year. If you poll http://digitalmuseum.rekibun.or.jp/syabi/app/collection/search and ask for 吉川 富三 as the 作家名 (creator), you'll see that the Tokyo Photographic Art Museum has forty prints by him. (I only glanced quickly. Some of the forty may not be prints.) He also has an entry in a dryer and more inclusive reference book, 日本の写真家 (which, like the former book, has an English alternative title -- Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography -- but is in Japanese only. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. being iincluded in a standard reference work has always been considered proof of notability . But the article does need expansion to show it. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think it has DGG. Independent, reliable sources are what we need, not passing mentions. We judge things as they are and not as they could be, if it isn't expanded to show his notability it should be deleted. DrStrauss talk 19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the reverse of our notability guidelines. We don't judge articles for notability, but article subjects. I would still like to know where you found a digital version of the book cited in the article so that I can check it for myself, as I would like to emulate Hoary and you in doing, via Google Translate. Or were you lying when you said that you had read and understood it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to thank Hoary for clarifying the nature of the reference. If something can be shown from the stub to be notable, and it is the type of subject that would be appropriate to an encyclopedia, there is no reason for deletion of a stub. I can't work with Japanese photographers unless there happen to be good English references, but many people here can. If someone comes along who has seen the name but knows nothing further, at least there's a useful identification. Looking back to 2001 and thereabouts, the entire encyclopedia grew from stubs. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minutes ago, when less sleepy than I was yesterday, I looked again, and found that yes, the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography possesses forty prints of/by Yoshikawa. For all its irritations (exhibitions of insipid work, insipidly curated exhibitions, etc), this museum is by far the most important museum/gallery of photography in Japan. (It certainly has a splendid library. And the other museums of note tend to be dedicated to a single photographer.) It's not a portrait gallery, so a portrait in its possession is there less for the person portrayed than for the photography/portraiture. Forty is a non-trivial number, and their storage imposes a non-trivial burden on the museum. I infer that a museum of note regards Yoshikawa as notable. Therefore, we should as well. ¶ DGG is right: many people here could work on this article. If they wanted to do so, that is. Beyond the trendy -- Araki, Kawauchi, Moriyama, Shiga, Sugimoto, Yokota, perhaps a few others -- few Japanese photographers are currently of interest to more than one or two editors; but who knows, this might change. ¶ I'm alarmed by DrStrauss's recommendations above of Google Translate. Translating from Japanese into what it calls English, Google Translate very often gets particular lexical items right, but typically is confused by grammar. It typically serves up a semi-comprehensible mishmash that might make some kind of sense if you apply guesswork, but a sense that could well be quite different from what was actually meant. It's highly irresponsible to put in an encyclopedia material derived via the combination of Google Translate and guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hoary: I never said put GT material in. I told another user that it's a good place to get a rough translation to ascertain notability. DrStrauss talk 17:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, even if Google Translate provided a perfect translation, how could I use it to translate a printed book? How, for the third time of asking, did you manage to do that? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. And if you're in Japan, it's very easy to get hold of these three volumes. NB they're in Japanese, and only in Japanese. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
so i wont be adding them to my artbook collection (drat!) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could enjoy the pictures, though, Coolabahapple. Plus the spines might look attractive on your shelves. (Confession: I've always wanted to have a book or two with a spine in Georgian or Burmese.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above sourcing, slash WP:NPOSSIBLE. The English Wikipedia has become the default reference work for the world, full stop. It is unlikely that one of our regulars would have the language skills necessary to develop this, but given the above sourcing and comments, it is very much possible that someone with the language skills and who lives in the correct geographic location could develop this. It matters because if we want to be taken seriously as a reference work and maintain the reputation that we have worked so hard to attain, we need to make it so that people can find notable subjects from their region of the globe. Even if it is a horrible sub-stub, keeping an article on it is important and factors in to Wikipedia's growth as a reliable source of information about art and culture of regions that are currently underrepresented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of availbale sources in reptuable pubclications. Google books link cited above turns up nothing. Notability is not established by sources presented or by a web search.198.58.170.90 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source that was already cited in the article before it was nominated and the further sources found by Hoary and Coolabahapple above. I don't see anything at all disreputable about those publications. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there is no reason to delete this stub, and that non-online sources are valid references. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 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) 19:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Donor Zone[edit]

Safe Donor Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero reviews on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even a casual observation of old bald people reveals this fact, how is this supposed to have been discovered recently? A Guy into Books (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamate Gakusha[edit]

Yamate Gakusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Woeful failure of the general notability guideline. None of its claims have inline citations and its biggest claim to fame is that it can hold 16 students. A Google search reveals little in the way of independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the place. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that someone made an article about their university digs... Delete. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no references, and nothing to prove that it isn't a hoax. (I'm, of course, not saying that it IS a hoax, just that it seems likely.) ToThAc (talk) 20:54, 24 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) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT Professionals Day[edit]

IT Professionals Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed this not realizing that it had been proposed for deletion in the past and contested (missed in edit history). Rereviewed the sourcing, and while there is some coverage, a lot of it is press release churn or coverage on non-RS blogs. I don't think this passes WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Nothing in Google books, it is not established, and indistinguishable from an effort of one company.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 17 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) 19:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Up[edit]

Warm Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried to seek outside information to increase notability, but as article stands now, it fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 16 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Mag[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Y-Mag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The magazine fails the general notability guideline. There is little coverage in independent, reliable sources (Google search) and the ones provided are mainly due to its closure, failing the one-event notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the one-event notability guideline refer to persons not publications or organisations.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well known(in its era), and notable(history), magazine in South Africa.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: could you provide sources to show this please? DrStrauss talk 19:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @MickeyDangerez:--TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:56, 16 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. No consensus to keep the article or merge the content to another. In any case, discussion has died down, and merging the content does not require AfD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moggmentum[edit]

Moggmentum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very poorly-written, poorly-sourced embarrassment to an encyclopedia. PROD tag removed by creator with bad-faith rationale of "Just because it doesn't subscribe to your ideology doesn't mean it should be removed." Fails WP:GNG - sourcing is rubbish such as Breitbart ("The news site Breitbart London, which is especially popular with conservative grassroots in the online sphere, was the first major media to back Moggmentum...publishing the first serious case for Prime Minister Rees-Mogg article"), Instagram and The Sun. Most of the credible sources mention Rees-Mogg in passing regarding the Conservative leadership (which he has said himself he is not seeking). Violation of WP:NOTNEWS ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") - this is the worst kind of silly season waffle. Fails WP:NPOV with lines such as "LGBT activists hijacking #Moggmentum by posting homoerotic gifs." In short, burn it with fire. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even a vacancy in the leadership and he has played down the likelihood of him standing if there was. This is crystal ball stuff. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources used include: BBC News, The Guardian, ITV News etc therefore I do not agree that the "sourcing is rubbish". The story may blow over and the social media become less prominent once the "silly season" is over, however it has gained enough attention to meet GNG as the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".— Rod talk 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources seem fine, (BBC, ITV, etc.), the article seems fine, it's attracting moderate media attention, and, if Theresa May were to resign, he would be a serious contender. In fact, I agree with both the reasons above. Pianoguysfantalktome 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jacob Rees-Mogg (or Delete). I agree with the nominator that this is silly-season, speculative fluff; it's a media meme created by bored journalists, not (yet) a genuinely notable political movement. Admittedly, Milifandom has an article, which is almost as silly; but one unnecessary article on a transient political meme doesn't justify another. (The odd thing is that Corbynmania, which is more significant than either of those, doesn't have an article.) Anyway, there's no valuable content here that can't be merged into Jacob Rees-Mogg. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its notable and well sourced. I can not understand how having an article on a notable phenomenon can ever be an "embarrassment to an encyclopedia". Also your cry to "burn it with fire", akin to electronic book burning a staple of oppression and censorship I find offensive, no books electronic or otherwise should ever be 'burned'. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and therefore it is only a good thing for it to continue with this page which documents the rise of Moggmentum, which has helped catapult Jacob Rees-Mogg to now become the Conservative front runner for replacing Theresa May. I also disagree with Robofish that it should be merged into Rees-Mogg's own article as this page is about an independent grassroots movement not about Jacob Rees-Mogg himself. This is why these pages exist, as this is not unique, just like the others (Milifandom, Momentum (organisation), Corbynmania and The People for Bernie Sanders) they are about the movement and the followers, not the person they follow. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 08:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG requirements and is well sourced. Atsme📞📧 18:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart, The Sun and Instagram are the exact opposite of what we consider good sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's not actually a real movement, the article just refers to various jokes about Mogg. It is as yet just a short-lived meme, and WP:NNEWS is probably the nearest appropriate standard (not WP:ORG). If an actual organisation is created, then it will almost certainly merit an article, but there's no reason why this could not be covered in Jacob Rees-Mogg. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jacob Rees-Mogg. I haven't seen anyone here make a compelling case for having this as a stand-alone article. Nor do I see how such a case could be made -- everything here can easily be used in a new section in Mogg's own article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems appropriate here.Egaoblai (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi from Australia. Blokes from Eton & Oxford are like people from another planet as far as we’re concerned. But, even if they are up themselves, they’re entitled to a fair go.

I’m only writing this because the introductory sentence of the remove argument is ridiculous. Since when has it been a test for admission that an entry in an encyclopaedia be well written? The Britannica is hardly a rival of Fowlers Modern English Usage. And the sourcing? Well, give me a break. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia - and in the Bible - that would get a Fail if you applied strict logic in testing the reliability of the sources. Wikipedia is interesting because it has information available about almost everything. And so here is something about Rees-Mogg. I didn’t realise he existed until I read about him tonight in The Telegraph online, way down here on the far side of the earth. I suppose I should be burned at the stake for reading The Tele; but I don’t subscribe to it. I scan the headlines and read until the paywall goes up in order to see how the other half lives. The same reason I read The Guardian online. Trump alerted me to the need for this. There is so much fake news going around you have to check everything and make up your own mind. I’m even looking at Brietbart now. So, Rees-Mogg is an RC. He breeds at an amazing rate. He doesn’t support gay marriage or abortion. Whether that is offensive depends on whether you agree with him. I thought democratic societies were about freedom of speech. Is a thing calling itself an encyclopedia now about to shut down articles which may offend a lot of people? Will discussion of the practice of human sacrifice by the Mayan civilisation be deleted because it was just so depraved? (Yeah, I checked that - on Wikipedia). Give this a run. It won’t hurt anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrocodileDundee (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The removal of PROD was "Fully sourced, went through all afc procedures. Just because it doesn't subscribe to your ideology doesn't mean it should be removed" - unsurprisingly nominator has ignored the points and quoted my comment, by doing this they have ironically reinforced my comment. Ryanharmany (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryanharmany: I see that the bolded "Keep" in front of CrocodileDundee's posting was added by you, and was not a part of the original posting. Are you operating both accounts? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Look again, the keep was already there but not properly formatted (bullet pointed or bolded).Ryanharmany (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I should have checked more carefully and I've stricken my question. Please accept my apologies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jacob Rees-Mogg or Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Most of the references are coverage of Rees-Mogg or of the Conservative Party's leadership rather than the WP:GNG-required "substantial coverage" of this grassroots movement. As a result the article largely relies on original research. Clearly poor writing isn't a criterion for deletion, but an article's reliance on original research is often a symptom of non-notability. It is here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 16 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appuraman[edit]

Appuraman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several concerns: the majority of claims, such as films or other projects worked on are unsourced which causes concern under WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPSOURCES. The one source given leads to Facebook. Although apparently an official FB page of a film producer, this can not be verified beyond reasonable doubt and is not sufficient as source. Searches for further google sources did not result in meaningful finds which would establish notability. Therefore, likely also failing WP:GNG pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:46, 16 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) 19:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Immune Dysfunction Syndrome[edit]

Neuro-Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No good sources provided or avaliable on pubmed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be unproven science with few mentions, limited notability not up too WP:GNG. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Doc James that the sourcing is inadequate. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete insufficient MEDRS sources, and an effort to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX, which is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Soap Box. This article is about a notable potential pseudoscience; I do not advocate it. If anything, I hoped content would be added to debunk it. I am indifferent to keeping or deleting, especially since the aforementioned debunking never occurred. –Zfish118⋉talk 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even from a FRINGE perspective it fails WP:NFRINGE and btw, SOAPBOX can be to promote or debunk - it doesn't matter which; the article as it stands only promotes this. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:46, 16 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. If the (somewhat poorly formatted) sources are by the topic and not about it, they don't satisfy GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter P. Unger[edit]

Walter P. Unger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy and poorly referenced. Not seeing notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per considerable and significant coverage meeting WP:GNG.
 Unger WP. “Hair Transplantation” Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, Basel, 1979.
Jump up ^ Gandelman M. “President’s Message” Hair Transplant Forum International. 2000, 10(6): 162.
Jump up ^ Unger WP. “Delineating the 'Safe' Donor Area for Hair Transplanting” The American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery, 1994, 11:239-243
Jump up ^ Kaminer MS, Arndt KA, Dover JS. “Atlas of Cosmetic Surgery, 2nd Edition” Saunders Elsevier. Oxford, UK 2009: pg. 379.
Jump up ^ Drake L, Hordinsky M, Fiedler V, Swinehart J, Unger WP, Cotterill PC, Thiboutot DM, Lowe N, Jacobson C, Whiting D, Stieglitz S, Kraus SJ, Griffin EL, Weiss D, Carrington P, Gencheff C, Cole GW, Pariser DM, Epstein ES, Tanaka W, Dallob A, Vandormael K, Geissler L, Waldstreicher. “The Effects of Finasteride on Scalp Skin and Serum Androgen Levels in Men with Androgenetic Alopecia” J. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;41(4):550-4
Jump up ^ Rushton DH, Unger WP, Cotterill PC, Kingsley P, James KC. “Quantitative Assessment of 2% Topical Minoxidil in the Treatment of Male Pattern Baldness” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, 1989, 14 (1):40-46
Jump up ^ Shiell R. “Pioneer's Page” Hair Transplantation Forum International. September/October 1998, Volume 8, Number 5.

Whats non-notable about this reference list? A Guy into Books (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly refs by him not refs about him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Donor Zone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete an extra spammy article in a field of articles are often under severe promotional pressure. One of the key signs of the subject being involved in their article one way or another is when they reference it on their own website and you can see that right here, prominently displayed at "Dr. Unger's Wikipedia Listing". (it has been there since at least 2011 per this internet archive version.) This is not what WP is for per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jytdog has a very good point. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources do not support the assertion that he is prominent either as a researcher or within his fieldof medical practice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 24 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disengagement originator[edit]

Disengagement originator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOT#DICTDEF does not apply here as encyclopedic treatment of this topic is possible and is even mildly on display in this stub. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proof is self-evident as the content of this stub gives more context and dimension than a dictionary definition. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: So it's notable because the article says it's notable. By that logic, I could write an article about my own ass, and you'd say "keep, the article says it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we changing the subject from dictdef to ass? ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that your argument makes no sense. "Giving context" is not the same thing as "asserting notability". How is this a notable topic? It exists, but existence doesn't equal notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be technical but your nomination doesn't include a notability complaint. There's nothing that restricts you from throwing that into the mix now but my experience is that when AfD discussion start wandering like this we just start rehashing tired deletionist/inclusionist arguments. This takes us away from the mission to improve the encyclopedia and makes everyone unhappy. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:44, 16 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asus Vivobook Pro 15[edit]

Asus Vivobook Pro 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NPOV violation and purely promotional in tone. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 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) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K-391 (music producer)[edit]

K-391 (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. I failed to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Zawl 14:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following unsourced non-notable album page of the artist:

Sunshine (K-391 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K-391 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
K-391 (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
C'mon(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New Energy(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't Stop(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sevje(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nice Takeoff(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Farmers(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Summertime(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extreme Sport(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sunshine(K-391) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  — Jeff G. ツ 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

−

  • Delete all per nomination. I can't find significant coverage in WP:RS, just passing mention of him having worked with Alan Walker. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The subject's claim to notability appears to rest on two WP:INHERITED claims of association with Alan Walker: firstly, a passing one-line mention in an interview with Mr. Walker that K-391 was one of the artists who inspired him to make music; and secondly, the track "Ignite" (which is itself of dubious notability – the article for it currently reads like a promotional press release) supposedly features K-391... but it's not entirely clear how K-391 "features" on the track... as the track is based on an old K-391 melody and therefore the artist is credited as songwriter for it, it may well be that is the extent of his involvement on the track and that he never recorded it with Mr. Walker at all. There doesn't seem to be enough here to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Hayman30 (talk) 13:54, 24 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine[edit]

Bitcoin Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would not use this as a reliable source. Although there is some coverage on it, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the co-founder, Vitalik Buterin. Here are some sources about the subject:
    1. Vigna, Paul; Casey, Michael J. (2015). The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and the Blockchain Are Challenging the Global Economic Order. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 88. ISBN 1250081556. Retrieved 2017-09-16.

      The book notes:

      Other symbols of the community's coming of age appeared, too. The first press articles touching on bitcoin began, and Bitcoin Magazine, founded by Mihai Alisie and Vitalik Buterin in 2011, began publishing a print edition in May 2012, becoming the first serious publication dedicated to cryptocurrencies.

    2. Hackett, Robert (2016-09-27). "Can Ethereum-creator Vitalik Buterin Out-Bitcoin Bitcoin?". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-09-16. Retrieved 2017-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Then, improbably, he launched his own magazine. In September 2011, a Romanian programmer named Mihai Alisie, then 23, suggested that he and Buterin, then 17, start their own publication. They founded Bitcoin Magazine, a print and online publication that has claimed, in the years since, a total readership of 1.5 million. Buterin wrote most of the articles. (The magazine is still published but by different owners.)

    3. Pick, Leon (2015-01-21). "BTC Media Acquires Bitcoin Magazine from Coin Publishing". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2017-09-16. Retrieved 2017-09-16.

      The article notes:

      BTC Media LLC, the parent company of the “yBitcoin” magazine, has acquired Bitcoin Magazine from Coin Publishing LLC.

      Bitcoin Magazine was launched by Mihai Alisie and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. It published its first issue in May 2012 and thereafter joined forces with Coin Publishing LLC to produce 22 more. It is mailed to subscribers worldwide, sold at Barnes & Noble bookstores and published online at www.bitcoinmagazine.com.

      ...

      BTC Media will relaunch the magazine and bring in industry experts to contribute content.

    I have not found significant coverage of the subject. I support a merge to Vitalik Buterin per WP:PRESERVE.

    Cunard (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge and comment (strike dup !vote): The main issue associated with merging to Vitalik Buterin into Bitcoin Magazine is that Bitcoin Magazine is a separate legal entity from Buterin. Bitcoin Magazine is currently owned by BTC Media, which Buterin has no role. The fact that Buterin was an early co-founder of this magazine is not that relevent at this present day in time. Bitcoin Magazine lives on as a brand owned by BTC Media and thus not be listed on his page, to comply with WP:BLP. Buterin is WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the article must comply in a way that employs WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If BTC Media, a company with no relationship with Buterin, were tomorrow to engage in some illegal activity, this merger of pages would result in creating a victim out of Buterin. Thus, I think the two choices here are to delete (if the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, which I suggest it does), or it should be kept. Merge is not a logical choice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge, leaning delete - a merge to Vitalik Buterin is fairly clearly incorrect, per Jtbobwaysf. Trouble is those sources are skimpy and passing mentions (see WP:NMEDIA). That's the trouble with articles about news media - they tehd not to be written about. (CoinDesk has the same problem.) I'd have thought there'd be enough about it, but it's looking like there isn't - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:David Gerard Butlerin already has a section on the topic, so we could just redirect to section, done. Which content is a BLP issue if we merge more? (per my comment below). Widefox; talk 12:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a little content that I found on this particular publication with no reference to Buterin. One is an industry power ranking list (where it ranks #8/100) https://richtopia.com/top-lists/top-100-blockchain and the second is focused on http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/bitcoin-magazine-creator-ethereum-co-founder-joins-aragon/ Alisie, the other coufounder of this magazine. As David points out, there is not much written directly on these industry rags, however this and CoinDesk are the two most (or at least very) often cited sources on the various crytpocurreny articles. Both have previously passed RS Noticeboard nominations as well... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur that Coindesk and Bitcoin Magazine are about the least worst of the bitcoin press, though (as I've noted on Talk:Ethereum before) some articles can be a bit ... aspirational. That it's usable as an RS is a point in its favour, though it still needs the sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reasoning behind the inappropriate merge argument I was questioning. Thanks for informing me, and as an RS, I'd lean towards neutral or merge. Widefox; talk 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge: as already stated, merging would make little sense. No position taken on delete. User:Redgolpe (unsigned)
  • Comment as a former print magazine we have WP:NMAGAZINE, and current website WP:NWEBSITE. They would seem better than WP:NCOMPANY which it would neer meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 12:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (or merge) borderline N per my comment about. As founded by Buterin this is a valid merge target (in fact, we wouldn't need to merge much/any as it already contains ample detail), concerns about BLP vios aren't founded by content issues, and the fact we would trim right down to a mention at target. Any such content issue can be addressed at the target. Widefox; talk 12:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete the magazine is known beyond its connection to Vitalik. IMHO, the magazine has sufficient WP:RS and meets WP:GNG. Romanpoet (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  A check on Google scholar shows that this magazine is often cited by scholars.  Satisfies WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—it is not a strong article, but it meets the WP:GNG notability guideline for a publication, even as an important publication for a niche market. In a previous discussion of this type on a novel aircraft in development, I recall an administrator pointing out to me that "even a balsa wood model airplane" might be able to meet WP:GNG and have an article about it in Wikipedia, as long as it had coverage about it in other media. Look at all the garage bands we have articles on in Wikipedia, or barely-beyond-self-published fantasy fictional works, with limited coverage in local online or home town newspapers. Bitcoin Magazine and its sources are far above that rather low bar. Merging it with the BLP article of some notable previous author of the magazine makes no sense at all, and would be outside standard policy.N2e (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Magazines are notoriously difficult to meet Wikipedia NOTE guidelines but this one shows multiple evidence including #8 on the "Top 100 most influential companies in blockchain", one of the original news and print magazine publishers specializing in Bitcoin, first serious publication dedicated to cryptocurrencies. -- GreenC 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sourcing: I would like to keep this article, as I accept the argument from the essay WP:NMEDIA for presumptive notability based on extensive citation in reliable sources, including scholarly sources (and, unlike the essay itself, I would extend that to online as well as print magazines, the guideline WP:WEB to the contrary notwithstanding—I think this is one of the situations where the commonsense-exception clause in the description of guidelines would apply). A number of the "keep" votes above appear to me to be based on similar reasoning. But even a presumptively notable topic still needs reliable sources if its page to be kept, and, like Cunard above, I have not had an easy time finding sources for this one. A large part of the reason is likely the one mentioned in WP:NMEDIA: "when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources."
My search for sources has also revealed a problem not mentioned in the nomination, nor in this AfD discussion thus far: the page at the time of nomination for deletion) appears to be a word-for-word WP:COPYVIO and plagiarism [not necessarily—see below] of this tertiary source, which is self-published on Lulu Press. (The Lulu Press link is http://www.lulu.com/shop/devin-williams/cryptocurrency-compendium-a-reference-for-digital-currencies/paperback/product-23232486.html; I cannot link to it, as it is spam-blacklisted on Wikipedia.) Therefore, the article will have to be rewritten from scratch if it is to be kept, and this tertiary source cannot be used as a reference, as self-published sources are considered unreliable (although some of the sources it cites might be used if any are found to be independent, reliable, and nontrivial).
I did find a few sources not already mentioned, though at least some are very problematic:
The Nair source, unfortunately, is likely not usable for reasons of independence. Not only are the Foundation for Economic Education and The Freeman ideologically libertarian, but the online version of the Nair article has a Bitcoin donation link, giving the author an interest in promoting Bitcoin.
—Syrenka V (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another source that I forgot to add above:
Tapscott, Don; Tapscott, Alex (March–April 2017). "The blockchain revolution and higher education". Educause Review. 52 (2): 10–24. Archived from the original on 2017-09-20. Retrieved 2017-09-20.
—Syrenka V (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It just occurred to me that, given the chronology of publication, it's not clear exactly who copied who between the Wikipedia article and the Lulu Press compendium—it might have been the book copying us, rather than the other way around, especially if the book was really published on 2017-06-22, as its Lulu Press page says. Also, with only a Google Books link for the compendium, as opposed to the full text, it's impossible to determine whether or not the author (if he did copy us) provided an acknowledgment, so it's not clear that the word-for-word similarity is due to misconduct on either side. Given the weakness of some of the sources, a full rewrite is probably a good idea anyway.
—Syrenka V (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syrenka V: please advise the offending text, or do you mean all text is offending? Most of this article was creeated around mid-2016 FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jtbobwaysf: it's all the text of the page at the time of nomination—you can see the similarity by comparing the Wikipedia page at the time of nomination for deletion with entry 2.10 on page 55 of the Lulu Press book as seen in Google Books. The entire text of the Wikipedia page appears to match the book page word-for-word. But given the chronology of the Wikipedia page, if the book was really published on 2017-06-22 as its unlinkable Lulu Press page says (see above; not the Google Books link), then it was this self-published book that copied Wikipedia, not the other way around, so no Wikipedia editor committed any plagiarism or WP:COPYVIO, and thus those considerations do not mandate a rewrite. (And likewise, since the book might have included a credit/acknowledgment to Wikipedia on a page not visible in the Google Books preview, the book's author isn't necessarily guilty of plagiarism either.) I regret the false alarm!
But still, the sourcing at the time of nomination wasn't great—two of the six references are to Bitcoin Magazine itself. So I think a rewrite would be a good idea, to strengthen the case for a keep, quite apart from any considerations of WP:COPYVIO or plagiarism. I hope the sources I provided above will be helpful in that effort.
—Syrenka V (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syrenka V: thank you for the extra souces and content. I have incorporated it. I also noted when I scrolled back a few pages in the LuluPress book, and there were additional wikipedia articles that this LuluPress also cited word for word; this article on Bitcoin Magazine is not the only one. It also acts a reminder to us editors to be strict on sources, since sometimes this stuff gets copied and assumed to be fact... if only they knew ;-) Thanks again! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:45, 23 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. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Some people felt that the sources presented were rehashed press releases; there's no consensus on that particular, but they clearly failed to convince the other participants that they met our requirements. Salting was suggested, but I don't see any support for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItBit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ItBit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, Note: there are literally thousands of companies we do not have articles on which have 'trust charters' and have gained over $5m in venture funding. these do not improve its notability. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Lord, Steven (2016-04-16). "Bankchain & itBit: Settling on the blockchain". Modern Trader. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      One company, itBit, began its operations as a bitcoin exchange. But as interest in the blockchain began to skyrocket, and financial institutions began exploring its usage, the company used its deep knowledge of how the blockchain works to create a settlement system called Bankchain.

      ...

      itBit CEO Chad Cascarilla graduated from Notre Dame in 1999 and cut his teeth in financial services at Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. He learned the financial sector’s administrative pitfalls, and would go on to co-found hedge fund sponsor Cedar Hill Capital Partners before launching an early stage growth fund dedicated to bitcoin/digital currency-related startups. In 2012, itBit was born.

      ...

      itBit was the first firm in its space to receive a license from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) allowing the firm to create the itBit Trust Company (ITC). The qualification as a trust company and regulated custodian was a tremendous coup for the company and offers it many regulatory — i.e., competitive — advantages in New York. Chief among them is that users of Bankchain are able to shift assets to one another across the platform without having to rely on regulated, centralized actors who facilitate fee-based transactions.

      ...

      For now, itBit and other companies working on private distributed ledger systems in finance are content that institutional interest is rising, a welcome change from a few years ago when very few on Wall Street took bitcoin and the blockchain seriously. This year, itBit’s tech team is implementing ACH deposits and real-time streaming market data, and announced in February that it is expanding services in London, the Middle East and Africa. Earlier this year, the company hired Jason Nabi from Societe Generale, who has more than 20 years in securities services and post-trade operations; just one example of a successful trading infrastructure executive joining a blockchain company.

    2. Madura, Jeff (2016). International Financial Management (13 ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 696. ISBN 1337099732. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The book notes:

      As the number of users of bitcoins has grown, the lack of protection for bitcoin owners and the potential for illegal activity has led to some regulations. In 2015, the state of New York granted a banking trust charter to itBit Trust Co., making it the first fully regulated bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin accounts at itBit are backed by mandatory capital reserves, and dollar accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Previously, some MNCs were reluctant to accept bitcoins because many banks were unwilling to set up bitcoin accounts, so an MNC had to conver the bitcoins to another currency at an exchange and then transfer the converted amount to a bank; now bitcoins can be converted to dollars at itBit and immediately moved into a dollar account. To prevent hacking, itBit keeps bitcoin owners' wallets offline and moves the bitcoins online only as needed. To obtain the charter, itBit had to meet higher consumer protection and security standards than other bitcoin exchanges meet. In addition, New York now requires bitcoin dealers to obtain a "bitlicense" to operate in the state. The U.S. Treasury is also developing rules for cryptocurrencies.

    3. Popper, Nathaniel (2015-05-07). "Bitcoin Exchange Receives First License in New York State". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      New York State’s top financial regulator has granted the first license to a Bitcoin exchange, allowing it to open legally to customers across the country.

      The exchange, itBit, said Thursday morning that it was beginning to take on customers in the United States immediately after receiving a banking trust charter from New York State’s Department of Financial Services and its superintendent, Benjamin M. Lawsky, who has been trying for some time to bring new rules to the fledgling virtual currency industry.

      In addition to the new license, itBit, which has offices in New York and Singapore, also announced on Thursday that it had won $25 million in new financing and had appointed three prominent board members: Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Bill Bradley, the former New Jersey senator; and Robert H. Herz, a Morgan Stanley director.

      The trust company charter gives itBit a banklike status and appears to make it the winner in a race among Bitcoin exchanges to become the first to be fully regulated in the United States.

      ...

      The company was founded by several people with Wall Street experience, including the chief executive, Mr. Cascarilla, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. The company’s chief operating officer, Andrew Chang, came to itBit from Google.

    4. Vincent, James (2013-11-12). "itBit, a NASDAQ-powered Bitcoin currency exchange, raises $3.25m in funding". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      A new currency exchange for the digital crypto-currency Bitcoin integrating technology used by the NASSAQ has raised $3.25 million in funding.

      The Singapore-based itBit hopes to differentiate itself from other Bitcoin currency exchanges by offering greater security and compliance with established banking standards.

      ...

      This current round of funding from Canaan Partners and RRE Ventures brings itBit’s total funding to $5.5m.

      Although itBit is fully compliant with financial regulations in Singapore it is not available to trading for those living in the US.

    5. Nasr, Reem (2015-05-07). "NY grants first banking license to bitcoin exchange itBit". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      A New York City-based bitcoin exchange itBit has become the first to receive a charter under New York banking laws.

      ItBit is a commercial exchange that trades the virtual currency. Thursday's announcement makes it the first company to receive a charter from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

      ...

      The company also announced the itBit Trust Co. that will provide full asset protection and FDIC insurance.

    6. Starkman, Dean (2015-05-08). "N.Y. issues charter to bitcoin firm". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      New York state issued its first charter for a bitcoin exchange, providing a major dose of legitimacy for the virtual currency as it begins to move from the margins of the financial system to the mainstream.

      ItBit Trust Co., a New York start-up that allows investors to trade dollars for bitcoins, started operating Thursday under a banking trust charter that it says allows it to function legally in all 50 states.

      The company also added three high-powered figures to its board and picked up $25 million in funding, further bolstering its stature and the growing acceptance of the digital currency.

      ...

      Added to ItBit's board of directors are Sheila C. Bair, former FDIC chairwoman; Bill Bradley, the former Democratic senator from New Jersey and member of the Senate Finance Committee; and Robert H. Herz, a director of both investment banking firm Morgan Stanley and mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae.

    7. Dugan, Kevin (2015-05-07). "ItBit makes New York bitcoin history". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      Wall Street is bullish on bitcoin.

      New York regulators on Thursday granted the first bitcoin exchange charter to itBit, a barely three-year old company with a deep bench of Wall Street heavy hitters.

      The charter, issued by the Department of Financial Services, comes as ex-bankers are increasingly looking to the digital currency as the next frontier in finance.

      Charles Cascarilla, itBit’s CEO — and a former Goldman Sachs analyst — told The Post that the company beefed up its board in January by bringing on Sheila Bair, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, and Robert Herz, who used to chair the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

      ...

      ItBit, which has been operating in Singapore since late 2012, worked with the DFS for more than a year in order to get the charter, Cascarilla said.

    8. LaCapra Tara, Lauren (2015-04-23). Wilchins, Dan; Craft, Diane (eds.). "Exclusive: Bitcoin exchange itBit seeks New York banking license". Reuters. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      In a little noticed move, bitcoin exchange itBit has filed for a banking license in New York, according to the state banking authority.

      Approval for the license may come in the next couple of weeks, people familiar with the matter told Reuters, which could make itBit the first bitcoin company to be regulated as a bank in the United States.

      The application is part of itBit’s plan to expand its business into different corners of financial services, and present itself as a trustworthy and reputable company. Right now, itBit operates as an exchange where buyers and sellers trade the bitcoin digital currency.

      ...

      ItBit, whose exchange operates in Singapore, moved its primary headquarters to New York last year, and hired Erik Wilgenhof Plante from eBay Inc as chief compliance officer. The company’s web site touts its anti-money laundering efforts and “know your customer” credentials, as well as its compliance in all jurisdictions in which it operates.

    9. Weinberger, Evan (2015-05-12). Laskowski, Kat; Shea, Philip (eds.). "ItBit's NY Virtual Currency License Could Provide Road Map". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      Instead, itBit, which has been operating in Singapore since November 2013, received a charter to operate as a limited-purpose trust company under the New York state banking law. This means it will have to operate under anti-money laundering, capital and other requirements that are nearly identical to those that would apply to a more traditional bank working under a state banking charter. Because of that, the firm will comply with regulations that are more stringent than applicable BitLicense requirements when they come into force.

      ...

      ItBit won the right to begin operations immediately once the DFS awarded it a charter, giving it a first-mover advantage and a seal of approval from one of the most aggressive regulators in the U.S.

    10. Metz, Cade (2015-05-08). "NY Backs Bitcoin Exchange. But It May Not Fly in California". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      BEN LAWSKY, NEW York's superintendent of financial services, trumpeted the news with a tweet. "Big day. New York issues first charter to a virtual currency company," the tweet read, just above an image of the charter, complete with Lawsky's signature and an official New York seal. Lawsky and New York's Department of Financial Services granted the charter on Thursday to itBit, officially approving the company's bitcoin exchange for use in the state, and on the same day, itBit opened the exchange to people nationwide, saying the charter provided the legal framework needed to operate in all fifty states. As The New York Times put it, itBit appeared to be "the winner in a race among bitcoin exchanges to become the first to be fully regulated in the United States."

      Certainly, the charter is a turning point for bitcoin, the digital currency that has found an audience online and has operated with government approval in many other countries but has been slow to win approval from US regulators. Carol Van Cleef, a partner with the national law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips who co-chairs the firm's global payments practices and closely follows digital currencies, says the charter is, "a validation that digital currencies are here to stay."

      But the turning point isn't a big as many believe it is. Though itBit says it can operate in all 50 states—and is indeed doing so—Van Cleef says some states may take a different view of the matter. "This is not necessarily going to be a blank pass to offer services in all states," she says, explaining that some states could require the company to win additional licenses beyond the New York charter. States like, say, California.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ItBit to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also pinging the closer Juliancolton (talk · contribs), whose "no consensus" closing remains unexplained, but affects the current AfD.  My point here is that because of this closing, I no longer see a WP:SUSTAINED argument, even though at the first AfD there was consensus that notability was still emerging.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember having ever been prompted to justify my decision there before, so I'm not sure where this "remains unexplained" business comes from. That said, it was a pretty clear-cut "no consensus" call: reasonable arguments were advanced (including by yourself, confusingly enough) to show that the topic was notable, but the "delete" votes identified some legitimate issues as well. After three full weeks in which the final had seen no discussion whatsoever, it was abundantly evident that no consensus would emerge after a third relisting. Perhaps I should have specified WP:NPASR in the closing statement, but I've always felt that goes without saying in "no consensus" decisions for low-participation AfDs. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I put in bold "Delete", that should have been a strong indication that I thought the article should be deleted, and I Wikilinked WP:SUSTAINED.  I also stated that I did not support removal of the prod.  BTW, thank you for your reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt for one year  Fails WP:SUSTAINED.  WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news shows that ItBit announced a rebranding on 24 September 2017.  The topic meets WP:GNG, as shown by WP:BEFORE and Cunard's sources.  But skimming Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do.  Nor is it our role to understand or support the company in its rebranding. 
    As the keep !vote said at the previous AfD, there is a parent company here, Paxos (company).  This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup.  My Google search for Paxos showed nothing in Google books. 
    If deleted and salted, a year from now, I expect that this article will be restored with its edit history as a redirect to Paxos.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added two paragraph breaks, to emphasize that the sentence "This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup" is discussing Paxos, not ItBit.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional substub, and the mentioned sources are little better than press releases. Some of them are rewritten PR, that's all. Kill this spam with fire. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can understand a WP:TNT deletion (don't entirely agree, but don't feel particularly motivated to rewrite the article), however don't understand the argument for salting. Unscintillating's SUSTAINED argument is fair. There doesn't really appear to be significant post-2016 coverage except perhaps for part of an analyst report. In Jul 16, it was #2 in BTC/USD trades but appears to be barely in the top 10 today (and outside that if BTC/USDT is included). Nor does there appear to be any real coverage of Paxos -- their partnership with Euroclear recently dissolved, which isn't promising.
A solution might be to redirect Paxos (company) to Euroclear and (briefly) cover the JV in context; and redirect ItBit to Digital currency exchange with capsule summaries added for exchanges with sufficient RS (including defunct ones such as Mt. Gox)... but that would probably open cans of worms given the edit history. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing offered above does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It's mostly about the company's hopes, plans and aspirations, as in:
  • ItBit is implementing ..., or
  • "ItBit’s NY Virtual Currency License Could Provide Road Map", etc.
WP:TOOSOON also applies -- the company has not achieved anything that would make it Wiki-notable just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ItBit passes WP:SUSTAINED. Regarding Unscintillating's "This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup", it was founded in 2013, not 2016. There are sources about the company in 2013, 2015, and 2016, which means it passes WP:SUSTAINED in that there are not just "brief bursts of news coverage".

    Regarding Unscintillating's "Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do", itBit became the first bitcoin company to be regulated as a bank in the United States after it received a license from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

    The company received an extensive profile in the Modern Trader magazine here. It received significant coverage in the book International Financial Management. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the textbook presents ItBit's way of dealing in Bitcoin not only as a historical first, but as a turning point in the finance world's view of Bitcoin.
The Cade Metz article in Wired also is interesting in that it is explicitly sourced to a tweet—a primary source, making the article a secondary source for the information about ItBit's regulatory status.
Ironically, the assertion that these articles are derived from PR is itself presented without any evidence. They sound like PR? No doubt. Any brief news report that happens to be favorable to a company is likely to sound like PR.
—Syrenka V (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND makes it clear that recycled PR sourcing does not count towards establishing notability, and brief news reports on corporations almost always fail WP:ORG, either on CORPDEPTH or ORGIND. The sourcing here also fails these guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence has been presented to show that even one of these sources, let alone all or most of them, are actually "recycled PR" or were otherwise authored by ItBit. Some do quote company personnel, but all include significant material not derived from what they quote from ItBit.
I have yet to see WP:CORPDEPTH used as an argument for deletion, here or elsewhere, in a way that is true to what it actually says. This guideline makes it clear that the detail it requires can be pieced together from multiple sources, as long as they are not "trivial or incidental" mentions. It defines such a mention by giving a list of examples, none of which resembles any of the sources here. All of the provided examples have one of two characteristics. Either (1) they are both very brief and irrelevant to the principal point of the source in which they occur, or (2) they are what is elsewhere called "indiscriminate publicity", such as routine restaurant reviews—every restaurant gets reviewed by local news—or mergers and acquisitions of subsidiaries.
The nomination statement against ItBit essentially makes the argument that the material in the current Wikipedia page is routine/indiscriminate, true of "literally thousands of companies". And indeed that is true of having $5 million in venture funding. But it is not true of, for example, being the first fully regulated Bitcoin exchange in history. The sources Cunard quotes should have ended any doubt of notability.
—Syrenka V (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on sourcing: I've now found a few sources not included in Cunard's list:
    • A couple of press releases,[1][2] not from itBit but from the New York State Department of Financial Services, documenting itBit's status as the first virtual currency company chartered by the state. The second one is about a different company that got a later charter, but is worth knowing about because it gives a more complete timeline. These press releases are of course primary sources, but they are independent of itBit—and they demonstrate that primary sources for secondary news stories exist that are independent of itBit's PR.
    • A New York Business Journal article reporting on itBit's licensing, sourced not to company sources, but to a statement by Benjamin Lawsky, New York's state superintendent of financial services.[3]
    • A law journal article likewise commenting on itBit as the holder of the first state trust company license (for a cryptocurrency exchange firm).[4]: 362 
  1. ^ "NYDFS grants first charter to a New York virtual currency company: Bitcoin exchange "itBit"—based in New York City—receives license under New York banking law". (press release). New York: New York State Department of Financial Services. May 7, 2015. Archived from the original on 2017-09-25. Retrieved 2017-09-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ^ "NYDFS grants charter to "Gemini" Bitcoin exchange founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss: three virtual currency firms have now received charters or licenses from NYDFS—Gemini, Circle, itBit". (press release). New York: New York State Department of Financial Services. October 5, 2015. Archived from the original on 2017-09-25. Retrieved 2017-09-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  3. ^ del Castillo, Michael (May 7, 2015). "With fresh $25M, NYC startup granted first bitcoin charter sets final stage for bitlicense". Banking & Financial Services. New York Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-09-24.
  4. ^ Hughes, Sarah Jane; Middlebrook, Stephen T. (Winter 2015–2016). "Developments in the law affecting electronic payments and financial services". Business Lawyer. Articles by Maurer Faculty, Paper 2041. 71 (1): 361–372.
—Syrenka V (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cunard makes a good case by arguing that there are enough sources present to use for this article. However, nine months after the previous AfD, no progress in sourcing is made. To go even further: a week after the start of the second AfD, we still basically have the same poor article as we had in January this year (although one reference was added). So, unless something will change drastically, a deletion of this article is the best option. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 11:28, 25 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LocalBitcoins[edit]

AfDs for this article:
LocalBitcoins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, all the sources from affiliated companies owned by the same investors (eg. Coindesk, Cryptocoinnews, bitcoin.com) are primary/related sources, although there is some coverage elsewhere, it is insufficient to meet Notability standards. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that there was an extensive previous AfD, your nomination appears to add nothing to the previous discussion, not even the additional sources available since the last AfD.  WP:BEFORE D1 on Google News shows as the first hit right now "Bitcoin trading platform Localbitcoins has posted new all-time highs as China's looming trading ban leads traders to seek alternatives. CoinTelegraph‎ 11 Sep 2017".  To apply your "they are not practicing journalistic independence" theory to the sources currently on Google News; you've got to explain away CoinTelegraph, CryptoCoinsNews, CalvinAyre.com, CoinReport, Equities.com, Motherboard, Live Bitcoin News, The Merkle, iNVEZZ, and BTC-Echo; and that is only sources on page 1 and all dates are later than May 2017.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of your sources only motherboard is independent. What is your point?

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  17:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My points are (1) that your post has not shown evidence of a problem with journalistic independence, which is a matter of journalistic ethics, (2) your objections have already been dealt with at a previous AfD, even while WP:BEFORE B3 states, "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.", and (3) that as per WP:BEFORE D1, wp:notability has increased since the last AFD.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to quote a common argument: all your sources are in-bubble WP:FRINGE or related sources, show at least three independent sources with significant depth for WP:CORPDEPTH. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not "my" sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Berkman, Fran (2014-04-17). "LocalBitcoins exchange confirms security breach, stolen bitcoins". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      LocalBitcoins, a decentralized Bitcoin exchange with more than 100,000 users, confirmed reports of a security breach after multiple users complained their digital cash had vanished.

      ...

      Unlike most Bitcoin exchanges, which facilitate fully online transactions, LocalBitcoins matches buyers and sellers by geographical location for face-to-face exchanges of cash for Bitcoins. The company's 110,000 active traders make it the largest decentralized market in the world, according to ArcticStartup.

    2. Knibbs, Kate (2015-02-05). "Meet the Street Dealers Who Peddle Bitcoin". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      I'd arranged this meeting through LocalBitcoins.com, a Bitcoin marketplace that's not unlike a cryptocurrency Craigslist. People who want to sell Bitcoin post advertisements, and buyers message them to arrange a transfer. The Helsinki-based marketplace started in 2012, but there are people using it to buy and sell all over the world. (Though not in Germany, where it's been blocked for regulatory reasons.)

      ...

      Even though people are supposed to treat money traded for Bitcoin as taxable income, as long as people keep their exchanges small enough, it's easy to fly under the radar. It makes it an incredibly appealing option for incremental money laundering, and that's why LocalBitcoins was a cash-spewing tumbler for Silk Road profits. And it's why the Secret Service went undercover on the exchange to bust people for laundering money on it.

      ...

      Plus, LocalBitcoins is not exempt at all from the same volatility and insecurity that plagues the Bitcoin scene in general. At the end of January, LocalBicoins's LiveChat feature got hacked and some people lost money. If you're really into playing around with Bitcoin speculation and you want to escape a paper trail while profiting off small-scale exchanges, it's pretty effective... as long as you're cool with the inherent unknowability of strangers' intentions.

    3. Mizrahi, Avi (2016-09-13). "Russia's National Censor Blocks Access to LocalBitcoins. LocalBitcoins responded to the ban by instructing Russian users on how to bypass the censorship". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      If you are not familiar with LocalBitcoins, it is a service where people from different countries can exchange their local currency to bitcoin. The site allows users to post the exchange rate and payment methods they want for buying or selling bitcoin. Anyone can reply and agree to meet to buy or sell bitcoin with cash, or trade directly with online banking. Funds are placed in LocalBitcoins’ web wallet from where the buyer can pay for purchases directly.

      It should be noted the Russia isn't the only jurisdiction in which LocalBitcoins have run into trouble with regulations. For example, in 2015 LocalBitcoins left New York over its BitLicense program and in 2014 it halted service in Germany after being contacted by BaFin (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), the country’s financial supervisory authority, also apparently on the matter of licensing.

    4. Wile, Rob (2014-02-09). "Another Major Bitcoin Exchange May Be Under Threat". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      LocalBitcoins.com allows users to trade Bitcoin in person by finding the address of buyers and sellers closest to your physical address. That might seem like no anonymity is involved, but in practice actual addresses are never revealed, many transactions occur online, and if the two parties do meet in person, they usually don't ask each other's names. As of December, the site was seeing up to 3,000 Bitcoins traded a day.

    5. Cofnas, Abe (2015) [2008]. The Forex Trading Course: A Self-Study Guide to Becoming a Successful Currency Trader (2 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 220–221. ISBN 1118998650. Retrieved 2017-09-16.

      The book notes:

      One of the safest places to buy bitcoin from a person is https://localbitcoins.com. Sellers store bitcoins in their account wallet, so they are under the control of localbitcoins.com. The amount of coins one wants to buy will affect the price. Some sellers price coins very high, others very low. They are always above market rate because it is a convenient method of buying the coins.

      Once the seller and buyer make a deal and agree on a price, the seller will provide bank details to transfer the funds. The seller will check the bank, and once the funds arrive in the seller's bank account, the seller will confirm the receipt. This ends the procedure and localbitcoins will transfer the coins you purchased to your account for you to then transfer to your wallet. There is a very small fee charged when bitcoin is transferred from wallet to wallet: (0.001 btc = $0.34 or £0.22 per transaction). If you transferred 1 btc from your local bitcoins account to your personal wallet, you would receive 0.999 btc.

    6. Clement, Diana (2017-05-07). "Diana Clement: I fancy a bit of Bitcoin". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      The problem is we're a bit backward here in New Zealand and buying Bitcoin is difficult and expensive.

      Localbitcoins.com is probably the best known exchange where Kiwis buy Bitcoin. A staggering $300,000 of Bitcoin exchange is taking place on Localbitcoins.com here each week.

      ...

      Traders selling through Localbitcoins.com take quite a high margin and myBitcoinsaver charges 2.5 per cent commission plus a "delivery fee", which partially defeats the purpose of Bitcoin exchange being cheap.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LocalBitcoins to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Thanks Cunard for pinging me. These companies are receiving massive worldwide focus at the moment, for super risky, high return investing, ICO's and weird upcoming tech like smart contracts in Ethereum and other heavy duty stuff in newer new money, and all brand new tech. The article has some coverage in sources, and there is more source than you can shake a stick at now and its a decent article. A new field. WP needs articles like this. Also it is a big big outfit scope_creep (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sources 5 and 6. 5 is substantial coverage in a book published by an academic publisher. 6 is substantial coverage that does in fact demonstrate intellectual independence: it isn't a press release based source in my judgement, and most AfD regulars will know I'm not easy to please on this front. Cunard, I would seriously ask you in the future to consider just presenting links with a brief analysis of the source and letting people read the coverage in context. If I went based on what you provided alone, I would be voting delete, but reading in context allows editors to judge the sourcing as a whole rather than just snippets. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, from the 2nd AfD, that I'll raise here and pushes it to a much stronger keep: it gets a pragraph in the New York Times. Ignore all the other things, NYT coverage is normally by itself tends to demonstrate notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources. It would good if new references could be added to article. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. Among the several independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject are The New York Times, Business Insider, Wired and Gizmodo, so the nominator's claim that "it is insufficient to meet Notability standards" is not true. Cunard's comment above notes that there is additional coverage from reputable academic publishers such as Wiley as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am still not impressed, mentions in passing, press releases, no wider significance. A paragraph or two in an academic article on how-to don't change my mind. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's articles among others. Source 2 alone would be enough for me – seems like an article solely about LocalBitcoins traders in a notable online magazine. Various supporting mentions in other sources as well, easily enough to convince on notability. --hydrox (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sources in the article or listed above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is largely a collection of trivia, as in:
  • In September 2016, access from Russia to LocalBitcoins was blocked by Roskomnadzor, the executive agency for telecommunications in Russia, after the finance ministry proposed criminalising the use of bitcoin.[14][15] LocalBitcoins posted instructions for users on how to bypass the access restrictions!
Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. A paragraph in NYT does not encyclopedic notability make. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but several paragraphs in multiple reliable sources does. NYT is only one of 16 sources currently in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep - sourcing and article aren't great, but LocalBitcoins is important and significant in the bitcoin world - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is reality, not the bitcoin world, you are welcome to port it to wikia. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguyintobooks: your nomination (the 3rd AfD in this case) is a timewaster. You are obligated under WP:BEFORE, specificaly D.1 titled "Search for additional sources," to search to see the level of coverage for this article BEFORE nomination. If you did that you would have noticed the subject of this article has widespread coverage in google books and google news. You might as well take a look at it now https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=localbitcoins rather than suggesting David edit on some other site, he is a qualified editor (and admin), so why should he not edit here on wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Him being an admin in no way influences my opinion, which is that the entire 'bitcoin world' is nothing but a gigantic hype-storm with the majority of the companies owned by a few investors. linking to a google search without any new sources is not helpful. and really saying something is important and significant in its sphere is not helpful either, especially without reliable proof, all there is are some mentions based on other crap peddled by people reliably called a ponzi scheme. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment in which you said "my opinion, which is that the entire 'bitcoin world' is nothing but a gigantic hype-storm with the majority of the companies owned by a few investors" represents your opinion. You are prohibited from editing this opinion into wikipedia articles, as it is contrary to WP:NPOV goals. Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating articles you dont becuase they are a ponzi scheme (as you claim) like is the same. WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This still isn't an article, other than CIVIL and related behavior guidelines, I dont think you will find many policies apply to discussion pages. It is a ponzi scheme btw.[1][2] Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have done some research on defending your soapboxing on AfD pages. Good source for the ponzi content btw, I will add it over on the Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_concerns page now, we had been looking for more content for this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widespread coverage in google books, news, etc. A full page of hits in Google books first page of results, do we even need to go to page two to look further. Far beyond WP:GNG, this nomination is frivolous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "This Billionaire Just Called Bitcoin a 'Pyramid Scheme'". Retrieved 23 September 2017.
  2. ^ "Subscribe to read". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 September 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Hage[edit]

Erik Hage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. His full bio is available at his place of work: [24]. Essentially he has written a few books, was a journalist, been given a minor award, and is an associate professor. His main claim to notability is that one of his books was on Van Morrison, so Google searches will bring that up. But I cannot find a reliable source which talks about him in depth - essentially, he is known via the notability of the topic of that book (Van Morrison), rather than by his own notability. But notability is not inherited - importantly he appears to have not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All the listed "External links and sources" are links to writing by Hage, not about him. I have been unable to find any sources that discuss the subject of the article at all. There are other people of the same name, but this author and his work have not received significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 17 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) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise London[edit]

Paradise London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial content, repeated attempts at inserting promotional content, linking it to related individuals/associated businesses. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Mduvekot (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From what I have read in a few sources, nothing significantly notable sets the article subject apart from other other branding agencies, leading me to consider WP:MILL. For the record, I do not find the subject's live music department to be notable in this instance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. - Mar11 (talk) 18:40, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bitcoin affiliate programs[edit]

List of Bitcoin affiliate programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of external links to bitcoin affiliates. Sourced to unreliable sources, in violation of the WP:LISTCOMPANY guideline. Does not link to articles. We don't have an article on most of the listed companies, RunCPA, Hash block Limited, AvaTrade, eToro, Bit4x.com, Simplefx, 1Broker, 500Affiliates, LocalBitcoins, VirWox, WhaleClub, LakeBTC, StrongCoin. Mduvekot (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete there is way to much of this techno-bitbabble seeping in, this fails WP:GNG is listcruft and I agree it is violation of WP:LISTCOMPANY, We don't have articles on these companies because they are not relevant, and wikipedia should not buy into the hype, which summed up is: 'the future is blockchain, buy bitcoin here, make $1000's!'. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 16 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 redirect to Project management. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project termination[edit]

Project termination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (I realise, looking through the article history, that I'd inadvertently re-PROD'd it on seeing it on New Page Patrol), with the removal coming complete with no rationale on either occasion. This would appear to be a classic case of Wikipedia not being a how-to guide which should probably have been deleted due to the first PROD, but here we are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a how to manual Whispering 03:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this very poorly written essay. I don't think the particular redirect here is correct - project termination is a separate phase from actual project management - this seems to me more related to liquidation on a project level. It might be possible to write a proper article on this subject, but this is a clear case of TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content worth saving. A redirect would be primarily to discourage re-creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Project management. Termination is usually a distinct phase in most frameworks, but this particular content is so badly written that would require WP:TNT to be really helpful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:04, 24 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Sharma[edit]

Shiva Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have checked all sources and nothing comes up apart from Facebook and Instagram pages. All sources that were added have been checked and none of them seemed to be reliable. Therefore, I think this should be deleted as the person depicted in this article is unremarkable and fails WP:ARTN. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have listed this article on AfD two weeks ago and so far, I didn't get a single response. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:25, 23 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie (clothing)[edit]

McKenzie (clothing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable (no coverage). It's a long-running brand albeit not a very significant one, and is apparently related to the JD Sports chain, so ordinarily I'd suggest a mention in JD Sports and an entry on Mackenzie (a disambiguation page) pointing to JD Sports. But I'm not finding even enough of a reference to do that, let alone sustain a full article. If someone has better luck at finding references, please add to JD Sports' page, but it's hard to see this article surviving. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 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) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Jets[edit]

Kingston Jets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have never seen a page as bad as this on Wikipedia. Full of jokes and exclamations. Issues tag was on there since 2008, couldn't find a serious previous edit. LeverageSerious (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article wasn't always written in its current joking and sarcastic style, but on the other hand it doesn't seem to have ever had references establishing notability for this amateur club, either. If this club is truly notable, the article can be re-written with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no sources and gives no indication of why this club is notable. Merely existing is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 18 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural health[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cultural health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:G4 might apply here, but I can't tell because the previous version was deleted in 2005. Aunk (talk · contribs) recreated the page with the edit summary Adding Stub (someone deleted the last one without notice) see discussion page for more info), but Aunk had edited the previous AFD twice, so clearly they were given plenty of notice. The "more info" on the talk page appears to assume the page was deleted because of POV issues, but only one delete !voter even mentioned POV. Essentially, the page was recreated based on a flawed premise, and I have no reason to believe the previous status quo has changed even twelve years later, let alone one year later when the page was recreated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:G4 is not really a problem here. I've just checked, and this article is sufficiently different from the version that was deleted in 2005; at least, the more contentious and original research aspects of the 2005 version are no longer included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Anyway, if the article was deleted as containing nothing but OR, that seems to indicate that the topic itself is OR. A quick Googling brings up a few non-wiki hits, but those appear to be describing different concepts to our article: Comparative and Cross-cultural Health Research, Mosby's Pocket Guide to Cultural Health Assessment, Doorway Thoughts: Cross Cultural Health Care for Older Adults, etc. all take the form of "cultural [health assessment]" or "[cross-cultural] health". The fact that the same user recreated the article with no citations of reliable sources, except one WP:BLUE sentence whose source almost certainly doesn't use the term "cultural health", does not bode well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not describe its subject clearly and has only one source, which does not itself use the phrase "cultural health". If this is a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage, the article probably needs to be completely rewritten with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:Metropolitan90, this seems to be a buzzword or neologism that hasn't caught on. No objection to a redirect if a suitable target can be found. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:05, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard BBQ[edit]

Graveyard BBQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. A search for sources brings up routine coverage and a name check in Guitar Hero, but that's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article and the articles for this band's albums as failing WP:MUSIC. Fancruft galore. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 16 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 redirect to Guess (clothing). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G by GUESS[edit]

G by GUESS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not redirect, this does not meet any criteria for notability and does not have enough content for a redirect/merge. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 18:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guess (clothing) as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are not demonstrating independent notability. North America1000 09:40, 24 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. North America1000 09:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GLO Jeans[edit]

GLO Jeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 16 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. Lack of any input. Closing under WP:NOQUORUM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Networks[edit]

Southern Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:17, 16 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Morrow IV[edit]

Jeff Morrow IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG. Google search turns up no in-depth coverage of this individual (when distinguished from the other person with the same name). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 16 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. Lack of any input. Closing under WP:NOQUORUM Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Hussein (disc jockey)[edit]

Khaled Hussein (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable DJ. Fails the general and subject-specific (music) notability criteria. — Zawl 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 17 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbie Hanna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gabbie Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bit part actress and presenter, none of the sources bear out any distinct notability. The article also has a rather promotional tone that points to possible COI. Karst (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:16, 16 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) 19:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maksat Annanepesov[edit]

Maksat Annanepesov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful political candidate, attracting the coverage you'd expect. No clear evidence of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in elections — even at the presidential level, you still need to either demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for some other reason (e.g. having already held a "lower" NPOL-passing office, such as a seat in the legislature), or source the article well enough to pass WP:GNG. This, however, demonstrates no preexisting notability at all, parts of it read more like a campaign brochure ("was described as an ambitious, competent and experienced professional") than an encyclopedia article — and the sourcing consists of one brief blurb about him and three glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, which is not a GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails NPOL and GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 24 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 and rename to Prizk (TV series) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Field (TV series)[edit]

Gold Field (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for sources reveals very little (Ghits) significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No major reviews or attention, etc. The programme fails television notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 15:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No English sources, which is not unusual given the lack of international release. In Russian the series is called 'Прииск' or 'PRIZK' in the Latin alphabet. literally translated in means 'mine' (the hole in the ground variety, referring to its setting, which is a gold mine). The ru-wiki version is equally unsourced, see [25]. Searching for Russian sources is time-consuming, especially given the confusion with actual mines due to the title. I have found some sources [26] & [27] [28] and this which is related [29]. And a source which verifies the cast [30]. Given the amount of pirating and general chatter on the internet of this series I would say it is reasonably popular in Russia, and has been shown on a main national TV channel. I cannot understand why it is called 'Gold Field (TV series)' I suppose the article creator made an error, it should be 'Mine (TV series)' or maybe 'Prizk (TV series)', even 'Gold Mine (TV Series)' would be better, but since it was never released outside Russia, I think it should be renamed to Prizk (TV series), which is the Russian name. (ping @DrStrauss:). --: Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per A Guy intobooks. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:40, 24 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Ballet School Diaries[edit]

The Royal Ballet School Diaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on a non-notable book. A Google search brings back little attention or reviews from major, independent and reliable reviewers and neither such a search nor the article show why this article meets the criteria for inclusion. DrStrauss talk 15:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, this topic is so boring that no-one can be bothered to even comment for two weeks, after doing a search, I cannot find any evidence of notability either. It exists, has been published and is for sale, but has no independent reviews, media attention or any controversy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe that being "boring" is an acceptable criteria for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a children's fiction series of the type popularized by the The Goddess Girls and Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Unlike those it does not seem to have any independent reviews. Aguyintobooks, the stories are cute and the series is definitely not boring to the demographic to which it is aimed. Mothers who've bought it on Amazon report their girls love it. We'd like to feel that Wikipedia is welcoming to girls' and women's interests despite the fact there are so few female editors. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this topic is so boring that no-one can be bothered to even comment for two weeks Thats pretty normal for AfDs. has over 40 pages in it currently.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 24 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) 19:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Me Alone (2004 short film)[edit]

Leave Me Alone (2004 short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. A Google search reveals no independent coverage or major reviews link (the -jackson bit is to exclude results about Michael Jackson's song). The only source the article gives is to the website of the producers. Please note that the claim that it won the UpOverDownUnder "Best Newcomers Award" isn't on the award's website and is mainly mentioned only in Wikipedia mirrors. DrStrauss talk 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:07, 16 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) 19:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Ukrainian Students in Germany[edit]

Union of Ukrainian Students in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability standards for organisations and companies. The only major coverage in an independent source is a one-event story where they hold a vigil for human rights abuses link. There are some tone issues as well, lapsing in and out of persons, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. DrStrauss talk 20:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:05, 16 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bantam Rooster[edit]

Bantam Rooster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:BAND with few references existing. While mentioned in a couple of books, the mentions appear to be purely trivial. Additionally, band does not appear to have any songs/albums that have charted. TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(potentially) Adding: Cross and the Switchblade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as it will come under WP:CSD#A9 if artist's page is deleted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NBAND #1 via bio and three reviews from Allmusic, and coverage in books such as Everett True's The White Stripes And The Sound Of Mutant Blues, Steve Miller's Detroit Rock City: The Uncensored History of Rock 'n' Roll in America's Loudest City among others, and passes #5 via two albums on Crypt Records and one on Sympathy for the Record Industry. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The album just (potentially) added to this AfD has reviews from Allmusic and Exclaim!, so is unlikey to be deleted under CSD#A9. --Michig (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:33, 16 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Sharma (politician)[edit]

Rajesh Sharma (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN as Sharma has never held an elected office and appears to only be the Vice President of a political party's youth group. A quick google search did not appear to turn anything up and a search of the youth group's WP article references only produced one passing mention stating that he was involved in some sort of a protest (but did not identify him by any position/rank). TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A biography containing entirely unsourced material about what the subject said and thought. Vice-presidency of a party youth wing falls far short of any of the WP:POLITICIAN criteria and simple name listing as a participant in a party-organised protest is insufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being on the executive of a political party's youth wing — that can occasionally be enough if the article is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 18 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fecto Sugar Mills Limited[edit]

Fecto Sugar Mills Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 16 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Industrial Defence Solutions[edit]

Global Industrial Defence Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage about this company found. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is one of the only four drone manufacturers in Pakistan, appears to be a major defence company [31]. Mar4d (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said, 'there is no in-depth coverage' and that point remains. Have a look at WP:INHERITORG which says 'No inherited notability'. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 16 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. North America1000 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Barbara Micarelli School[edit]

Mother Barbara Micarelli School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

XFD - fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Submitting for XFD since educational institution does not qualify for WP:A7 and per my understanding the recommended process is to add for discussion rather than CSD. Shaded0 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aguyintobooks, I was referring indirectly to wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES also, and I think it states that practically speaking we keep secondary school articles, while usually redirecting primary and middle schools. This school goes up to grade 12. --doncram 18:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I attempted to find significant coverage in reliable sources but failed. Fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Can be improved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 21 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GP500[edit]

GP500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are reviews in quite a few German magazines at Mobygames. Seems to have potential for expansion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one appears to be notable per the reviews present at Mobygames. Even if it were not, a redirect would be warranted to Melbourne House at the minimum. I'm a keep for now. --Izno (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like there's plenty of reviews from RSes. Phediuk (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beware that when searching gp500 is an actual motorcycle. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:49, 24 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 redirect to Davilex Games. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Racer[edit]

Europe Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Unless someone can get a hold of the German magazines it got reviewed in I'd say it should be deleted for non-notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:50, 24 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 Mastercard. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brighterion[edit]

Brighterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company isn't notable and reliable secondary sources are not available about the topic. Daylen (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, since the company was acquired by Mastercard, the main details from this article should be merged into that one. Thoughts? Daylen (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:39, 16 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 redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix: Mega Madness[edit]

Asterix: Mega Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom, couldn't find enough significant sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:25, 16 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 redirect to Maser. Seems like we don't have consensus whether the list is appropriate for maser but the discussion tends against this being its own article. Going for the redirect to satisfy these requesting removal of the article and to allow for a merger if a discussion on Talk:Maser decides that the list belongs there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masers in science fiction[edit]

Masers in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My PROD was removed citing potential notability so I will create this AfD. I believe this article is merely unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT. It's your typical "in popular culture" spinoff that is unwarranted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've split this stub from maser because it does not belong there, even if sourced. It is very easy to source this information (though I'm not interested in making time for this ;-), but it would overload maser with a bloated, very weakly relevant list. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:IPCA should help clarify the situation in that regard. Ultimately that was the wrong route to take; the section should have been pared down instead, if you did not have time to take responsibility for the referencing of the split you made. Bloated, weakly relevant lists have no place on Wikipedia whether they're a subsection or their own article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I'm happy with the "article spin-off + AfD" approach for this type of situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I most assuredly am not. It's not how spinoff is supposed to work, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:IPCA. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a spun-off, un-cited, "In Popular Culture" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-merge A deletion of a split is not appropriate way to handle it; it should be merged back into the main article from whence it was split if it lacks sufficient standalone notability, per WP:ATD-M and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COSTLY, the term's too obscure for a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Besides, COSTLY is an essay, while WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the word "Maser" is new to me, and I'd be very surprised if all or any of the pop culture references actually define the mention as a "microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" device: unsurprisingly, the introduction of this terrible piece of fancruft points out "characteristics often differ from those of real masers". A merge is undesirable: see the trivia crapfest at Rayguns in fiction. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the mentions are extremely minor to the point of a single weapon being called a maser, regardless of whether it operates like one. The only arguably (semi-)notable one is the Maser Cannons in Godzilla. It's a pretty uncommon term overall, though.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:03, 20 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 speedy delete. Per WP:G11: Blatant paid spam. Nothing more, nothing less. Product of this massive sock farm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online Therapy Institute[edit]

Online Therapy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing on pubmed, no significant coverage on Google news, most of the sources here are dead or do not support the content in question. Typically poor quality paid advert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete yep whole boatload of fake refs. an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 16 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijce[edit]

Vijce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Young Photographer from Germany. Started this article by his own and uses it on his website as bio. There was a deletion discussion in the german WP [32] which mentions that he is not relevant for the german WP. Therefore, in my opinion, the article does not match the relevant notability guideline in the english WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael B. BeVor (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: unformatted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per GNG: Theindy100, PetaPixel, Australian Times, and the South African. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The South African & it is duplicated in AustralianTimes same author, same text, 2 days apart. Then there is this Indy100, same subject, and some more in a foreign language. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The South African and Indy100 "Articles" are both just writeups about this self-authored blog post on PetaPixel. As noted below, anyone can submit posts to PetaPixel, which they publish because it provides them free content. All this does is establish that he's a competent photographer, and that's not enough to establish notability at all. There are too many good photographers who get an occasional mention or feature somewhere, that doesn't make them notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Afetr examining evidence regarding sources, I am changing to Delete per TooSoon, and not enough independent in depth sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable at all, and self-created bios should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a self-created bio, I am wary of its hidden PROMO agenda. It needs a neutral person to rewrite it at the least. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The following is machine translated from the German Wikipedia.

Relevance not shown: Literature only distributed as e-book, the received awards are masses of companies in zig categories. At the mentioned Sony exhibition everyone is free to participate. --Michael B. BeVor (discussion) 12:47, 27 Jul. 2017 (CEST)

"Relevance: Through his worldwide awards and publications in magazines, the artist has a very international readership, Vijce deliberately decided to distribute via e-book at that time in order to make the books available quickly and easily to these people worldwide both from companies and from highly respected institutions in photography.There is also a need to pay attention to the fact that in contemporary photography, a wide range of awards and awards are awarded in cooperation with companies (as sponsors, for example) to be successful again and to achieve it creates quite a high degree of relevance in my eyes.

In particular, the two-time Top 10 listing at the Sony World Photography Awards 2015 and 2016, organized by the World Photography Organization (WPO), not only confirms exceptional creativity but also global recognition through the global press as well exhibitions. In addition, his work was used as a sign for the 2015 exhibition worldwide. WPO also includes greats such as Elliot Erwitt and Anton Corbijn. Whether you can take part in the WPO's World-Photography Awards free of charge, WPO is only for the fact that the WPO wants to offer every photographer worldwide the opportunity to apply for this highly regarded award. At the same time the whole Fotowelt of the excellent and listed photographers. If you want to submit your short film at the Oscars, it costs nothing. Nevertheless, the Academy Awards strongly support the relevance in the film world. In my opinion, Vijce is relevant through its numerous awards, worldwide exhibitions, books and international publications as a contemporary photographer. "--Diet671 (discussion) 09:59, 1 Aug. 2017 (CEST)

The award is not necessarily relevant according to our (!) Criteria: for the Sony Award he was nominated according to article "only". Street photography competitions from Yahoo and Flick I personally not as "professional competitions". The FEP Award is a young talent award. CBRE I can not judge, but it is a real estate AG. You should perhaps further elaborate the "exhibitions in numerous other countries" and prove accordingly. (For the e-books I see here also a problem). Here on Wikipedia there are some who are well versed in the field; maybe they are still reporting. --AnnaS. (Discussion) 20:30, Aug. 2, 2017 (CEST)

Dear Diet, I see it similar to Anna. I respect that the artist, you create and the article are dear to you! But please consider the following: Through its worldwide awards and publications in magazines, the artist has a very international readership. Vijce has deliberately decided to distribute via e-book at that time, in order to provide the books quickly and easily to these people worldwide. This is theory. What sources are there for the intl. Readership or his intentions to publish as an e-book? The Sony Award is and remains an open competition, as Anna writes, which for the WP has no relevance according to WP: RK. The other, numerous awards, unfortunately, are, as already written, for the most part, up-and-coming prices. Exhibitions in other countries would also be really relevant when it is an exhibition specifically for this one photographer, or a group that he belongs to. Also the internet research firstly refers to his own company, the WP and other photo pages. External sources are rare and are partly created by himself (the English Wikipedia article is apparently created by himself, even the biography page of his homepage only refers to the English WP). In summary: He is (currently) only a young photographer, which just does not meet the R criteria for the German WP. Best Regards -Michael B. BeVor (Discussion) 22:43, 2. Aug. 2017 (CEST)

Deleted. Relevance (not yet). Greeting --Mikeed (Talk) 07:37, Aug 4, 2017 (CEST)

  • Comment: From my experience reading through policy, Wikipedia does not and should not care about WHO wrote the article. It is notability that counts. That is why their is no CSD criteria for "autobiography", because that would be a prejudiced reason. Also, WP:TNT/rewrite is rarely a reason for deletion, esp. if it's a PROMO-based TNT.L3X1 (distænt write) 13:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not to sure on that, autobiography articles will often get CSD tagged as A7 or G11. I think the gist of the German disscusion is that the awards are no notable, therefore he isn't notable, I can't say I am expert on photography, so I can't be sure on that either way. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my knowledge of photography awards, the German discussion/analysis is accurate. Also, the mention of PetaPixel above seems to refer to self-promoting blog posts this person written and gotten published there. For those unfamiliar, PetaPixel accepts "blog post" submissions from anyone and will publish them as "guest posts", which gives PetaPixel additional content for free. Publishing a self-promoting blog post is not an example of notability, it does not signify that the outside world considers the person notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed PetaPixel from my list, however, the other sources I found mention him as a pretty well known photographer. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the other references are even references to, so I can't bother rebutting them. The more important point is, there's nothing shared here (or on the page itself as a cite) that establishes notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll paste in the links here in an hour or two. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added them in my original !vote for clarity. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above as well; those links don't really establish notability either. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon. The neutral and notable third party recognition of him comes from 1) being shortlisted for the Sony World Photography Awards and its resulting couple of exhibitions; 2) winning the CBRE Urban Photographer of the Year award; and 3) a HuffPost blog article. This is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Printed publications from third party notable publishers would tip the scale in favour of keeping, rather than self-published PDFs. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:39, 17 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. Sorry for doing it 4 minutes early. :) (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekumeku Movement[edit]

Ekumeku Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. 77.189.193.114 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 01:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. Unsourced. Non-neutral, containing language such as "imperishable legacy". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Undoubtedly the article, as it currently is, is poorly sourced. However, a search around reveals two academic sources on the topic:
-Igbafe, Philip A. (July 1971). "Western Ibo Society and its Resistance to British Rule: The Ekumeku Movement 1898–1911". The Journal of African History. 12 (3). Cambridge University Press: 441–459. doi:10.1017/S0021853700010872.;
-Ohadike, Don C. (1991). The Ekumeku Movement: Western Igbo Resistance to the British Conquest of Nigeria, 1883-1914. Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0821409855.
and general coverage of the topic in a number of other books via the 'Find sources: books' link above.
So verifiable, notable and reliable sources but the article is in need of some improvement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)
  • Keep as there's Notability given the informative sources, sources that have now occurred since the nomination's concerns. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as academic reliable sources have been highlighted and there are more book sources Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick BEFORE shows several book references. Sourcing in article can be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Now it has sources, the basis of this AFD has disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable. Sources exist. Article needs inline sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Malcolmxl5, the subject clearly passes WP:V; WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are a matter of cleanup. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:21, 19 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Graslie[edit]

Emily Graslie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a person with a youtube channel who is not notable. The article includes references to some sources which are brief mentions, but not much significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Notability has not been established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 01:34, 16 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. with redirects (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hladno pivo[edit]

Hladno pivo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating:

Eleven years in, neither this band nor six of its seven albums with articles (two others have previously been deleted) has any kind of sourcing (the one sourced article of the bunch, Svijet glamura, has minimal sourcing, apparently to the band's own record company, and a regional newspaper). A cursory Google News search turns up nothing that appears to be from a reliable source. I propose deleting all of them. bd2412 T 03:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. FFS, when did WP:BEFORE stop to be a policy? For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search. Even if you don't speak Croatian, simple Google search for "Croatian band Hladno pivo" would give you a myriad sources in English, such as [33], short paragraph in Lonely Planet, short paragraph in Guardian, Slate, Eurosonic Festival, or their being a pre-group for Green Day [34]. "A cursory Google News search" provides about 10,800 hits, mostly in Serbo-Croatian (I grant, some do include references to "cold beer"), that include regional newspapers like Blic, Dan (newspaper), Glas Istre, Večernji list, Danas (newspaper), and Nezavisne Novine in first three pages. No such user (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the time you spent writing this "speedy keep" rationale, I think you could have vetted some of those sources, added them to the article (if they contain sufficient coverage), and posted a keep rationale based on the article being sourced. As it stands, I remain skeptical. Are these sources in-depth examinations to which the specific assertions in the article can be cited, or are they passing mentions? bd2412 T 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band article and merge album articles to Hladno pivo discography. The real question here is not whether Hladno pivo is a notable band or not (it is), but whether all these albums are individually notable or not per WP:NALBUM and other applicable guidelines. Here, the answer is well, just maybe: some of them clearly are (e.g. Porin Award-winning ones), the rest are doubtful in light of WP:NALBUM requirements. Since there is nothing much to say even about their eminently notable albums, I believe a discography article is the way to go, and I'm volunteering to do it. GregorB (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands, the "Porin Award-winning" assertion is also totally unsourced in the articles. bd2412 T 04:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. Hladno pivo also meets WP:NBAND #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels), but that's unsourced too. The sourcing is surprisingly patchy... I'll see what I can do - at any rate, at least these major facts can and indeed should be sourced. GregorB (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band article. Time out Croatia has this to say:
  • Hladno Pivo ('Cold Beer'), currently the most popular rock band in the country. With five studio albums in 12 years, Hladno Pivo are listened to by teenagers and thirtysomethings alike. Their simple, fast, loud and energetic tunes... link, which appears to be a dedicated entry.
I believe that "the most popular band" in a given country qualifies as a claim of significance. More sources are likely to exist in Croatian. "Redirect" the albums to the band. If someone wants to merge them to a discography article later, or source them individually, then great. For now, sourcing the main article would be the priority; the redirects for the albums work for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the foregoing, and improvements to the article, I withdraw my proposal to delete the article on the band, and agree with proposals to merge and redirect the album articles to a single discography page (or to the page on the band, if no one wants to bother merging up the discography). bd2412 T 13:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 01:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We really need to be speedy closing these 'hasn't been well sourced for x years' nominations with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Confirming notability from a GBooks search took about 10 seconds. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 16 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. We appear to have reached the point where further discussion will not lead to any greater enlightenment. There are valid arguments on both sides and most participants have conducted themselves honourably. This boils down to the recurring debate about what makes an appropriate encyclopaedic subject—should we have an article on every subject that meets our agreed notability criteria (ie that which receives sufficient coverage in independent sources), or should we wait until the subject can demonstrate lasting significance. Except in this case we have the added complication that the subject is a living person (and thus the article is subject to BLP policy) and quite possibly the most notable person in the world at the present time, complete with the drama that accompanies anything related to an incumbent American president and this president in particular.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump's handshake has been the subject of sufficient coverage to satisfy our notability criteria, so the question is essentially whether this is an appropriate subject for an encyclopaedia, now or in the future. Opinion on that is split roughly evenly. Many participants honestly believe that this is an entirely appropriate article or that there is nothing wrong with it that cannot be fixed through the normal editing process and that the existing coverage is sufficient to establish its lasting significance; others that it is too early to tell the lasting impact of Donald Trump's handshake, that the article is politically motivated and slanted, that it falls afoul of our policy on coverage of living persons, or that it unduly focuses on a negative aspect of a broader topic (in this case Donald Trump and his presidency).

I am closing this discussion as delete on the grounds that the consensus is split and BLP concerns in particular take primacy over notability. It may be appropriate to revisit the subject in a few months to determine whether it can sustain its own policy-compliant article or whether the coverage has petered out. In the meantime, I explicitly do not object to a partial merge and redirect to an appropriate broader article, and I will be happy to make the deleted text available to any editor in good standing wishing to perform such a merge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and handshakes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Donald Trump and handshakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as the previous AFD, which was closed due to PILEOFSKCRIT#6. KMF (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: Nom should have linked to the first AFD (prior to the name change): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @KATMAKROFAN: Please spell out policy-based reasons for deletion. All I see on the previous listing is "Politically biased. Not in compliance with WP:NPOV." but those are reasons for cleanup, not reasons for deletion. Zerotalk 01:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trump's handshakes have been covered extensively and persistently by reliable sources around the globe, in the context of the traditionally-perceived masculinity of the greeting as well as the political ramifications of his aggressive handshaking. The depth & breadth of coverage cannot be waved away by "it's trivia!" arguments, nor the borderline infantile nominator's rationale provided here. TheValeyard (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there may be some problems with the article, it passes the general notability guideline, as there has been much coverage of the subject. Furthermore, as Zero wrote, no reason for deletion is actually mentioned, just NPOV concerns. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively [...] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [...] BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Words such as "awkward" and "bizarre" and expressions such as "yank[ed] the judge towards him as if he were a pet dog on a leash" do not reflect a conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and dispassionately written article. It should be noted that not everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." --William Case Morris (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP also says: "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." I sure hope that notability isn't being questioned here, because that's very covered. It further says: "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The page is also very sourced. I think that your BLP concerns should be taken up at the Talk page, not in a deletion discussion. --Hameltion (talk, contribs)
    Is your BLP concern strictly the expressive language used by the authors of the cited sources? I ask because the BLP policy says,

    Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort.

    I would disagree that "the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". If the sources use expressive language (or perhaps language with which you disagree), that's not a detriment to the article's quality. The article is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is "substantially of poor quality". The very premise of the article is to disparage Donald Trump's handshakes. Taking that into account, I do not believe it can be improved, nor do I believe it should be kept. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump or Donald Trump in popular culture. His handshakes (or lack thereof) might be notable but not sufficiently enough for their own article. Much like Donald Trump's hair redirects to a section in Donald Trump in popular culture, I think the handshakes could be a similar case. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, to a new section called "Handshakes". As NoMoreHeroes points out, that's exactly how we solved the earlier problem of the article Donald Trump's hair. It's the same problem: Delete isn't really an option because of the amount of coverage. But Keep as a standalone article isn't really an option IMO either, because the subject is just inherently trivial, almost silly for an encyclopedia. It makes Wikipedia a laughingstock to call this a subject for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, this is almost a one-event situation: the vast majority of the coverage (and more than half of the article's current content) was about Macron. That's why it was created in July: because of all the coverage that month about him and Macron. Easy solution to this problem: Put it into Donald Trump in popular culture where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the events that occur in encounters between the heads of state of major countries are something that fits very well into "popular culture". I also think there is too much material on this topic to fit it into some other article without having undue weight in that context. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - content POV fork where some of the cited RS are political pundits pretending to be psychologists. Atsme📞📧 01:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)correction 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As you're advocating deletion, I assume that when you said "content fork" by way of an explanation, you meant to claim that it's a redundant content fork. Can you point us to the article from which this content was forked? Furthermore, the content forking guideline says that "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for pointing that out - meant to say POV fork. Atsme📞📧 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates all three of WP:BLP (See NoMoreHeroes' comment), WP:NPOV (see main article talk page; also shows article isn't suited for Wikipedia as is) and most importantly WP:Notability (A topic like this does not need or deserve a Wikipedia article). Unlike Trump's Hair, which has notability (it is iconic and even has a song named after it), there is nothing noteworthy about the way he shakes hands with people. Spilia4 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) The biographies of living persons policy is a 190 kB page. Since NoMoreHeroes (talk · contribs) didn't mention that policy, can you point us to specifically which aspect the article violates? (2) Not only has the NPOV discussion you referenced been closed, but when I specifically asked you, "Where specifically does the article express an unbidden editorial opinion? What specific prose uses biased language that's not derived from a cited relible source?", I received no answer. Can you use this opportunity to answer that question as it relates to an NPOV violation? (3) The notability guideline says, in a nutshell, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." The article cites 31 reliable sources published over the span of 160 days—68.97% of President Trump's time in office. How doesn't the article meet the guideline? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm reluctant to !vote delete because this is the third time this has been to AfD in three months, but the first one ended in no contest and the second was a procedural close. The problems laid out in the first AfD were never addressed, likely because they can't be... this is frankly an absurd subject. I don't think it even deserves a section on Donald Trump in popular culture, Donald Trump's hair was a topic of conversation years before he launched his presidential bid. Almost all of these sources address one handshake, with Macron, WP:NOTNEWS applies.LM2000 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first discussion was closed as no consensus after the nominator changed their mind and advocated for keeping the article. Absurdity isn't a reason for deletion. Only 45.16% of the sources only cover the Macron handshake; 51.61% discuss either other handshakes as well, other handshakes altogether, or simply the president's handshaking propensities. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, that this article makes us look silly should not be taken into account, but it is true nonetheless. Other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS (which I cited above), and most importantly, WP:GNG, are real factors though. If you consider the Macron shake an event, WP:EVENT applies since sources 9-30 deal mostly with that, and by your admission half of the sources solely dedicate themselves to that "event".LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, among others. In particular, from the general notability guideline: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] An in-depth analysis of Trump's handshakes is trivial fluff, which at most merits a section of a more general article, and certainly not its own article. Arguments in favor rest on reliable sources, and I quote again: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sadly, mainstream media outlets have proven themselves to be lacking in integrity in regards to President Trump, for which there are countless examples from the election to the present. On this particular topic, having several news sources is no guarantee of notability. Bigdan201 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic has great notability per the WP:GNG and was featured on the main page just the other day without any problem. The nomination is devoid of any policy-based argument and the page has already survived a previous AfD so there's no case to answer here. Donald Trump in popular culture is not an appropriate merge target because that title conventionally relates to appearances in fictional circumstances such as the Simpsons, while this is real-world history in the making. If we were to merge it anywhere it would have to be into the main article about Donald Trump where it certainly merits a mention but it's usual for major figures such as US Presidents to have numerous spin-off articles like this. Deletion is out of the question and would be contrary to policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To "without any problem", read Talk:Donald Trump and handshakes. We currently have a section on his hair on the popular culture article, which, whilst not "real-world history in the making", certainly isn't fictional. Also, given no one here is opposed to there existing mention in other articles of coverage on his handshakes, I don't see how this would be contrary to WP:CENSOR. --Inops (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How does this contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip news website, therefore articles must have some sort of significance. Just because something is well covered on the news, doesn't mean we should start randomly creating articles for them, regardless how ridiculous it may be. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (slightly over Merge) - This article doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria for a stand alone article at WP:N including WP:GNG. Having RS or coverage alone is not enough to merit an article. The article must also pass What Wikipedia is not. This article doesn't come close to passing WP:NOT on several levels, most notably WP:NOTEVERYTHING (aka: Encyclopedic content), WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTNEWS. IMO DT's handshake has a relatively short news cycle and is doubtful this will be in the "Top 20 of most notable things about Donald Trump". Although I agree the merge comments to Donald Trump in popular culture are valid as well, I don't feel that it is on the same level as some of the other topics in that article. CBS527Talk 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge) - Doesn't meet WP:N. Tabloid stuff -- no place in an encyclopedia. --Inops (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has already faced a nomination for deletion from this user and survived. Certain users will never cease in nominating this article for deletion until they get what they want. This is not healthy behavior for users. Sleyece (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first nom was a no consensus technical close which probably should have been closed as delete because quite a few editors believe it's noncompliant with policy or that it's needless trivia or just plain unencyclopedic per WP:NOT but then, the latter makes it noncompliant with policy. Consensus should not overrule policy which may explain why we're here again. Atsme📞📧 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that your personal opinions on the matter equate to site wide policy. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first discussion was only closed because it was linked on the front page, as policy states that you can't nominate an article for deletion while it's on the front page. It was a technicality which should not be taken as support for the article. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was the SECOND discussion (earlier this week) that was closed proceduraly because it was open at the same time as the article's DYK appearance on the front page. The earlier discussion was closed as "no consensus" - which is not quite the same as "surviving" AfD. We have never had a community consensus about what to do with this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, the 1st was closed as no consensus, the 2nd was closed as a technicality, and this is the 3rd? Hope we're not setting a trend for presidential trivia which means editors can update all the past articles on presidents with trivia, like selfies with blonde prime ministers, victory signs while boarding planes, tripping and needing assistance to get into planes and cars, throwing up on diplomats, entertaining interns, and so forth. 🤣 Now that looks like fun. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this article made it onto the DYK section of the front page to begin with is outrageous and causes me to question the neutrality and integrity of the of DYK section. Maybe it's time for some new people to run it for a while (no I don't want the job). Eric Cable  !  Talk  05:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that DYK promotes good articles to the front. It's a shame some users attack based on political opinions. Sleyece (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that unlike TFA, WP:DYK merely promotes articles that have been recently created or expanded and may be interesting to readers. More explanation of the criteria and process is found at WP:DYK. They aren't necessarily especially good articles, although they would generally survive a deletion discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On fence of clean up or merger. This style handshake is not "unusual" as the opening statement suggests, men do it all the time as a show of dominance, and to say there is something wrong or unnatural about it is an opinion. Trump has always shook hands like this, and plenty of other Presidents shook hands like this too. This in itself makes it not notable. The Psycologist quotes in this article were the only un-bias sources (besides first hand accounts). They state his handshakes are simply a stretegic power grab. The quotes in the rest of the article are from editors and journalists who by themselves have no credibility on the subject. Those opinions should be removed. All the "Media Organization Reported:" should also be removed, Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. I agree with above, if Trumps Hair doesn't have an article this shouldn't. (Reiterated below) Obama's Tan Suit doesnt have a page because "It was talked about". Everybody is going to talk about anything Trump does because he is President, that doesn't mean every conversation about him in the media should be labeled "Notable". PartyPresident (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "If Trumps Hair doesn't have an article this shouldn't": Actually the only reason Donald Trump's hair doesn't have an article is because it was converted to a redirect to Donald Trump in popular culture. Since you compared them, would you accept a comparable treatment of this subject? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN Trump's handshakes were not notable until after he became President. If there are a few examples of his handshakes being notable in popular culture before he became/ran for President then I would agree it should be merged. I stand on delete until there is a clean up of the article. PartyPresident (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe certain parts being included on or merged into the Donald Trump page might work, but overall, it isn't needed, due to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTNEWS. Like a couple others have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper; it's such a small topic, I really don't think it deserves a page for itself, and there's a slim chance it would be notable enough to include on Trump's page anyway. Topper13009 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In replying to LM2000 (talk · contribs) here, I went through all of the available sources in the article. Many of them discussed other, related, topics such as President Trump's breaches of diplomatic protocol, his faux pas as president, his ignorance of or disregard for social decorum when interacting on the international stage, and other breaches of the expectations of heads of state. There could be more reliable sources discussing such. To satisfy parties, could an article of—way off the top of my head—perceived unpresidentiality of Donald Trump be created that would encompass all of these aspects and more if they develop? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@fourthords - I don't think that article would pass NPOV or Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. I think the article could stay the same but it would need a cleanup and renamed to something about Trump's masculine handshakes. The article subjectively states there is something 'unusual' about these handshakes, which is not true. LBJ and other presidents and world leaders throughout history have used similar intimidation tactics, there could be an article titled "Presidents and Intimidation tactics.", or something along those lines. ...But after reading into this subject more, I'm starting to realize this is really about his perceived sexism as he inherently doesn't do this style handshake to women because it is a strictly male dominance 'ritual' for lack of a better word. If this is true, this means the entire premise of the article violates NPOV. We are not creating an article about 'Sexist Donald Trump' just as we are not going to create an article about 'Alpha Male Donald Trump'. - PartyPresident (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is routine coverage of interactions between world leaders that is not newsworthy and encyclopedic. How world leaders walk, talk and shake hands is the subject of routine speculation. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/vladimir-putin-killer-genius-kleptocrat-spy-myths Theory 3 discussed in this article about Putin, that his gait allegedly indicates a stroke in utero. We aren't going to include an article on Vladimir Putin's Gait. This is the same level of routine coverage. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can find 31 reasonably reliable sources that discuss Putin's gait, and I don't think his gait has been the topic of commentary from a significant number of world leaders. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:N. I wouldn't understand why something like "Donald Trump and handshakes" is such an important topic to be housed on this site. H.C.P. (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its sections WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Having an article for something as routine and superfluous as this quite frankly is fucking ridiculous regardless of who the subjects involved are. We are not supposed to be Trump-opedia either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic has been covered with very extensive commentary in a large number of high-quality reliable sources, and several world leaders have discussed the subject extensively, including Mr. Trump himself. There are 31 citations in the current article, and practically none of them are tabloid junk sources. I don't personally see a lot of clear bias in the current phrasing of the article (and the opinionated expressions that are found within it are generally found only within quotation marks). The topic doesn't consist of just one or two incidents (and even if it did, there is lasting notability in some such things, such as the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident, Gerald Ford stumbling, Dan Quayle misspelling "potato", the Dick Cheney hunting incident, the Bill Clinton haircut incident, etc.). There is too much material on the subject to splice it into a brief paragraph in some other article without producing undue weight there. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof This article has a clear bias. Its real name, judging by the opening statement, is "Donald Trump and his unusual handshakes". Trumps handshakes are perfectly normal, as most of the sources in the article state. It is a masculine power grab, plenty of Presidents have done it before. (See LBJ's handshake). Infact, LBJ was well known for his intimidation tactics like Peeing on the Secret Service, spitting and belching in peoples personal bubbles, or Bringing people into the bathroom with him while he lays a stinker, yet I don't see an article about that and it is well covered. Maybe this could be merged into a "Presidential Intimidation" article? The Handshake comes with the Precidency not 'Unusual Donald Trump', as the article suggests. PartyPresident (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misquoted the opening of the article. Your quoted phrase saying "Donald Trump and his unusual handshakes" does not appear anywhere in the article (much less in its opening sentence), and as far as I know it never did. That's just a false straw man. You also failed to note that the next sentence provides further context in the form of the explanation that Mr. Trump is "a self-described 'germophobe', [who] once said handshaking was 'barbaric' and avoided the practice". Your other quoted phrase saying 'Unusual Donald Trump' also does not appear in the article. Please try to criticize what is actually in the article, not things you make up yourself. Yes, LBJ's handshakes were famous. In fact a week or so ago I looked for where I could find a description of LBJ's handshakes on Wikipedia so I could link it to the article about Trump's handshakes. I thought it would be a relevant addition. Unfortunately, I did not find anything, so I gave up. I would encourage you to add something about that. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson lived in the pre-Internet age, which is generally less well documented on Wikipedia than what has happened more recently. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof I did not "misquote" the opening of the article, I paraphrased. The way the article is currently titled is "Donald Trump and handshakes". The opening statement says "Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of handshaking", which infers the title of the article is "Donald Trump and (his unusual approach to the practice) of Handshakes", a paraphrase of the opening statement. The title should be something like "Donald Trump's Masculine Handshakes", which is not subjective. Your "Pre-Internet Age" comment is one of the many reasons why 'Wikipedia is not a Newspaper' exists. I believe the article may have some merit to exist, but it has many problems, and I see people in this discussion actively working to ignore these problems, pretending to have cognitive disonence, projecting, putting up strawmen etc, so my vote stays with delete until there is a real discussion. PartyPresident (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing (especially when the accuracy of the paraphrase is disputable) is something that should generally not be done using quotation marks. When quotation marks are used around something, it should be a copy, not a paraphrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I had not previously noticed the "real name" part of your comment, which does provide a hint that the quote is not really a quote. I apologize for missing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof Please stop making up random facts about quotations marks and paraphrasing, I did nothing wrong. Anyway, the right thing to do now is to stick to the topic at hand: There are actual problems in the article (as stated above) and they need to be acknowleged. One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that germophobia is much like masculine handshakes in the fact that they are not notable. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some things that wouldn't be notable if they were traits of your next-door neighbor are notable if they are traits of the President of the United States. Wikipedia generally measures notability in terms of the amount of coverage received in independent reliable sources, and this article easily meets that test. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof Sources are not reliable in themselves. Any 'Media Outlet Reported:X' needs to be removed or properly quoted. The first two paragraphs under 'analysis' is all just punditry from journalists and editors who have no credibility on the subject, It isn't until the very end of the 2nd paragraph that there are quotes from credible sources like phsycologists and body langauge experts. The 3rd paragraph is very much the same, with more opinion then there is actual analysis. Maybe if there were protests, petitions, or merchandise. Something signifigant. All I see is just corporate news media hype sources, which inherently points us to > Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PartyPresident (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete otherwise all of Wikipedia's Neutrality rules will basically be thrown out the window in my opinion. If someone were to create an article titled "The Narcissistic Behavior of Barack Obama" with a bunch of links to Fox News, Breitbart, and The National Review the article would get deleted within five minutes, would have NEVER made it to the home page, and the person who created it would probably get banned. Eric Cable  !  Talk  05:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's clearly a "straw man" argument. "Narcissistic behavior" is a clearly POV title. There's nothing inherently POV about "Donald Trump and handshakes", and the citations are to sources that are generally considered reliable, unlike "Fox News, Breitbart, and The National Review". —BarrelProof (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BarrelProof: Try creating Allegations of narcissism made against Barack Obama. I'm sure you can find enough reliable sources, including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, along with the publications mentioned above. --Andreas JN466 13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another straw man. This article isn't about allegations or rumors. It is about factual matters – events that occurred that involved world leaders, and statements made about those things by the POTUS and the other world leaders involved in those events. It is not an inherently POV topic, and is a topic that has attracted plenty of reliable sources (not just junk sources with obvious bias). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is of some limited interest and deserves a small mention somewhere, but it does not warrant its own full page. Cpaaoi (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable due to weight of reliable third-party sources globally. The fact that this made it to the main page as a DYK shows that many editors see it as a notable topic, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was subjected to 2 deletion discussions and survived. It also has plenty of 3rd party sources and is a notable topic in the media, even though they are pushing a POV subject.F2Milk (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this subject has significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "delete" votes above fail to articulate a policy-based reason for deletion, and should be discounted appropriately. Neutralitytalk 04:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "U.S. President Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of handshaking." So what? 1. Unencyclopedic 2. Not noteworthy 3. Recent-ist 4. (vaguely) Trump bashing--Chanaka L (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Jdcomix (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the best rationale to keep is it survived the first AfD, the closer is going to have an incredibly easy decision to make. This is an article created as a consequence of WP:RECENTISM and is a fine example of WP:NOTNEWS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally see the NOTNEWS and RECENTISM arguments. This isn't an article about an ephemeral pop song. People still extensively discuss and write about LBJ's handshakes after 50 years have gone by – e.g., in The Passage of Power (2012) – and they will certainly still be interested in Mr. Trump's handshakes (as well as LBJ's) in another 50 years. Mr. Trump will probably have shaken many more hands by then, and the article may be longer, but the topic is already highly notable and it will remain so. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof - "...they will certainly still be interested in Mr. Trump's handshakes (as well as LBJ's) in another 50 years. Mr. Trump will probably have shaken many more hands by then, and the article may be longer, but the topic is already highly notable and it will remain so". Does your WP:CRYSTALBALL see 50 years into the future? LBJ's art of negotiating was/is analyzed in historical sources, as you demonstrated, not 109 newspapers. Perhaps if Mr. Trump's art of the deal (pun intended) is analyzed in a similar way, including his handshakes, it can be the subject of an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as a non-American, this article strikes me as hilariously trivial. I consider myself fairly well informed, and this is the first time I have read anything about Donald Trump's handshakes. I don't think this is anywhere near notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. — JFG talk 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every government in every country in the world has or will have a memo on Donald Trump's handshakes. That fact alone makes this an important article. It is also widely covered in all the most high-brow media outlets. The comment that struck me most from the first AFD was DrFleischman's observation that this is a lot less trivial than "minutiae of videogames and obscure television characters",[35] on which many articles are written. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Every government in every country in the world has or will have a memo on Donald Trump's handshakes. [citation needed], if you're going to use that as part of your rationale. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know. José Luiz talk 01:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, reads like tabloid entry. Mr. Anon515 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is not just one event, but the coverage has stretched over months. The "events" themselves involve world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets WP:SIGCOV per review of available sources. This is probably 0.1 in Trump orbs (an article on which still exists, damn it!) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are enough incidents and coverage of them that we really do need an article to cover this. Delete votes alleging that this is partisan and built from leftwing sources need to be aware that the UK's Daily Telegraph is a very conservative publication while the Independent is both reliable and neutral. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because oh my goodness do I have to give a reason? Media prattle and pop psychology handwaving from journalists obsessed with everything Trump does is not encyclopedic material. Famousdog (c) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge at minimum. The amount of coverage this one topic has got is substantial and widely known. It's cruft but its notable cruft. Seddon talk 12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. ed g2s • talk 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it makes no sense to effectively ban the Daily Mail and then try to imitate it. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-sourced, topic discussed in numerous mainstream media outlets. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does not necessarily entail notability. WP:GNG is clear: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. Nor does it grant a free pass for everything that WP:BLP states we should avoid. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The first AFD was closed as no consensus; the second was closed because the article was on the front page at the time. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not Trump again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 01:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Still delete until there are fixes to the subjective parts of this article mentioned above, but am willing to make the edits. Not currently doing the edits because don't want to look like vandal. It would be good to come to a consensus but it seems every time I point out obvious errors the conversation stops. Thanks PartyPresident (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The topic clearly and unambiguously meets the GNG. It has been covered in detail in multiple reliable sources. There's so much WP:IDONTLIKEIT here that it would make your head spin. I don't see how this is even a debate. --Slashme (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason to delete is not "we don't like it". Its that wikipedia is about encyclopedic topics, not the news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant policy here. That is the point of the conversation that anyone supporting Keep needs to address. To quote from the policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This is routine coverage of interaction between world leaders that lacks enduring notability, at least so far. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the "Keep" votes consistently told why their vote is wrong? This is not a forum to intimidate a consensus. Sleyece (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFD's are discussions. The purpose of this is to come to a community consensus, which means discussing and debating the relevancy of content and the application of Wikipedia policies. This is not a raw vote count, so there is no question of "intimidating a consensus" through contesting certain claims and points. Mr. Anon515 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same is not true for "delete" votes. They vote, sometimes list a policy to back up their reason, and that is the end of it. When a user votes "keep", they are being treated as some kind of traitor to the delete consensus Sleyece (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to respond to any disputable claims or stances made by users supporting delete. This is meant to be a community discussion, not a strawpoll or battleground. Responding to specific points and claims by other users is not some kind of intimidation. See WP:SOAP. Mr. Anon515 04:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as 'Keep' votes ignoring 'Delete' votes so they can close this like the first time on 'No Consensus'. When 'Delete' votes respond to 'Keep' votes to stir up a discussion you accuse us of 'intimidation'. I have said it before and I'll say it again, it is clear 'Keep' votes are trying to ignore actual discussion about the article itself. I and others have pointed out numerous flaws in the article that I am not going to repeat as I just get ignored. Thanks. PartyPresident (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, it's this kind of polarized rhetoric that worries me. We aren't discussing something incredibly consequential, at least not in the grander scheme, but some people on here want to devolve us to a base identity. We are not "Keeps" and "Deletes". We are Users. @PartyPresident:, this is not some awkward arena to air your political frustrations. This is a discussion about the relevance of an article. I don't understand how it became some toxic. Sleyece (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both know we are all smarter than this, Sleyece. You can scroll up and find the subjective flaws in the article I've stated numerous times in this discussion(only to be ignored) or I could repost them for you. The best thing to do right now is actually talk about the problems within the article that need to be addressed and have a civil discussion so we all can come to a general consensus. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sleyece, I don't think it is fair to accuse one particular side of intimidating the other. Out of the 18 votes that have been replied to thus far, seven are keep votes, one is a merge vote, two are delete/merge votes, and eight are delete votes; I'm not counting the two delete votes by IP addresses below, because the replies are unrelated to their reasoning. As you can see, it is not true that "keep votes [are] consistently told why their vote is wrong". --William Case Morris (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
William Case Morris, you can be right. I don't care anymore. I have proposed a compromise slightly further down the page. Sleyece (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned by other users. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not a new comment. It was deleted and reposted, here, below the relisted line. Sleyece (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After they were removed without explanation in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump_and_handshakes_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=800750024. @Seddon:, removing the voices of users in a deletion discussion is wrong, and that includes IP users. Please stop. I am restoring the other removed comment now. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete embarassingly stupid, trivial and uncyclopedic.93.36.191.55 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was restored after being removed without explanation by a user. Please do not remove the comments of others in this discussion, to ensure everyone can be heard and we can have a constructive deliberation. Thank you. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge This is an encyclopedia. Are we going to create an article on Trump's speaking ability? Which is terrific by the way. Terrifc. The best. He uses all the best words.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the idea has some potential to add good content to Wikipedia. I don't know if "Articulation of Donald Trump" is an apt enough title. It's the peculiar way he incorporates marketing into his mannerisms that seems to be notable. The topic is also heavily referenced in both news and pop culture. It has potential. Sleyece (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IAR. There's no reason for a stand-alone article here. The topic can be discussed on Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 and Q2, but neither a merge nor a redirect would be beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand, this is obviously a sub-page of Donald Trump, so I don't think the emphasis on notability in many of the comments is the least bit useful. The Trump biography is too long to discuss this directly, but as I note above, there are plenty of other pages on Trump that can address this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Rather than an encyclopedia article, this is a thinly disguised, gleeful but petty hit piece that does Wikipedia and thoughtful criticism of Trump no favours. I can understand the glee – it's one way to get back at the man, and is enjoyed as such by those horrified by his presidency. But in my view it harms Wikipedia instead of Trump: no one who likes Trump will change their mind because of an article like this, but they may well conclude – with some justification – that Wikipedia's neutrality pledge is just window dressing. --Andreas JN466 13:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear!! Thank you Andreas. Atsme📞📧 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am willing to change my "Strong Keep" vote to a "Merge" if there is some hope for a consensus there. Sleyece (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that's a fair compromise, because even though this article can stand on its own (GNG), it is difficult to keep it neutral without further context. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm of the mind that we could get away with mentioning something in his BLP about his handshake - perhaps along the line that he has a bold and assertive handshake that has garnered attention from mainstream media, and created speculation that some recipients were intimidated by it, or chose their own greeting custom in lieu of it, or something along that line. That's about the extent of deserved encyclopedic mention regarding such a trivial matter from a NPOV/UNDUE perspective. Atsme📞📧 16:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as trivia. There were more sources for the deleted trivia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One distinction here is that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and his handshakes are a part of his political interactions with other world leaders, whereas Mrs. Obama is essentially just a celebrity. AFAIK, she had no official governmental role. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One serious issue with this article, in addition to NPOV and WP:NOT is that it currently violates the manual of style on quotations. First of all the Notable handshakes section has many quotes that are not attributed in the main text (see Attribution section). Second it just has a lot of them. As the essay guidelines on quoting puts it "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful" (see WP:QUOTE). I think that's precisely what's happened here. MOS:QUOTE is rather more succinct on this topic, but says " It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement.". This is important if we are to consider various proposals to merge this article. Any of it that is carried over to elsewhere will need to be MOS compliant, or it will reduce the quality of the target. The article's current text is not MOS compliant, so as it is right now I favor delete over merge. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the very definition of WP:NOT. Not encyclopedic, trivial, tabloid news topic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Obscurantism: "Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts of some subject matter from becoming known" and it is the, you know, opposite of what we are trying to do here. I mean, here you have:
1) A clearly notable phenomenon.
2) With many refs in many high-end, high-circulation, notable and reliable sources. The existence of these refs proves that the phenomenon is notable, regardless of anyone's person opinion on whether they wish it wasn't notable or whether this is the sort of article that they, personally, like to read, or whatnot.
3) With 22,075 views in the last month. So I mean people are interested in the subject.
Since the days of Nupedia the basic construct is that if you have a subject that some reasonable number of people are interested in and you have the refs to write a decent article, then do so.
And wait. This isn't about whether we should create an article on this topic. The article already exists and the only question is whether to throw it down the memory hole. What are we supposed to tell those 22,075 people? "We had an article on this subject but you know what? We decided you shouldn't know about stuff like this, so we deleted it! Sucks to be you! But Google is thataway and good luck! Hope you have some time on your hands!" I'm not for that attitude, to be honest.
So then you have people citing an alphabet soup of various hidebound regulations, not understanding that we are an encyclopedia and not the Department of Motor Vehicles. For instance, you have people citing WP:NOTNEWS. Do they understand what WP:NOTNEWS is about? Of course they don't. They haven't read it. And if they have read it, they haven't understood it, which is even worse.
NOTNEWS is for this: Suppose you wake up and see across the river a major fire engulfing many factories and neighborhoods including the state capitol and so forth. Notable fire, clearly. Should you immediately post a Wikipedia article about the fire -- "The Great Omaha Fire occurred on September 18, 2017. Flames engulfed several blocks..."? Well of course you shouldn't. For one thing your ref would be "I saw it with my own eyes". You have to wait a little while for actual news reports to be broadcast and posted, and then you write the article citing these reports as your refs.
WP:NOTNEWS bullet 1: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and it designed to prohibit your eyewitness report as described above.
WP:NOTNEWS bullet 2: "Routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". In other words "Tom Hanks was seen leaving Paris Hilton's party on July 18, 2015." "Joe Shlabotnik went three for four with 3 RBI on August 4, 2016." "On October 4, 19997, American Veeblefetzer announced stable profits for the previous quarter." Those are routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. See the difference between that and this article? If not, you are excused from the conversation.
WP:NOTNEWS bullet 3: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." This statement is entirely about whether an individual is notable, and refers the reader to WP:BLP. In other words, a plane crash is notable; the individuals on the plane are not notable and should not get articles. If you're asserting that Donald Trump is not notable and should have an article, say so. And good luck with that.
WP:NOTNEWS bullet 4: We are not a diary. "Donald Trump played a round of 18 holes on July 14, 2017, and then had a dinner of steak tatare and green beans. He wore a brown suit." See the difference between that and this article?
In other words, RTFR: Read The Rule. If you can't be assed to do so, why are you citing it? This is getting annoying and destructive. Stop it. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You neglected to quote "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia" in bullet 4. And you must have been aware, before you wrote your screed, that most of those page views were due to the fact that the article was manoeuvred onto the main page. On the days before, it was single or low double figures. That reflects actual interest in this as an encyclopedic topic, rather than a stunt. --Andreas JN466 09:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herostratus, your long commentary above doesn't seem to be about deleting this article but rather a meta-diatribe of your view on a particular guideline or policy. Can you shorten it and move the portions that are not your opinion on whether to delete this article to the talk page or possibly submit the discussion to the NOTNEWS talk page? --DHeyward (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jayen466: I didn't neglect to include "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia", I just excluded it for the sake of brevity. News reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and can cover a lot of trivia. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Nothing. Just because news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia doesn't mean that any all all reporting about a celebrity is trivia (if you want to even consider Donald Trump a "celebrity" rather than "an important historical figure".) If it's reported that Gwyneth Paltrow was seen in the company of Tom Hanks, that's trivia. If it's reported that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Nobel Peace Prize, that's not trivia. See the difference?
Again: your argument rests on, and solely on, the notion that Donald Trump is a marginal figure worthy of only limited coverage. Make your case on that basis, if you like.
As to people being interested in the subject: sure, the page views are inflated by circumstance. But still, a non-trivial number of people are interested in this subject and will be far into the future, and if your point is that no one is or will be, you're indisputably dead wrong and know it or should. Jimmy Carter rabbit incident for instance, which is not hot news, has had 6,860 in the past month, and it's reasonable to assume that this article might well settle at something in that range. Whether we are saying "go screw yourself, we don't want you to know this information" to 22,075 people a month or 6,860, it's not something we want to be doing.
And if we delete this article that is what we are saying, no matter how you spin it. Even if, weighing the various pros and con, we feel that we must delete the article for some reason, we still are telling some non-trivial number of readers to go pound sand. If you want to say "deleting this article is a disservice to many people but sadly we are unfortunately compelled to do for reason X", I will respect you on that basis. If you want to say "deleting this article is not a disservice to anyone", then I can't respect you. Because then you would be spouting patently untrue things, and it's boring to and pointless to engage with people who spout patently untrue things.
@User:DHeyward: No, I won't be shut up. It's my right here to call out obscurantism when I see it. If you're offended by that, maybe you should stop being an obscurantist. There's nothing to submit to the NOTNEWS talk page: NOTNEWS is fine and I support it 100%. What I don't support is people who do not read NOTNEWS beyond the title and take "news" to mean "NOT recent events" or "NOT stuff that appears in newspapers" or whatever. Or who do read it and lack the acuity to understand it. Or who read it and are all "Yeah, I see what it says. But I don't give a rat's ass about what it says. What I want is for people interested in the subject to not find it here, have to spend 15 minutes googling it and maybe never find it; that's a win for me because the sort of person interested in this topic is not the sort of person that I, personally, find pleasing, and if misrepresenting rules gets me that win, then I'll do that". Whatever the reason or motivation is, people should stop misrepresenting our rules. Herostratus (talk)
  • Delete. WP:UNDUE weight on something that, while unfortunately newsy, is in no way encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The reputation of an encyclopedia relays mainly on how it deals with its arguments. One thing is to talk about Trump, his campaign, his ideas, the criticism towards him,... another thing is to talk about trivialistic things only because journals nowadays deals with a lot of unworthy and trashy material. This article is trivialistic and unciclopedic in nature. A person should be able to discern when a journal is dealing with facts and newsworthy material and when it is dealing with things just to express a point of view or just to be scandalistic. You can't judge as reliable anything coming from a presumed reliable source just because the source is now judged reliable, you have always to analyse if the argument is encyclopedic and how it is dealt with. By the way, this article is necessarly POV too, because the aim of those articles cited as sources is to make Trump's handshakes looks weird... just for the sake of criticizing him. It was/is just a smear campaign. 93.36.191.55 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have applied the strikethrough to the "Delete" part of the comment. TheValeyard (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the equivalent of commenting on red carpet dresses - it is covered in RSes, but nearly always fails the barrier of NOT#NEWS for us because it is celebrity gossip. It's sad that sources like CNN are reviewing this, but given the current political climate, the media seems to be throwing whatever mud it can find to see what sticks. This article gets into too much BLP territory and fails NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the equivalent of commenting on red carpet dresses because, as far as I'm aware, those dresses are not hiding a stockpile of nukes. Sleyece (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That you know of... Sounds like WP:OR on the dresses and nukes. But the fact that Trump does have nukes does not make Trump's handshakes more relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this got me thinking of is how we treat V. Putin's various oddities that make the news (shirtless photos, wilderness adventures, etc.) and we don't have a page for those individual items but we do havee Public image of Vladimir Putin where these are briefly mentioned. In a case of soemone like Trump who has had a long history of various aspects of his image parodied in the media even before being President, this might make sense - eg this can include his hair/hairpiece, how orange he looks, the "small hands" thing, this specific handshake issue, etc. but as subitems outside of the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; we do have articles beginning with "Public image of", (as seen here), and I think Donald Trump's handshakes could be added to Public image of Donald Trump, if/when created. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close requested. Apparently User:DHeyward has edited my comments to make it appear that, under my signature, I said things that I didn't say and didn't say things that I did. He also changed my !vote to "Comment" so that it wouldn't be counted. Since this page is heavily edited many intervening edits have occurred and I can't easily roll back the vandalism. Nor is that the main concern now, the main concern being not allowing this sort of thing.
We don't know, without a forensic investigation of the page history, how much this editor or others have compromised the integrity of this discussion. But this is not the sort of behavior that we can countenance or allow to to be a way to win arguments, and on this basis I call for a procedural close. Let's start over with a clean slate. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. The above is mostly untrue and based on an inadviseadly hasty misreading of the record. Entirely my error, and sorry. (On the other hand, my !vote was redacted (by User:Sleyece, not User:DHeyward) to appear as a mere comment; this would likely cause it not be included in the headcount, although that probably wasn't the intent (I guess). But still. And I would ask people to not alter material under my signature in any respect without good cause. However, this, while bad behavior, does not rise to he level of significantly impairing the integrity of the discussion, so there's no need for a procedural close here.) Herostratus (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history DHeyward did not modify your comment [36]. Though @Sleyece: should not of edited it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I have not edited anyones' content. I have made a couple of copyedits, but your accusation implies something that is untrue. Sleyece (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. We are not supposed to make any "copyedits" to material under someone else's signature, even to fix spelling errors. Your "copyediting" went well beyond that. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only things that seems to have been changed in your comment were the words "stop it" with "comment". See here. Nothing else seems to have been modified.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's right. However, if I want to call on the community to stop doing some harmful thing, I may. Last I heard. Has there been a change? Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diff here shows you changing what someone else wrote. Which they objected to. Per WP:TPO it should not happen. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I violated no policy because "STOP IT" is not a vote. The user made a "comment," which my edit reflected Sleyece (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop it" is not a vote in your personal opinion. You are allowed to state your opinion. You aren't allowed to alter material under my signature to match your opinion. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which they objected to, it is not your call to make. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely sorry. I thought I was helping. Sleyece (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not edit your comments in any way. Please refactor your false accusation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, you did not. The error is entirely mine due to unexcusably hasty misreading of the record. I do withdraw my false accustion, and apologize. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - exactly DHeyward, what they're doing is highly disruptive and why I requested a snow close. They're not liking the inevitable outcome and have deployed disruption as a diversionary tactic. Atsme📞📧 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close please? - this article has been through the mill, the result is a clear delete, and now it's becoming ridiculous with the most recent request for a procedural close based on misinformation. It's going downhill. Any of the few merge iVoters can simply add a sentence or two about the man's very unnotable handshakes at his BLP. Time for us to move on to more productive things. Atsme📞📧 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The result, most certainly, is NOT a "clear delete." That is an opinion you hold. Sleyece (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is your own and no longer interests me. Consensus does not override policy. Even if there was only 1 "delete" that properly describes policy noncompliance (as do many of the delete iVotes here), the result should be delete, provided the closer is following protocol and honoring WP:PAGs. Atsme📞📧 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As with many controversial deletion discussions, there are conflicting policies. Keep votes, which I am a part of, hinge on there being enough sources for the article to stand alone (GNG). Delete votes, and I hope this is fair to say, have two main arguments. The article may not be relevant after some time (NOTDIARY), and it is not neutral enough (NPOV).
I especially understand people saying that the article is overquoting. Yet, that's an essay, and I urge Delete voters to improve the article.
In writing this, I'm being partisan, because I'm not using time to change the actual article, letting it stay as is. But, I know that Wikipedia will correct any neutrality issues in the long run. Though it may not look so great now, I'm sticking with my keep vote. This (contentious) discussion should not end so swiftly. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add, and this may not be fair to say, but a Delete voter as also not been too polite: [37][38]. They did also remove those comments quickly. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a neutral NPR/AFC reviewer or veteran copy editor or GA/FA reviewer with at least 12,000 edits started working on cleaning-up this article, I'm of the mind that 99% of the content would be removed and the remaining last sentence or two would be merged with the Trump bio. It is that bad. I can't even imagine an encyclopedia with the reputation of Britannica or the like would even consider such an article. It is less than trivial, it is quite frankly, juvenile but I'm only one voice. You've had your say - it's time to close this disaster and move on. Atsme📞📧 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Look, I fall on the delete or merge side of most of these sorts of articles (or the sort of article this appears to be at first glance), and am skeptical of articles that elaborate upon some specific instance or synthesize multiple instances of the minutiae of politics. But that's not what this is. Yep, it's a weird subject for an article and looks, at first glance, trivial. But if you actually look for sources you find not a series of instances of awkward handshakes, but in-depth coverage and analysis of his handshakes in general, apart from news about a specific incident. Sources like these completely shoot down any sort of COATRACK, NOTNEWS, etc. arguments and make a compelling case for GNG.
It's also been covered enough (that's depth, not just breadth/numbers) that I would not advocate merging (a merge isn't a terrible idea here, and seems like the most likely compromise outcome, but I'm not advocating/bolding it here since it seems like this can sustain a separate article via WP:PAGEDECIDE).
Anyway, here's some of the stuff that matters (i.e. sources about the subject apart from the massive amount of coverage repeated with each individual incident -- which, by the way, goes back several years and is often in-depth in its own right -- since if it was just that sort of coverage, I would be much less likely to support keeping here):
  • New York Times - All the President’s Handshakes
  • Financial Times - Why Donald Trump’s weird handshake matters
  • Washington Post - What Trump's handshake might tell us about him
  • Business Insider - A body language expert breaks down 6 of Trump's handshakes
  • National Review - Trump’s Handshakes and the Personalization of Politics
  • The Conversation - The psychology behind Trump’s awkward handshake … and how to beat him at his own game
  • The Independent - Psychologists break down the mysteries of Donald Trump's handshake
  • The Guardian - The Trump handshake: how world leaders are fighting back
  • Slate - Who’s Winning the Trump Handshake Challenge?
  • Voice of America - Is Trump Sending Messages with His Handshakes?
  • Time - A History of President Trump's Awkward Handshakes
  • Washington Post - Trump and the art of the super-awkward handshake
  • Huffington Post - The Madness And Science Behind The Donald Trump Handshake
  • Washington Examiner - Trump's handshakes: A brief history
  • The Week - A visual history of Trump's most awkward handshakes
  • The Daily Beast - President Trump’s Handshake Hell Is All Our Handshake Hell
  • (and of course the stuff about him not liking shaking hands via his book like Washington Post here)
There's in-depth coverage in many reliable sources sustained over a period of time, treating the subject as a whole, as a group, and individually. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this list! I hope you don't mind that I've done a little cleanup to your comment. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again: These Handshakes are not awkward and it is subjective to say so. Any source calling the handshakes 'awkward' or 'madness' are bias and not reliable. They might get a psychologist to say it is an alpha male dominance ritual, but it is clear the big media hubbub surrounding these handshakes are really just another chance to call Donald Trump a misogynist. Re-working this article so it doesn't have that bias quickly delves into it being "Donald Trump's Alpha Male Handshakes", which in many ways also comes off as subjective. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it would be great to finally have a discussion and come to a consensus about it. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PartyPresident: That sounds like a good idea! The easiest way I think one could start that is by rephrasing sentences to remove direct quotations, as I mentioned above. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PartyPresident, none of this jibes with Wikipedia's basic content policies. I see that you are a new user, so I hope you don't take this as condescending to suggest reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV. These are sources with a reputation for fact-checking, error-correction, accuracy, editorial oversight, etc. (granted, a couple are markedly below the others in these departments, e.g. Huffington Post, Washington Examiner). That's what we care about. We don't decide that a word is biased first and pick sources based on usage of that word. If anything, it's the consensus among reliable sources that is the basis for neutrality. We also don't edit based on an agenda we believe mainstream sources to have. If the consensus among reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense) is wrong, then Wikipedia will be wrong (WP:TRUTH). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PartyPresident, thank you for your interesting personal interpretation of Mr. Trump's handshaking practices and your opinion that anyone who says something different must be biased and unreliable. I haven't noticed any sources saying anything about Mr. Trump's handshakes having some relationship to misogyny. Such a connection is certainly not expressed in the article (and never was, as far as I know). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites, I understand these newspapers, it's editors and journalists are reliable, but not on this subject itself. Any psychologist they quote say the handshakes are simply a common masculine power grab and that it isn't notable. More then half of the article is just journalists and editors expressing their opinions about how the handshakes are awkward. Why? Because each one of them has a long track record of anti-Trump rhetoric. All of that junk needs to be removed from the article ASAP. Of course, when you do that there is going to be nothing notable left. The only reason these handshakes are even notable is because the media is hyping them up for controversy to smear Trump with. Wikipedia does not need to be a pawn of bias punditry. Changing the article to some variant of 'Masculine Donald Trump Handshakes' won't help, this article is a polarized wasteland. Thanks be to all - PartyPresident (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarrelProof All the professionals agree it is a masculine power grab. When confronted with facts from experts in the field I do consider opinions of others to be less credible on the subject. I do want to point out that this article mentions that Trump didn't shake Merkels hand. Trump did shake her hand, just not in the photo shoot, and neither the non-shake or the handshake were notable outside of punditry hype. It also makes me think, not one of these handshakes has had a real effect on Geo-political and diplomatic relations. The more I think about this article the more I realize it just doesn't have any encyclopedic merit to be on Wikipedia. Thanks be to all - PartyPresident (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PartyPresident has made salient points. Just because a topic is covered by RS does not necessarily mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia, much less an entire article. This sort of thinly veiled partisan attack violates neutrality, and the subject matter is petty and insignificant. Xcalibur (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that a "thinly veiled partisan attack" is a factual characterization of anything here. The content may not, and probably doesn't, rise to the level of needing an entire article. Merging the content into another page would be sufficient to address the topic. Sleyece (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining why you believe there isn't a thinly veiled partisan stench comming from this article? And where do you think any left over relevant information should be put? Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article just describes a unique tactic of the subject. It has a few notable sources and minor foreign policy implications. I think it could probably be merged here (a page with issues in it's own right), but it's hard to categorize the AfD. I think a lot of contention has come from a place where it's obvious there isn't enough notable content here for a full article, but it's far from obvious where to put the relevant leftover data. Sleyece (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is some information that is missing from the article (e.g., "All the professionals agree ... facts from experts in the field"), or if some of the information in it is not correct (e.g., that "Trump did shake [Merkels'] hand", or that commentary about Trump's handshakes is a "thinly veiled partisan attack"), and that can be supported by citations to reliable sources, please feel free to improve those aspects of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expert analysis is already in the article. Obviously since you don't even know what actually happened between Merkel and Trump it isn't notable enough to be mentioned. The expert analysts in the article refutes the sources that assert the handshakes are 'awkward' or 'unusual' and to extension proves their bias. There is nothing that can be improved in this article, only things that need to be removed. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources cited in the article about what happened between Merkel and Trump. The article says on March 17, 2017, they did not shake hands, and quotes a Time article referring to "fanfare when he declined to shake the hand of German Chancellor Angela Merkel when she visited the White House." If what actually happened is different from what those descriptions say, I suggest to please correct the article and add appropriate citations to support the improved description of events. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, thank you for substantiating why this article should be deleted as noncompliant with WP:NOT and worse, trivial biased reporting which attempts to provide unqualified psychoanalysis of their opposition. They have zero understanding of a "business handshake" by a businessman which would serve as a far more useful and encyclopedic article than this POV kindergarten National Enquirer style garbage that reduces WP's credibility to the types of sources we ban.Atsme📞📧 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is now roughly ten times the word length of the article itself. Is there any sort of consensus, yet? Sleyece (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sleyece Care to chime in on the discussion? I just re-posted the problems with the article above. Would love to hear your opinion. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is covered in multiple non-trivial sources, as detailed by Hameltion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially per Rhododendrites. Covered substantially in many reliable sources and clearly passes WP:GNG. There are some arguments this shouldn't have substantial reporting, but it does, so it is notable. The coverage is sustained and is not merely reporting on an isolated set of articles from a single news cycle in the sense of WP:NOTNEWS. This certainly is not just routine reporting. ~ Rob13Talk 12:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how each handshake is a sustainable event. Articles listing handshakes they arbitrarily deem notable don't count. I just don't see these handshakes having long lasting effect in the real world outside of the mainstream media bubble. I'll also say that they actually do always seek guidence from body language experts after election debates or world leader meetings, it is most certainly a routine. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject of the article isn't an individual handshake; it is Donald Trump's handshakes as a whole. That topic has received sustained coverage, which removes the need to question whether it could receive sustained coverage. Wikipedia reports based on reliable sources (e.g. your so-called "mainstream media bubble"). If you disagree with compiling an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, this may not be the proper place for you; that is a basic pillar of Wikipedia. There has never before been such sustained and substantial coverage of a president's handshake. Sure, CNN will perhaps bring on a "body language expert" for 5 minutes to fill time after a major summit of world leaders. That's very, very different from the coverage we see here. ~ Rob13Talk 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking into this, I was initially pretty sure I was going to !vote delete, but Rhododendrite's rundown of the in-depth, focused coverage that this has recieved in RS changed my mind. Clearly passes GNG and the coverage in RS is significant enough to support its own article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the argument for Keep is predominately that the handshake has been "covered substantially". WP:NPOV and WP:RS both expect information to be cited to "authoritive sources". The pyschology of a handshake in RS biased against Trump such as the NYTimes and their affiliated publications, the latter of which should not be included in the "multiple sources" count, and should not be considered authoritive sources when it comes to the psychoanalysis of a person's handshake; therefore, if we are truly following NPOV, V and NOT, the RS should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Further, WP:V states: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:SUMMARY. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The article is disputed primarily because it is noncompliant with several policies which are cited throughout. I have not seen one substantial argument that quells the dispute; rather, we keep seeing more of the same RS argument - that it's covered by news sources so it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia - but there is no consideration given to policy or for the sources' qualifications to write authoritively about what they profess to be a "personality disorder" of sorts. If we used this same argument to include information about a BLP in a medical article, we'd be laughed off the project.Atsme📞📧 14:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just highlighting what is at the heart of so many of the delete arguments: RS biased against Trump such as the NYTimes and their affiliated publications, the latter of which should not be included in the "multiple sources" count -- If reliable sources are, collectively, exercising a covert political agenda to cover a subject in a way you don't like, or that you view as "biased", you should also see that "bias" reflected in Wikipedia because Wikipedia relies on these publications with reputations for editorial oversight, fact-checking, issuing corrections, accuracy, etc. If it were one or two covering this, you may have a point, but you're writing off quite a broad swath of the mainstream press.
MEDRS applies to biomedical content, not necessarily whole articles, so you're welcome to press for biomedical content in this article to comply with MEDRS, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this AfD, since the article does not comprise entirely of biomedical content. Though BTW I agree that we should at very least take care when getting into terms like "personality disorder". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites It isn't the sources or the editors that aren't reliable, it is their personal analysis of the handshakes that aren't reliable(or notable). None of the psychologists suggest Trump has a personality disorder or shows any problems from the handshakes, but the journalists and editors are forcing this notion that there is a problem with no evidence. Beyond that, the article has plenty of sources but it just isn't notable. LBJ doesn't have an article for his intimidation tactics and handshakes. I know I'm going to invoke the Crystal Ball, but just look at how Macron reacted to 'Trumps longest, most scandalous handshake ever' - He didn't care! None of the Trumps handshakes are going to have a long lasting effect on the real world, geo-politics, or foreign policy. As time goes on I think the media pundits will realize they can't change him and have to deal with his handshakes and we will see less and less sources on this subject. Look at Trump at the UN today, he was shaking the hands of all sorts of world leaders, although some handshakes were long, none of them were deemed notable by the media. His comments about Germophobia are not notable either. I've seen him recently doing hurricane stuff, when he puts on rubber gloves he always mentions his hand size and not his fear of germs. Also, I think we should consider his presidential candidacy when giving weight to this subject. There is nothing notable about his handshakes before he ran for President. Maybe if these handshakes were like a slogan, a clear reason as to why he won, I could see this article having encyclopedic value, but as it stands I just see bias punditry and a psychoanalysis of Donald Trump's social interactions. It makes me think of a good analogy - We wouldn't create an article called 'Donald Trump and Twitter' and start the first sentence with "U.S. President Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of Tweeting". I believe that some details can be merged from this article to other places, but it really has no merit on its own. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the sources or the editors that aren't reliable, it is their personal analysis of the handshakes that aren't reliable(or notable - WP:TRUTH. Also, notability is only about whether a subject is fit to have an article, it's not a quality of sources (or some aspect of sources).
forcing this notion that there is a problem with no evidence - Again, WP:TRUTH. It's not on us to evaluate whether their claims are true. The broad, extensive, in-depth coverage it what matters. Whether it's true, or whether you believe there is evidence is not the question.
article has plenty of sources but it just isn't notable - The sources are the notability. We don't decide what's important and then look for sources; coverage in these sources determines what we cover. Similarly, regarding Macron not caring, it doesn't really matter who cares as long as enough reliable sources care. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about 'Donald Trump and Eye Contact' There are a whole slew of sources about Donald Trump and his use of eye contact, if this could have an article that could as well. But that leads me to another question, should these subjects be merged into an article about Donald Trump's Social abilities or something? The media's facination with Donald Trump's social skills is just not encyclopedic. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem's persuasive argument; and WP:NOTNEWS, which despite all the sources cited, this fundamentally fails as gossip in fast moving news cycle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites and others. The subject easily meets WP:SIGCOV. The WP:NOT arguments are not compelling. As usual, WP:NOTNEWS is misinterpreted. Specifically, this article is not 1.Original reporting, 2. a News Report, 3. a Who's who, or a Diary. Obviously with 31 cited references it's also not WP:UNDUE.- MrX 17:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Atsme, the sources need to follow WP:MEDRS. There are many opinions & sources in this article that violate WP:FRINGE. WP:NOTNEWS isn't substituted for anything but things Wikipedia is not, including: WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and I would also look at WP:NEWSORG to get a better understanding of the problems. I hope these policy issues can be addressed. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Since this is relisted, may I take the liberty of reposting my rationale that got buried above?
WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, among others. In particular, from the general notability guideline: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] An in-depth analysis of Trump's handshakes is trivial fluff, which at most merits a section of a more general article, and certainly not its own article. Arguments in favor rest on reliable sources, and I quote again: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sadly, mainstream media outlets have proven themselves to be lacking in integrity in regards to President Trump, for which there are countless examples from the election to the present. On this particular topic, having several news sources is no guarantee of notability.
All the pro arguments rest on Reliable Sources, but RS are not a guarantee of inclusion. If the content in question violates notability, neutrality, relevance, and other guidelines such as undue weight and indiscriminate, then it should definitely not be included, even if 109 newspapers cover it. Xcalibur (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bigdan201 (aka Xcaliber), you only need to !vote once. Posting a second time (especially with a different signature) is not allowed. Please strike your second !vote. Ca2james (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I was just rehashing my argument since this was relisted. I certainly wasn't trying to stuff the ballot, or be deceptive (I wasn't even thinking of the signature change). I reworked this into a comment, hopefully that's acceptable. Xcalibur (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ca2james. You shouldn't repost your argument, especially to WP:REHASH it.- MrX 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only reposted because this was relisted, and I felt like I was getting buried. It's not a case of ad nauseum. I also added on a few things at the end. Again, pardon me for any breach of decorum, it wasn't intended. Xcalibur (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xcalibur re-iterated their original statement, which was completely ignored. They've obviously vetted the discussion and decided it would be a good idea to re-state the problems in the article. That most certaintly was not a WP:REHASH, especially considering some ideas were added. The only rehash I see here are people constantly ignoring the problems adressed above to the point that they have to be constantly repeated.... It would be great to finally have discussions about the problems in the article and not about the discourse of the discussion itself. Thanks. - PartyPresident (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are obligated to WP:AGF -- Sleyece (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working it into a comment is better, thank you, Bigdan201. Your original !vote was way up there but the closer will read it and it doesn't need to be reposted later. Ca2james (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always willing to work with others. Maybe it wasn't necessary, but 1. this was relisted, 2. some editors were dismissing delete votes as being unfounded in policy, when mine directly addressed policy, 3. I added on some extra thoughts. But that's all I'll say for now. Xcalibur (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is to get other opinions, not opinions from the same people who don't feel like their comment was heard. Restating something just because you want to make sure it's seen (as opposed to being considered equally with everyone else's whose opinions comprise that wall of text) is precisely WP:REHASH. That said, since Bigdan201/Xcalibur is a relatively new user, it's very easy to believe it was in good faith and probably doesn't need to be belabored over. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge On the one hand, there are a plethora of sources available, as detailed above, and it's very clear that the subject passes GNG. On the other hand, the subject doesn't feel right - not because I think the reporting is derogatory or anything like that, but because the subject matter seems trivial. However, I don't actually have any policy based reasons to delete and I'm unconvinced by the alphabet soup given above by others, as those alphabets have been countered in later comments, so I can't !vote delete. That leaves me with a weak keep or a merge. I think merging to the main Donald Trump article (since the subject predates his presidency and is not just about popular culture) would be the best option, but again I don't have policy based reasons I for saying that. Horrible argument, I know. Ca2james (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I made an analogy above comparing Trumps handshakes to his tweets. Well, his twitter activity is mentioned under a social media article. I also noticed mentioned earlier that his use of eye contact goes hand in hand with his handshakes. I think this article could survive if it is changed to something about his body language or social interactions with world leaders, and whether or not this could be a list. Thoughts? Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article like "Donald Trump and diplomacy" would work, with handshakes as a section. I wouldn't object if this topic were covered by a more generalized article -- it's the stand-alone article that is unwarranted. Xcalibur (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's still just stupid, inane, non-encyclopedic trivia. Volunteer Marek  03:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with every word of the above statement - MagicatthemovieS
  • I apologize for forgetting to sign the previous comment. Sleyece (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is an interesting and notable approach. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: This is one of those many things that may be worth its own article at the moment but a year from now may well be suited to merge into a larger article about Trump's various idiosyncratic behaviors. Montanabw(talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:BU Rob 13 and others. Meets GNG. Sustained coverage over several distinct events so NOTNEWS does not apply, and there nothing "indiscriminate" about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it does fit WP:NOTNEWS, under WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". - I also believe it fits other parts of What Wikipedia is Not, including WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTOPINION. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Donald Trump has an insane skill for generating enough coverage to meet notability for ANYTHING NEGATIVE ever said about him. The question is, do we play into his exploitation of humankind, or do we IGNORE ALL RULES and stop feeding the world's biggest troll. I rather say the latter approach is the one we should adopt. Don's handshakes can be mentioned somewhere else among the too-many articles devoted to this man. Thus, I conclude the subject is notable and plainly meets WP:GNG, but we should delete, because Wikipedia is better than Donald Trump.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it "plainly meets WP:GNG", I agree. Should we "IGNORE ALL RULES and stop feeding the world's biggest troll"? Well, the WP:IAR is actually about improving WP content, and if something does meet WP:GNG, this something should be kept to improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this subject gets its own article Donald Trump's hair should get one. Also thinking about making an article about his tie length, as well as his use of eye contact and something along the lines of 'Women wearing High Heels in the Trump Administration". I know I can get enough sources for those to meet GNG and I know there is more juicey things Trump does. The Obama Tan Suit event could have an article too, it was mentioned a bunch on its two year anniversery a few weeks ago. If anybody has any more ideas I would love them. Thanks. - PartyPresident (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observe closely, as we witness a rare WP:OTHERSTUFF Argument in its natural habitat. What a splendid opportunity to observe its behavior in its own environment, unimpeded by guidelines. TheValeyard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is not advocating for deletion. This probably wasn't the place to mention that Donald Trump's hair has enough leg to stand on for its own article outside of the 'Donald Trump popular culture', but this pettiness you just displayed is beneath this discussion, please assume good will. The rest of the topics I mentioned meet GNG and should probably be made, considering how much this article proves the encyclopedic value of practically anything Trump does. Honestly the guy should just have his own wiki! I was also mentioning before in other comments above that this article may need to be merged with the eye contact and maybe even the tie article. An article about Trump's health and mental/social abilities? I understand how all this can come off as sarcasm or ridicule, but this is some pretty difficult stuff to sift through because the way the article is written now is just plain awful and needs to be heavily worked on. I have made numerous suggestions but continue to get ignored. Cheers. - PartyPresident (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, PartyPresident, this is obviously a toxic debate no closer to achieving consensus than it was 10,000 words ago. Please, lets just appreciate this little gift of snark @TheValeyard: has given us... Please. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:38, 21 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 all. There is obviously consensus to delete all of the lists listed in the list (12 pages total). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional analysts[edit]

List of fictional analysts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list, and some of the other lists developed by this author, is WP:LISTCRUFT, has no explanation of why the list is notable, and has a breezy informal quality that is not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes the following:

The following are also being considered (see below):



On review, it appears that many of the animated characters are in multiple lists. There has not been any apparent effort at completeness, if completeness is possible. This seems to be an effort to put the author's favorite animated characters into lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RA0808 yes, I'd have no objections to that. Redirects are cheap after all. Some of them are plausible search entries, others I'm doubtful of but I'll make a full comment on each of them as I fear the creator will make more, despite our advice on their talk page. DrStrauss talk 19:10, 16 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Duca[edit]

Lauren Duca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, Person known only for one event. Duca is known for one event, and subsequent minor current events. The article reads as a news source/promotion for Duca's material rather than an encyclopedic entry. HellHasNoFurries (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Lauren Duca[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. ETA: criteria #2 particularly after politics comment on talk. One could also make a WP:SNOW keep argument, as reliable source coverage of multiple events over time is so abundant (adding SK criteria #3 to the mix as well?) that deletion would be completely outside of current AfD norms, and editor time should not be wasted reviewing the case needlessly. But trying to prevent at least some of that is why SK exists, so I'll leave my ivote for reasons mentioned. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Kiernanmc (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep She is not a low-profile person, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. I don't think WP:BIO1E is an issue here either. There is significant coverage of her, and not just for one event. Meters (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep She's an award-winning journalist. Keep as per Innisfree987. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy & Snow Keep: AfD created by a single purpose new account.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:58, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_September_16&oldid=1142617412"