The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was move to User:Onetwothreeip/Demographics of the Western Balkans. Consensus is that this topic should not have an article. However, the data may be useful for other articles so I am preserving the content for people to reuse. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An overwhelmingly large and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics. The topic itself, applying specifically to "Western Balkans" is unlikely to be useful and much better to be covered in other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. This article is very useful for studying the demographics of the Western Balkan countries as well as any information presented therein. I put a lot of effort into gathering all the information and making this article. Thank you.
Ripas1997 (talk 13:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN. This has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, this google search has a very large amount of reliable sources that treat the Western Balkans as a set and deal with their demographics as such.
User:Zoozaz1 (talk
Delete - a duplication of content from other demographics articles and a WP:POVFORK magnet. The lead itself describes "Western Balkans" as "a political neologism", which ought to be a nod to many ways to categorise these countries politically. We don't even have articles about more commonly used and clearly defined regions such as Demographics of East Asia, Demographics of the Arabian Peninsula, Demographics of Sub-Saharan Africa etc., perhaps because when you take into account that this is a motley collection (and duplication) of statistics collected by different countries under different methodologies and in different political climates, there isn't much knowledge that can be attained from this information. An example of this pitfall comes up as one of the first links in Zoozaz1's web search above. It's true that something can be said about the demographics of Balkans countries as a group, and maybe even something about the countries grouped under Western Balkans specifically, but not so much that it wouldn't fit in the Balkans article. (There isn't even anything of that sort to merge here; the article consists solely of an explanation of what Western Balkans is, followed by a WP:SYNTH amalgamation of possibly WP:NOTSTAT numbers.) DaßWölf 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the term really only applies to post-Cold War, and generally regarding the European Union. During and before the Cold War, Yugoslavia and Albania were not particularly connected, which is when most of the statistics describe. The term does not have much relation to the demographics of those countries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is deleted, would the deleting admin please keep a copy of the article in my user space? There is a lot of data here which could be useful for other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Daß Wölf here. Most of the content of the article is about individual countries, so simply duplicates what we have elsewhere. The state of Wikipedia's demographic coverage is bad enough as it is without duplicating efforts. Material about the demography of the region as a whole can be covered at Balkans#Demographics. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As already noted in the earlier comments, there may be two problems here. I'm not sure if the "Western Balkans" is a unifying concept in the way e.g. "European Union" or "Scandinavia" are. It doesn't even have a standalone article. The second problem is its organization (cf. Demographics of the European Union). GregorB (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the tables relating to the individual demographics of the Western Balkan countries and set those tables in the articles relating to the demographics of those countries. Now this article is much smaller in size, and contains only data related to the overall demographic of the Western Balkans. If you like, you can also add prose related to this topic and help to finish this topic completely. I think now the article is ok and should not be deleted.
Ripas1997 (talk 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article claims that the Western Balkans roughly correspond to the area covered by the Dinaric Alps. This definition is pretty problematic due to the fact that the Dinaric Alps cover less than a half of Croatian territory. In Croatia the Dinaric Alps divide the coastline from the Continental part of Croatia, which is mostly flat and covered by the Pannonian plain which extends into neighbouring Serbia which is also a subject of this article. Similarly can be said for Slovenia. Due to this, this article's Croatian language version was deleted from the Croatian language Wikipedia and due to wrong use of punctuation (the one present in the English language) and because of bad translation (some weird Serbian and Croatian hybrid, not to be confused with the artificial Serbo-Croatian language) and because of original research. It's also worth mentioning that the Western Balkans are a political division, not a geographical, demographical, cultural or historical division. Due to this I support the article's deletion. --Croxyz (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When will this discussion be completed and when will it be decided whether to delete this article? Can you tell approximately in how many days this will be over?
Ripas1997 (talk 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions typically last for a week, but can be extended if there isn't consensus at that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be changed in the article so that it is not deleted?Could this article stay with some changes?
Ripas1997 (talk 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just looks like a bunch of graphs and random numbers. Not sure how it's notable or relevant. Demographic information for each country in the Western Balkans is probably more appropriate Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I set demographics for each Western Balkan country, but the article was too long, and that was why they put this article in the deletion discussion. So I had to delete it to not be too long an article, unfortunately.
Ripas1997 (talk 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the article is not the main issue here, Ripas1997, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, "Western Balkans" is an arbitrary, recently determined political concept without a cultural, historical, geographical, et cetera background to justify it. This cleavage in the data between the Balkans generally and the "Western Balkans" is frustrating and problematic. I agree. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No albums as leader and only a few as a sideman to a few unknown musicians on obscure labels. Mainly known only in Chicago, if there, local interest only. Existing material was unsourced and written in a personal way. Vmavanti (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A biographical article carrying only the subject's own site and an AllAboutJazz profile page, which is not bylined independent content. The most substantial coverage that I can find is a local Oak Park-River Forest, IL item about an event involving the subject. Not enough to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All About Jazz profiles are often copy pasted from the official site. That's why I encourage people to be careful about using them. Of course they ignore me.Vmavanti (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a none notable division of the Embraer. From what I've found in a search they haven't released any products yet and only thing being worked on is still a concept. So this counts as to soon IMO. It also fails for the standards of notability for companies. As nothing except trivial coverage on them comes up in a search. That said, I'd be fine if it was merged to Embraer. It looks like they aren't even mentioned there. Which also speaks to their lack of notability. Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Embraer. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSOFT. All sourcing is routine blog site reviews for affiliate pay or routine release announcements. Article and sources have no depth in coverage of the subject itself and just feels like a sly advert. This is no more notable than tens of thousands of other utility software like this that have similar blog site reviews. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it looks as if this went through AfD before and was kept, but was later A7'd multiple times and salted? Not sure what happened between 2014 and this iteration that just came out of draftspace. Maybe two different pieces of software with the same name?Sulfurboy (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I decline to lend weight to the prior AfD, which misapplied GNG/NCORP; participants at it repeatedly relied on sources that plainly were unreliable, non-independent (advertising, promotional, sponsored, affiliate, or primary), or trivial to confer notability. From the sources in the article: Sources 1 and 5 are the same website; source 2 is from a "content partner" and therefore non-independent (not editorially controlled); source 3 is an affiliate and therefore non-independent ("When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we may earn a small commission"); source 4 is routine coverage, barely six sentences long, and not notability-conferring; source 5 is the same as source 1; source 6 is non-independent (see Affiliate Disclosure at the bottom); source 8 seems primary and even if it's not it's trivial. We're left with sources 1 and 7. I would argue that source 1 is not significant coverage per #1 of WP:PRODUCTREV, and even if it is, two sources does not notability make. In any event, the notability standards have not been met. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a promotional article: then significant content here is albinism, and more specifically albinism in africa. There is no indication that the particular film here has any notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't confer notability about the film, but rather discuss the persecution of people with albinism in Africa. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. The fact that it's about a notable topic that already has an article is irrelevant. Natureium (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 02:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Written by and admitted fan, efforts to help have not resulted in a single non-trivial reliable independent source. And every time you look away, it reads more like an advert. Guy (help!) 21:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appropriate the effort by individuals to write articles about obscure musical personalities for the sake of completeness. At the same time, however, Story simply doesn't appear that notable. I agree. Deletion seems to be the right call. Story has worked with and been associated with a number of notable groups and people, but that doesn't therefore make him particularly famous himself. This is common for producers and songwriters alike. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This composer isn't that notable. There really aren't that much secondary sources for Tom. Most of them are just Toms website. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 15:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG for this band. Sources in the text are from Discogs (user-generated), the band's website (self-published), a blog, and YouTube. The band has an AllMusic entry, and I found a couple web sources I'm not sure are reliable or not. There's the possibility that there's pre-internet print sources available I can't access, but everything before 2000 by this band was self-released. Released two NN albums on an indie label in the early 2000s, and one single on said indie label, but everything else is self-released. I'm not finding notability here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm as confused as Hog Farm . . . usually having multiple albums reviewed on AllMusic (all good reviews, even if all were reviewed by same critic) at least indicates that there are other reliable sources out there... I didn't really find anything, besides Phoenix New Times, etc. Surprising lack of reliable music sources, although band's "heyday" was before many sites got going/got legit. Most likely would vote delete. Caro7200 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually remember them (!) but they don't appear to meet NBAND. I could find only one source other than New Times. (It's offline: "Mesa band Audra throwing CD release party", May 14, 2009 - Author/Byline: Mandy Zajac, The Tribune, Mesa, Ariz. Section: Entertainment, Television, Culture.) JSFarman (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple staff written album reviews at AllMusic as well as regional newspaper coverage as mentioned above so a borderline pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This a case of WP:NEXIST as the article needs to be improved with better sources, and this does not mean that the band is non-notable. As said above, each of their albums got pretty robust reviews from AllMusic. Their name makes a basic search for sources difficult, but search for the name in conjunction with an album title and some more {partially) reliable sources come up, such as [1], [2] ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NBAND. Once more, and surely not for the last time, our knowledge or even fondness for a certain subject interferes with our assessment of notability. As it happens, I'm fond of this music! But obscure or niche artistic creations do not necessarily all mean an article should be posted up in Wikipedia. This is neither a haphazard collection of information, nor a directory. Trying for sources scares up very little, if anything. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this fairly long Arizona Republic interview/commentary article: [3]Gab4gab (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reviewed as a part of Wikipedia new article curation/review. No indication of wp:notability, i.e. no sources from which to build an article. Title is also a secondary concern; it is not Morse code, but a sequence named for being similar to a Morse code letter. IMO should be merged into a couple sentences in another article or an entry in a list. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B-Dienst#U-boat_Message_Types, where it is discussed in context. This is a verifiable detail of of U-boat communications, but there isn't enough to say about it to warrant a standalone article. Readers will be better served by reading about in context in the target article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect nothing here that justifies a page. Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui雲水 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BAND. No charted songs or awards. Sources are a clutter of Allmusic, Facebook, and Spotify. When reliable sources were cited, they reported on this street gang's violence, which does nothing to support their notability as a band. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promiment member C Biz has a charted album. Number 18 on the UK R&B Charts. Group is a hip hop collective/street gang and a record label. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Official Chart Company's R&B chart wouldn't usually be counted as charting, usually with the UK it is just the Official Chart Company's Top 40 (which includes all genres), anything outside that is not considered to have been a hit. That would also only be an argument for an article on C Biz - it would need multiple notable members to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Three of the sources are primary sources (one of them even cites their Facebook page), and the rest are passing mentions. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As pointed out, even the articles that do show sigcov fall into WP:NOTNEWS territory. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual members of the gang may be notable due to their violent records, but the overall group itself doesn't seem to cross the line in terms of our notability standards. I agree. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTOBITUARY. Non-notable golf coach & author. Only claims to notability seem to be by association and authoring a couple of fairly unimportant books. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N based on current sources in draft page. GrangerShots (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find SIGCOV to satisfy the GNG, nor could I find notable reviews of his books per WP:AUTHOR. PK650 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or a more specific criterion. --Kinut/c 08:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak redirect to a section on Khronos Group. This standard was released very recently, available sources are just press releases and one tech blog [4]. It probably will become notable but it's not there yet. – Thjarkur(talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thjarkur. Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This company is notable with a turnover in 2018 of £128m, worldwide user numbers of 11 million, has been listed multiple times on the Sunday Times Fast Track list of growing companies. It is an established business, operarating since 2005, is a market leader in it's category - the UK Competition commission investigated a proposed merger which was eventually abandonded due to concerns over market capitalisation. It also operates in a number of markets and is significant due to being one of the first in an emerging category of cashback sites that have changed consumers buying habits and how online retailers market to, and reach an audience. Sidesix (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued to add citations - I've read up on Notability & References - there are a number of independent & secondary sources used for citation. Sidesix (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources fit with WP:NCORP and so it fails notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A lot of the appearance in the news (particularly local news sites) are essentially puffery, but there are some genuine sources out there about them:
Government enquiry concerning a merger of the company with its main rival [5] (also a few news stories on MoneySavingExpert which don't appear to be sponsored content, but I can't link to them because of the spam blacklist);
Which? advice page about using cashback sites, which significant coverage of TopCashback [6] (and similar piece in The Guardian[7]);
The Guardian consumer column reporting a complaint about the company and the company's response [8].
On the other hand, a lot of the coverage discusses it in conjuction with its main competitor, Quidco. (Essentially the same arguments apply to each of them as to whether they should have an article on here, though Quidco currently doesn't have an article.) Perhaps it would be better to merge into Cashback website, and add a section about Quidco as well. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TopCashback, the largest UK cashback store, lets customers interact with more than 4000 stores, including some of the country's principal stores.
This article provides only one sentence of coverage about TopCashback but I am including it here because it verifies that Topcashback is "the largest UK cashback store".
While these kinds of numbers will cause many to get started on their own, I thought I would encourage the undecided by describing one program in detail to give a clearer picture of how it all works. Since I have been using Top Cashback (www.topcashback.com) for quite awhile, I thought it would make sense to elaborate on this offering.
...
Basics — To be eligible for rewards, purchases must be initiated at Top Cashback. Specifically, you must go to their webpage, find and click on a link to the retailer of interes, and make your purchase.
From there, it generally takes a few weeks for your credit to appear in your account.
This Uttoxeter-headquartered cashback website offers deals from thousands of companies and has more than 2.5m registered users. It generates revenue from sponsored advertisements and pays commission to each member who buys via the site. This February, it launched Snap&Save,amobile app that has already been downloaded by 200,000 people, which lets users take a photo of a receipt and claim cash on selected in-store products. Run by co-founders Oliver Ragg, 43, and Michael Tomkins, 38, revenues hit £30.8m in 2013.
This site offers its 10m members cashback and discounts from more than 7,000 retailers. The Staffordshire-based company generates revenue from sponsored advertising, and the majority of overseas sales are in America, where TopCashback has an office in New Jersey. It also runs cashback sites in India and China. International sales hit £24.8m in 2017, under co-founders Oliver Ragg, 48, and Michael Tomkins, 43.
Uttoxeter-based topcashback.co.uk - which doubled its workforce in one year - has attracted 10,000 new customers each week since the TV advert first aired last month.
...
There are now more than one million people signed up.
...
The company took on six new workers earlier this year in anticipation of a surge in members.
It now employs 20 staff in Uttoxeter and four in Bolton.
A new office has also recently been opened in London.
The company moved into bigger premises off the town's Market Place from its original Carter Street home last year.
The article includes quotes from "Director Oliver Ragg, who set up the company with Mike Tompkins in 2005".
A UTTOXETER-based company that runs a website which pledges to pay out cash when shoppers buy online goods and services is planning to expand.
Top CashBack, which employs five staff in an office in the town's Carter Street, has already been named the market leader by money-saving expert Martin Lewis.
The firm - which has an office in Bolton, Lancashire, where it was founded four years ago - has been making a big splash while others have struggled, due to its policy of giving the customer the commission when they buy online.
...
Top CashBack is paid as normal to advertise the services of such major High Street names as Tesco, Currys, Boots, and Marks and Spencer, as well as insurance firms such as Aviva, and also the AA and lastminute.com.
Just as it makes sense to comparison-shop to make sure you're getting the lowest price, it pays to compare cash-back services to see if you're getting the highest rate. I often find that TopCashback beats Rakuten -- and offers savings at more stores as well.
At this writing, for example, TopCashback is offering up to 2% at Lowe's, while Rakuten is offering zero. And there's another big TopCashback advantage: Once cash gets added to your account, you can get your payout anytime, not just on a 90-day schedule. There are also a lot more payout options, including gift cards -- with bonuses if you choose that option -- prepaid virtual credit cards and direct deposit. You can't do a check by mail, however.
A key example is TopCashback. You can earn cash back on your purchases. You can browse the TopCashBack site and choose from thousands of retailers, including Amazon, and exclusive cash-back offers. Click through to your favorite retailers and shop like normal. The retailer pays TopCashBack a commission for your purchase, and it adds this as cash back to your earnings.
You can earn more by using the TopCashBack app where you'll find coupons, in-store coupons, and instant account access. The app is available free for both Apple and Android gadgets.
Keep as has been shown in this discussion it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided by Cunard and others above talk mostly about the website. Looking at this article using WP:WEB and not NCORP, there is sufficient references to pass the requirements for notability. Topic meets GNG/WEB. HighKing++ 10:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. The sole claim to notability is having played in the 2012 Asian Games (and the 2006 one as well), but they did not make it past the group stage either time and seem to fall short of any subject-specific guideline. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a bit of searching and didn't find any promising sources. He gives a TedX talk, but that's not an independent source, and the news reports I could find don't discuss him in depth. --Slashme (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. He actually only played in the 2006 Asian Games (2012 was the Beach Games which does not appear to be as significant an event) and didn't medal in either event so doesn't meet any inclusionary criteria for athletes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't pass WP:GNG. It should also be noted that Draft:Mohammad Mehdi Nooripour was denied three times before the article creator published in the main space. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and GPL93. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Falls short of WP:NPOL & doesn’t satisfy general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG coupled with a lack of any reasonable claim to notability in the text. VelellaVelella Talk 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creation history shows why we need to make all articles go through AfD. Although the process here is better than the only sourced to IMDB articles that have sat around for 10 years or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. He's a college student representative to a board. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for muscians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the entries on this page refer to pages that might otherwise be called "Imminent" or "Imminence". They are either WP:partial title matches or articles that simply use the words. In the case of the 2x bands - perhaps the only legitimate entries - they are actually are non-notable mentions. This page actively inhibits Search, which would be a better option for readers searching for occurrences of "Imminent" or "Imminence". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the band is the clincher: is the reader who wants "imminence" (why?) better served by landing on a page for a band or by finding this dab page? I've added Wikitionary links to help. Some of the entries may need a bit of tweaking - possibly a new set index page is needed to sort out the various "concept of imminence in law" items - but it's better than nothing at present. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia,and nor would treating the band as the primary topic. PamD 09:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom: I don't know how I missed the band. This is clearly keep, but I'll let it run its course without withdrawing it in case any other cleaner-uppers are attracted here. Thanks all, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good dab. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Looks like a pretty notable building, if nothing else. Deprodded without comment.Really? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: How is it notable? Because you say so? I combed the Internet and found zero coverage. Did you find something I missed? The store wasn't even open for a full year. "It's notable because it's notable" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said the building appeared to be notable. Take a look at it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is not in the slightest bit relevant to this discussion. The store itself may not be notable, but the building it's in appears to be. Given that building does not have an article yet, the article should be kept as one about the building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Savoyard Centre. And my instinct was correct, the building is indeed an historic one. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places and we do have an article on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is it, like on a postcard or something.
Keep, tentatively. Per Necrothesp, looking at the building, using Google streetview, yes, the building, at least, is notable. Designed by McKim, Meade and White tells us that already. Perhaps it is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or it is a contributing building in one of Detroit's historic districts. Surely there have been other businesses there, too, which can be mentioned. Article focus can change. And/or maybe someone with better lit. search tools than i have can find more about this business in particular. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about searching on "Deron Washington" Detroit -basketball, or "Julian Scott" Detroit, instead of requiring the whole four-word phrase, exactly? For example "Upscale store's closure mirrors Detroit's struggle" calls it "their Julian Scott store" and similarly. And expanding the article to be about more of this retailer/entrepreneur's experiences ([9] for one, [10] is another, which happens to use "Julian Scott Luxury Department Store" term instead) is another possibility. --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I did try that, and still found nothing. The Detroit Free Press is on newspapers.com, and yet I found only passing mentions ("X bought Y from Julian Scott, Detroit"). None of the sources you linked is a reliable third party source whatsoever. You're basing your opinion entirely on "perhaps this" and "maybe that". How about something concrete instead of just pulling vague possibilities out of your ass? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What, because I found some sources when you said there were "absolutely zero", you start with verbal abuse, obscenity? I don't know you, you may be foul-mouthed generally and not notice it, but I find the obscenity offensive and I don't respect the strategy. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
some editors appear to use it to stifle debate, disappointing.... Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence per GNG she doesn’t qualify for inclusion. Furthermore subject is an actress but I don’t see WP:NACTOR satisfied as well. A BEFORE only directs me to her social media pages & pretty much nothing other than that. Celestina007 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first instinct was to vote delete, but I found her listed on IMDB with a few movies and a couple of TV series to her name, and with those she might just about satisfy WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."). It is borderline, esp. as 'notability' in the Ugandan film sector may be different from Hollywood etc., but I've gone for the benefit of the doubt. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDoubleGrazing, you would have to prove by means of reliable sources that she actually played significant roles in multiple movies if not then your point is very much invalid.Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCelestina007 With respect, my point is valid, as far as my opinion goes, and isn't subject to your approval. If you disagree, feel free to vote as you see fit, rather than comment on my vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. None of the films she's appeared in are notable. The refs cited in the article do not discuss the subject are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 22:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It seems WP:TOOSOON for an article on the subject—she doesn't yet pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG (although, a search with her first name spelt as "Diana" yields a few more results, including a couple of Observer write-ups—but they are blogs). I have qualified my vote as a "Weak" delete because I am providing no opinion on WP:NMODEL, and will defer to others in that regard. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable film as of yet, with no coverage and is 9 months out from it's release (and given the current world situation, may not be released even then.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah so what the film has some times to release? This is not a valid point like this fellow editor speaking. And talking about the present world situation, so does this editor can really predict whats gonna happen? This shows his negativity he has in his mind. The film has enough sources in its reference section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asomzz19 (talk • contribs)
Page not to be deleted. Since it has links mentioned clearly in its reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asomzz19 (talk • contribs)
Delete Both references are actually the exact same article, which appears to be a paid article. Even if not paid the referencing is incredibly poor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence this product passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. BEFORE does not show anything but mentions in passing. No valid redirect/merge target (not mentioned in any article outside see also section; no referenced content to merge, redirect to Heineken goes against WP:R#ASTONISH). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not pass WP:PRODUCT as the only sources are passing mentions, which is against WP:TRIVIALMENTION. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I wouldn't object to a redirect to Heineken_N.V.#Beer_brands with a one-sentence note at the target. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Just a note to say that I've boldly added a sentence to the Heineken N.V. article - this title could be redirected there painlessly now. GirthSummit (blether) 14:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. All I could find were routine coverage such as his signing with the Indoor Football league, as well as a few scattered mentions of his college career and a graduate paper possibly written by him. The graduate paper does not rise to the level of passing WP:NAUTHOR. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a player or a coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (no significant awards, etc.). And while he had a reasonably solid college career (see here), my searches did not turn up significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article is a non notable model who does not satisfy WP:ENT & doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falling short of WP:GNG. She is however known for having intimate photos of her leaked in the internet as can be seen here. Having observed the reference it does nothing to substantiate nor prove subject of the article is notable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deleteis a socialiate is the equivalent of "is not notable" when it's the only claim to fame. There are 0 reliable sources to support inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not have a career to speak of and is only known for a single event. Per CNN and New Vision, she was arrested and charged with violating Uganda's Anti-Pornography Act. Its really sad women in Africa are still being ridiculed and slut-shamed in the midst of being blackmail. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I was unable to locate an independent source to provide details about this hospital or its history, mostly just passing mention in local news. This book had some information, but not enough to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it could be expanded upon with further research (i.e. recent addition of the ubc faculty medicine program at the hospital), i believe that it's worthwhile to keep the article like other healthcare facilities in the lower mainland are included. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book gives far more depth than most hospitals ever get. Hospitals are generally seen as notable, but detailed accounts of what happens in them are few and far between. Usually we have to rely on large numbers of small snippets, and it would be surprising if there were not plenty of short articles in both local news and the specialised press. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's much written about it in British Columbia newspapers through a cursory newspapers.com search (lots of obits, but lots of feature stories as well.) SportingFlyerT·C 06:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge some info into Fraser Health, an article whch could be expanded & made more comprehensive. Djflem (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Talk page discussion: possible fail of WP:Notability, not updated, no interest in maintenance, some factually incorrect information. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For starters WP:LISTPEOPLE applies as a lot of the names have no articles. Secondly, there is no clear reasoning why different definitions of a council leader are used in each of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs to be updated to reflect recent changes in council boundaries/elections, but is relevant and notable in chronicalling local leaders throughout the united kingdom. see example in other countries such as United States or British Columbia. obsviously different nations follow different electoral systems so there are differences in how they are classified, but council elections in the united kingdom are rather important events politically and the elected members of such bodies do have significant responsibility. for these reasons the article should be kept. Also seems to meet WP:LISTPEOPLE. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the kind of thing that seemed like a good idea in theory, but has proven to be largely unmaintainable in actual practice. Although Epluribusunumyall raised US and Canadian examples above, they aren't actually helpful as reasons why this should exist. The US list is based on a specific population-rank cutoff that keeps the list manageable and updatable because it's expressly confined to being a list of just 50 people total, and the US does not have any lists of "every currently-serving mayor in an entire state regardless of city or town size" — and while Canada does have lists by province or territory that allow all mayors of every city and town in that province or territory to be listed without size restrictions, there's no editor commitment to keep on top of them in a timely fashion: the big cities whose politics get broad nationalizing media coverage and attention do get updated promptly when there's a mayoral change, but the small towns that receive little extralocal attention at all regularly get overlooked. So their existence isn't a reason why this should also be kept: per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in reality those lists should probably also be deleted due to their maintainability problems. The value in such a list vests entirely in our ability to keep it accurate and current. If we can't do that, we shouldn't try to curate a dynamically evolving list we can't adequately maintain. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unwieldy and infrequently updated; it's also an incredibly difficult subject to keep up to date. There are a lot of local authorities and they change leader all the time, not just at election time. Added to that, most council leaders aren't notable, and the role of leader of any individual council is not a notable office. Our article on the general office of Leader of the Council has less than a hundred words and isn't true. None of this context explains why this article should exist on Wikipedia. A closer analogue to the international comparisons given is our article Directly elected mayors in England and Wales which has none of the problems this one does. Ralbegen (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - The footballer plays in a top tier league, has goals in international tournament & some media coverage. I think this article shouldn't be deleted. DiptaDipta 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relies almost exclusively on primary sources. The reference claimed to be from Yahoo Finance is actually a press release ([11]). Upon searching ([12]), any other references are also either press releases or very brief mentions. No indication of notability. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 00:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was a fairly in depth piece in the LA Times, but I could not find any other non-primary sources like it. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discussed at sufficient length in both the article mentioned above and also in third party books:here, here, and here. So he meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the book sources shown above and the LA Times piece which is particularly convincing because it includes criticism of the subject which clearly indicates its independence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article could use a great deal of cleanup, but the book sources look legit. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Far from a good article. However BLP issues merely need some sources, even if they are no independent ones. Victory Outreach is certainly a notable Christina ministry. Since we do not have an article on it, having one on the founder will have to serve. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:FOOTBALL because he has never played or managed a team in a WP:FPL. I found a two page interview in Scotzine which isn't enough for passing WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this person meets GNG. Any detailed sources out there @KingSkyLord:? Achievements are worthless if they are not supported by significant coverage. GiantSnowman 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a) a tabloid and non-RS and b) about the season rather than him. GiantSnowman 17:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication in guidance documents that the Daily Record is not considered a reliable source - is there guidance on that somewhere? I'm also puzzled on why the size of paper it's printed on is a factor. The Independent published for a while in Tabloid format - was that not reliable? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE. Notability (especially for a WP:BLP) is not automatically inherited from the teams he has coached. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. [13], [14], [15] People can argue the coverage is routine, but in truth it is exactly the sort of reporting you would expect to see about a notable football manager. Namely cliche-ridden stuff with him talking about being "over the moon" or "sick as a parrot" depending on results. We've seen time and again that the WP:FPL essay isn't relevant for women's football. I'd venture it's doubly irrelevant for any players/managers in Scotland – since quite a few Championship clubs in Scotland which the essay purports are "fully professional" are anything but. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BBC 2009 is trivial coverage (a one line quote), BBC 2019 is arguably trivial and non-independent (it's mostly an interview; six of the nine paragraphs are spoken by Caulfield himself), GlasgowTimes is primary/non-notability-conferring because it's entirely an interview; The Herald and In the Winning Zone are arguable but don't constitute sufficient coverage taken as a whole. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:L235, that when you add all that with the Daily Record article, that there is sufficient coverage. You didn't comment on that one. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nfitz that I didn't comment on the Daily Record article specifically, but I don't think that piece contributes to notability at all. The parts that contain unfiltered interview is all primary, and excluding that interview (the great majority of the article) the source counts as trivial coverage. Kevin (alt of L235·t·c) 18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how it's trivial - it's much of the article. I'm also not sure the basis that you are tossing interviews as being primary sources. The article isn't just an interview ... interviewing someone as part of an article, doesn't make the article a primary source. In WP:GNG "independent of the source" says "... example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". It doesn't preclude (for example) biographies that involved an interview of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, Nfitz, but I respectfully disagree on both points. GNG specifically says secondary sources are the sources that count for notability purposes, and NOR subsection WP:PRIMARY (in note c) specifically counts interviews as primary sources. If we take out the interview, the only two sentences that mention Caulfield are one that state the fact that Caulfield took over the club, and one that leads into the interview, and that counts as trivial coverage and as WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports event (both of which disqualify the source from supporting notability). This isn't being picky just to be bureaucratic, either; primary sources (including interviews, even ones published in news sources, because there's limited – if any – factchecking done by the media organization) have (obviously) limited va pilue in contributing to the verifiability of an article, and one of the intentions behind the notability guidelines is to ensure that we have enough strong sourcing to back a decent article. I know it must be frustrating to be arguing here based on what feel like technicalities, but I think the Daily Record article does not factor into the notability calculus. Best, Kevin (alt of L235·t·c) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though {{|L236}}, WP:Primary doesn't preclude all interview, it notes depending on context. Surely the context is that a transcribed interview is a primary source, yet when someone is interviewed as part of an article in a newspaper, that is a secondary source - see WP:Secondary. And it certainly isn't routine. Routine would be a paragraph about an appointment - not an in depth piece at the time of an appointment. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz:WP:Secondary, which you mention, states that a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (emphasis in original). I don't see how this interview does that. And my point about routine coverage is that if the interview portion was taken out of the article, the remaining portion would clearly be routine and trivial. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it again, that portion of the article is a bit more verbatim than I'd remembered. Still, there's a lot of borderline sources - and I don't think venerability is the actual issue here - more the bureaucratic barriers that inadvertently create systemic bias against those involved in women's soccer. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability; a search revealed no sources that were clearly notability-conferring. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It received some coverage briefly during a limited period but notability does not seem to be sustained and it did not reach to the level of notability for WP:NCORP, WP:NPRODUCT. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose it should be merged into Scantegrity article. PulpSpy (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NOTTEMP applies. This generated significant, independent, and reliable coverage as demonstrated by the references already in the article. Google Scholar also generates multiple results: [16]. While, like many university research projects, it has not generated a commercial product, it was a notable research effort that received substantial coverage. [[Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP also applies in terms of the dead links. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Link to the source please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947(user | cont | ess), at 21:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relisting comment As mentioned, the references in the article are mostly in the form of broken links so the advice of the LTTS essay is inapplicable. I have, however, verified them myself using a university library to which I have access. According to the Verifiability policy, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Essays, as you know, do not take precedence over policy. The Google Scholar link should, however, provide interested editors enough context to verify for themselves that there had been academic discussion of the article subject at that point in time. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him other than his popular plane crashes. Easily fails WP:PERSON. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability requirements. Greyjoytalk 05:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that reliable sources have compiled a list of racist statements made by American politicians. Surely this is far from complete as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope seems problematic because segregation and slavery were quite normal in the US for many years and so many statements would have this context. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The article starts off This article discusses topics and events in United States politics that deal with racism or are considered racist by some. Rather vague. Andrew Jackson was known to be racist against the Native Americans, that quite well documented. But most of this is just original research. DreamFocus 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. The scope itself is an issue, and then there's the question of whether or not such a list is even useful in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary list with too much original research. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of an ATTACK page, collecting up persons and quotation that the compiler does not like. It is necessary to bear in mind that before the Civil War, slavery was an institution in the South, which everyone there supported. Equally until the Civil Rights Act, action to keep black Americans in subjection was institutionalised there. The whole thing is a case of WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable due to his inclusion in the hall of fame mentioned on the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are either of those notable accomplishments though? It doesn't seem like either fit the criteria for notability of winning a major musical award in WP:Notability (music). Christian artists win the Grammys and Juno awards all the time, both of which would count for notability. I don't think his inclusion in these "halls of fame" do though. They don't even meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You can't say someone is notable for being in a hall of fame, when the hall of fame their in isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily have to be notable in order for coverage of someone being inducted to confer notability on the inductee.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947(user | cont | ess), at 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the hall of fame is notable has not been determined yet, but I expect it will be in the coming days. (Note to closer: See if the hall of fame article is closed or not.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source already cited, a quick g-hits search (which is supposed to be done as part of WP:BEFORE) brought up this and this. He's notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC
Comment This source [17] (already linked above) is most likely user generated and not sufficient as independent secondary coverage. However, this source [18] (already linked above) appears to be RS, at least at first glance. Are there any sources to indicate the subject has been inducted into the hall of fame? This source [19] in the Wikipedia article does not appear to cover Whitfield. I did a search with the source and found nothing so far. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first link in the second reference does not work (at least not for me). However, the second link in the second reference produced this [20]. This should be the active link in the references section. Based on this source it seems his contribution to this music genre' had an impact. Then I found this on the second link of the first reference [21]. Based on this source, it again seems his contribution to the music genre had an impact. Also, the links need to be fixed in this Wikipedia article. And the encyclopedia reference needs to be added. After that if someone wants to add the user generated link, then I don't think it would be a problem. So, after all this I am Ivoting Keep based on the three references I mentioned - besides the user-generated link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding AllMusic, artist bios are written by staff or guest contributors. They aren't user-generated. In this case, Charlotte Dillon was the author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guest contributors would seem to indicate (to me) it could be user generated. And I don't know what kind of vetting the staff is subjected to regarding accuracy. I guess it can be said there is a divided opinion at this AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6:. OK. I stand corrected. Thanks very much for taking the time. You are correct that I didn't know AllMusic is held in high regard on Wikipedia. You're correct that I was at the least misinformed. I'm interested in reading the articles discussions to which you have linked. Thanks again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A legally recognised settlement which can be verified in reliable sources. Hence, WP:GEOLAND applies. The nominator, RedBulbBlueBlood9911, is suggested to go through relevant notability policy of the subject before nominating the article for deletion. Thank you everybody for their civility. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No proof that this place is notable - only notable coverage was for a workers’ protest at a power plant in this town RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a town of 20,000 is clearly notable per WP:GEOLAND. Additionally, there may be coverage in Hindi or other Indian languages that an English-language google search won't reveal. CJK09 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication he was ever in a notable work. We have far, far too many articles on actors, actresses and films that have IMDb as their only source. In some cases you go to a film article that is only sourced to IMDb and find several of the cast members only have IMDb as a source, or you go to a bio on an actor or actress only sorced to IMDb and find that much of their filmography is only sourced to IMDb as well. The only thing worse than that is when the cast links go to people who are not actors at all. The practice of creating huge numbers of links that when created go no where is one cause of this problem, but so is not making sure each link created goes to the intended place. In the 200s we had too many article creators who emphasized quantity over quality and we are still suffering the consequences. End all articles like Barahir.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, this is a clear delete unless any significant Filipino sources are presented, as there is nothing substantial I could find in English, nor were his roles notable either. PK650 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also encourage anyone who can access Filipino sources to chime in. The subject has an extensive filmography—you'd think there would be some coverage somewhere. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anatomical_terms_of_location#Cranial_and_caudal, where the term is discussed. I think the nom has a reasonable argument for why this should not be a DAB page, but the rationale for deletion is lacking. This is a well-known term in anatomy, and readers would be served better by a redirect to a section that defines and discusses the term than outright deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking: that's a good idea, thank you. The reason I hadn't proposed a redirect target was to avoid inhibiting Search, but your suggestion is a good one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity autobiography of a non-notable DJ. There is also a big conflict of interest, with the subject himself adding to his own autobiography. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC). Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~~~
Its nice to meet you. I highly encourage your vigilance to make the experiance great for everyone. So here is my reply to clear your doubts.
This page is not abouta singer, REICK is a DJ and an Electronic Music Producer who has collaborations internationally with artists having 3 grammy nominations for the same and REICK himself was in trending charts in countries like Mexico, Italy etc for his songs. The reason this page should exist is becausehis fans around the world wants it.
~~~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkoushik (talk • contribs)
Delete - As noted by the nominator, the article was created by the DJ himself as Djkoushik, and he also supplied the Keep vote above (real name is Koushik Mukherjee). This DJ is completely in self-promotional mode right now. Under both his real name and "REICK" all that can be found are basic industry listings at sites where DJs sell their services, and various blurbs at unreliable promotional sites that allow artists to list themselves. He claims to have charted at Beatport but that site does not confirm the statement, and even so, Beatport is unreliable per WP:BADCHARTS. Delete per WP:PROMOTION. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doomsdayer520 covered most of the things I was going to say. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~~~ I am not sure about management correcting articles in considered legal in here or not. The details (some which I had also posted) can be vouched for / verified for as true with articles being provided on the same. This guy REICK's song has been placed on one of the biggest music tv channel around the world (info mentioned on page) and his songs has been trending on the biggest online streaming portal (info) on screen. -PartyShaker Entertainment— PartyShaker (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Djkoushik (talk • contribs). Sock !vote struck. — Berean Hunter(talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss - Hi so I'm the user djkoushik. I wouldnt discuss on keeping the page or not, i leave it on all it discuss / do it. I'd just like to clearr certain facts. The reason i responded in here firstly because the message was sent by the nominator himself Akhiljaxxn to respond to it.
Delete. Zero notability, blatant self-promotion. Given what I'm seeing already, this AFD is going to turn into a sock farm quickly. --Kinut/c 07:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete not notable enough to justify an article against the subject's wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem like he's done anything notable (in terms of wikipedia) in the last 10 years. A sentence or two on the contest page should suffice. Grk1011 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to override the request for deletion by the subject, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I would propose merging to Equal pay for equal work but there's not much to merge here. Duplicates an already existing article. Chess(talk) Ping when replying 06:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, while worded awkwardly, this would work as a reasonable redirect over to the aforementioned other page. The contents of this article as of now appear, as stated above, to be simply a rehash. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without redirecting. Stop gerund misuse, or is that stop gerund misusing? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirection is not necessary. "Equal Paying for Equal Working" is not used in sources. --MarioGom (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion. Googling with ""stereotype space" -Akbarov" yields essentially no work on this notion. There is [22] which has an entry on "stereotype space" but the source of this book seems to be the Wikipedia article topological vector space. *Mathematically*, the notion looks interesting and so it should be ok to have some discussion of this notion elsewhere in Wikipedia if the sources can be acquired, perhaps without the term "stereotype space". Another option is to move the article to nlab where the notability requirement is less stringent. -- Taku (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technical discussion between the nominator and two opponents to deletion
The reference to the article by Aristov is given in the list of references:
The author uses the term "stereotype algebra" at page 1061. The other sources either use this term, or the term "stereotype space", or mention research in this area. What is the problem? Eozhik (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, as I told at the talk page, there are several secondary sources, including the ones that use the word "stereotype", and the ones that don't. Formally, there is even a tertiary source, a textbook that mentions this research. All these sources are listed in this article, so there is no necessity to google them. That is why your claim
I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion.
No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, from what you write I deduce that you don't read the sources. I foresee that the example of my co-author, Evgenii Shavgulidze, who studies the properties of the stereotype spaces together with me
— will not persuade you. On the other hand, as we understood, Oleg Aristov, who developed my results on holomorphic duality by studying the stereotype algebra of holomorphic functions of exponential type
— is not interesting for you, because google doesn't suggest you this reading. What about Yulia Kuznetsova, who proved important continuous version of Pontryagin duality for Moore groups
— will this example be suitable? (The term "stereotype space" is contained in the list of keywords of her article.) Or maybe people from Spain and from USA, who study this class of spaces (with another name, but with mentionings of the term "stereotype")
Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
? In these works stereotype spaces are not just mentioned, they are studied. And what about this
The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*.
? The authors study these spaces not because of "its own", but because they play important role in solving another problem, the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups. Which exists independently on my works. Eozhik (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And people do not only study these spaces, they suggest concrete solutions of this problem for different classes of groups. Eozhik (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. It does not follow that one particular solution is notable on its own. Wikipedia is not a place to present a solution (unless that solution becomes notable on its own). —- Taku (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant here:
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.
? This needs a translation. Which "problems of duality" do you mean here, TakuyaMurata? Eozhik (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics.
— then your reproach becomes even more vague. Because the theory of stereotype spaces suggests a solution of this problem. On the other hand it becomes unclear which nuances do you see between what you say now and what you told before:
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.
? If you say that a duality theory "for groups or others" will be notable, then why aren't the stereotype dualities for them notable? Eozhik (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you take these criteria of notability? Eozhik (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is not inherited; it is possible that some problem is notable while a solution to it is not necessary notable. The sources provided only show that there is a sufficient math literature on the problem of constructing duality theories that extends the Pontryagin duality (thus the problem is notable). They do not establish the notability for stereotype spaces since, aside from your papers, the primary sources, the secondary sources do not give an in-depth treatment of stereotype spaces. Some of theori results may be interpreted in the language of stereotype spaces but that does not make the theory of stereotype spaces notable on its own. —- Taku (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata that is not enough. You should present a very sophisticated logical construction to persuade the interlocutor that the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not notable. I would suggest you to send protests to the editorial boards, and after receiving responses to publish them here. And you should find a rule in Wikipedia, that allows you to delete this article. Eozhik (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something appeared in a math journal doesn’t make it notable from the view of Wikipedia. That something has to have a strong presence in math literature; i.e, there is a sizable group of researchers studying it for an extended time period. Just like not every single actor who had a role in a movie is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —- Taku (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until now, I have not seen anyone here except the initiator of this discussion. And I want to say a few words to those who have not yet formed their opinions.
TakuyaMurata, so your point is that a Wikipedia article must describe only what is written in textbooks, right? Eozhik (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Textbooks or some major monographs... -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not yet found confirmation of this thesis. The links that TakuyaMurata gave to me don't contain it. I will listen with interest to the (promised) opinions of people about this, but no matter what I hear, I want to notice that what is happening is not called honesty:
1. If this important rule is really accepted in Wikipedia, it should be clearly spelled out in the local laws so that situations are not provoked when a person, not knowing about anything like this, spends time writing an article, editing it, searching for sources and the rest, and suddenly discovers that all his work has been thrown into the bin. This is a very important rule, fundamental to such resources, and if it really works here, then the situation when somebody refers to it, despite the fact that it is not written anywhere, is called a dishonesty.
2. On the contrary, if this rule is not accepted on Wikipedia (which is logical to think when it is not visible anywhere), then a reference to it looks like a cheating.
Ladies and gentlemen, you should deal with your laws, because this situation is a disorder. Eozhik (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-the concept is cited in this paper:[23]. I think the concern was that the author of the papers was a crackpot or crank. If this concern was true, you wouldn't see a paper of his being cited by others in reputable literature.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That one of the main references has been cited once by a different paper, which itself has only ever been cited once (by its own author), is not a very strong reason to keep a WP article. — MarkH21talk 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not the nomination reason; I am not saying what he does isn’t a valid mathematics research. But that’s not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” All we have is the significant works on the stereotype spaces by User:Eozhik, Sergei Akbarov, himself. We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [24] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. For the notion to be notable, at minimum, we need to know other researches use the term ”stereotype space” in their own works independent of User:Eozhik. —- Taku (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [25] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works.
— is solipsism. Let us bet? If I find an article (in a peer-reviewed journal) where the author (other than me) explicitely uses the term "stereotype space" or "stereotype algebra", you pay me, say, $ 100. If not, I pay you this amount. Agree? Eozhik (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: this will be a work in the list of references of the discussed article. Eozhik (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, I should have said: we have not been presented a paper that (1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts. To repeat, what we need is an evidence that there is a sizable group of researches who study stereotype spaces *per se* for an extended period of time. The papers by authors other than you that are cited in the article are, as far as I can tell, about duality theory. They *only* establish the notability of the problem of duality but not of stereotype spaces per se. -- Taku (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, the problem with you is that you do not want to be responsible for your words. What about the bet? Eozhik (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to bet or supply the evidence of absence. All I'm saying is there is the absence of evidence that stereotype space is something widely studied in the math community. Without such evidence, we cannot have the article. -- Taku (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When a person is ready to be responsible for his words, there is no problem for him to bet. See how frivolous you are? Eozhik (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is a reference that discusses stereotype spaces *in depth* by authors other than you. Is there any? E.g., some paper whose title includes the term “stereotype space”.
We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
When I pointed out that these references are already given, you changed your claims like this:
No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [4] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works.
So this brought us back to the beginning. When I suggested to bet, you changed your claims like this:
(1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts.
Since no one of these requirements is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia, I would say, there is a big problem here. Eozhik (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would anybody help me to name this problem? Eozhik (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was vague about what type of references I am asking for. In fact, I don’t really care about the types of references. Any reference will do if it establishes the notability of stereotype spaces. What I have been doing is explaining why the references you provide fail to establish the notability from the view of Wikipedia, and the notability is a requirement: I have already quoted Wikipedia:Notability. —- Taku (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Taku, do you accept the citation I linked to in my previous post? If one were to find two more of a similar nature that would count in your opinion as meeting GNG?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: In my opinion, those references do not do; as far as I can tell, those non-primary sources only refer to or use the works of User:Eozhik. So, we know his research works are legitimate but it does not mean his work is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Anyone can publish a paper introducing a new concept and if the work is good gets a citation. That does not mean we can have a Wikipedia article on topic. we need evidence that this topic is something studied by a sizable group of researchers; e.g.. as I said, the simplest evidence of this would be any paper other than User:Eozhik that uses the term “stereotype space” in title or abstract. (By the way, I don’t think GNG covers a math topic; so the part of difficulty is a lack of the guidelines.) —- Taku (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is my interpretation of the notability requirement but for a math topic to be covered in Wikipedia, we need to see some evidence of significance. In Wikipedia, we cannot have an article on every single actor or every single album just because they are legitimate actors or albums. Likewise, for a math topic, we need some evidence of significance; which can be in any form; e.g., there are a number of papers denoted to the topic, there has been a workshop devoted to the topic, chapters in a textbook on the topic, etc. —- Taku (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, now it’s not enough for other authors to use this term, it’s not enough for them to prove statements in which this term is used, it is not enough for these statements to solve significant problems of mathematics. Now it is necessary for this term to be directly mentioned in the title or in the abstract of the articles that don't belong to me. The rest does not count. The content of the papers, the importance of the results, the usage of the term inside the paper, the keywords, — these details are no longer important.
Gentlemen, this continuous moving of the border of requirements looks indecent. Why the border should now lie here, and not a few centimeters to the left or to the right — is a mystery, and the end of this is not seen. And this style of accusations in itself poses a certain moral problem:
“I don’t understand what is written here, but it doesn’t matter, because for me it’s customary to simply blame the author for various absurd things, and when he makes excuses, his weak point is usually revealed, and this allows me to declare him a loser. And there is no discomfort in the fact that my accusations are absurd and self-contradictory because the goal is more important than the form: even if the weaknesses are not revealed, he will lose because I set the rules of the duel and I can change them as I want.”
So I want to ask, is there a person here who could formulate the claims without deception? It would be fine if he could demonstrate responsibility for his words and have an idea of the encyclopedic traditions and the boundaries of the rational. Eozhik (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taku, I have similar reservations about the use of the "General Notability" guidelines with respect to not only math, but also niche scientific topics. The basic problem is that WP already skews towards what might be called "pop sci" type science coverage. Ostensibly the GNG requirement will help us keep out the cranks and crackpots-- but unfortunately the sensation they generate often makes them notable enough for an article, though it be critical of their theories. As a result I think it would be best to use a stricter interpretation of GNG against anything that is considered crank / crackpot territory outside of WP. For scientific and mathematical concepts not associated with cranks / crackpots, being cited or employed by three different authors in peer-reviewed journals should be enough to meet GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: I have never had a crank / crackpot concern; I am 100% certain that his work is a legitimate mathematical research. The question here is how much mathematical research topics Wikipedia should cover as standalone articles and the GNG is quite irrelevant to such a question. My view is that for a math topic to be covered, it needs to be more than one person's work (with some exception, like when the work is cited hundreds times); i.e., it's something studied by a math community. We have not been presented evidence of that. Here is an AfD quite similar to this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; legitimacy is often not enough. In any case, I think my position is clear; now, we really need opinions from other editors (in addition to yours). -- Taku (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it has to be cited hundreds of times instead of three? Few people get their papers cited that much, especially in math. We don't treat animal and plant species with this! It only needs to be an accepted name by the scientific community. Why can't we treat math concepts like we do organisms?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: No, no, I was taking about an exception. My point was that a math research topic needs to be more than one person's work to be covered in Wikipedia; it needs to be studied by a sufficiently large group of mathematicians. Again the simplest evidence of such would be; there has been some workshop on the topic or a discussion on the topic in a textbook. Also, I do not believe the "stereotype space" is an "accepted name by the scientific community"; because often in abstracts or titles, you see terms like locally convex algebra and such, instead of "stereotype space". Presumably this is because "stereotype space" is not a commonly understood term. In mathematics, anyone can publish a paper introducing a new name and it might get cited; that does not mean that new name is commonly accepted. Workshops, textbooks, monographs, etc. are needed to determine some concept is now firmly part of the mathematical canon (cf. WP:NEOLOGISM) Also, again please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; in this case, we do have a paper on the subject other than the originator of the topic and there is an (upcoming) textbook on the topic. So in that case, we do have evidence of significance of the topic. For "stereotype space" to be notable from the view of Wikipedia, we also need to see a similar kind of evidence. -- Taku (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: no, there are no special standards for mathematics. Everything is the same everywhere. As I wrote here, in the Soviet Mathematical Encyclopedia of 1977-1985 there are many articles without references to textbooks. It was translated later in Springer and is available now under the name “Encyclopedia of Mathematics”. The (random) examples are the following:
All these requirements about textbooks, terms in titles, in annotations, etc. are exclusively figments of the imagination of our interlocutor. They neither follow from the local rules of Wikipedia, nor from the encyclopedic traditions. Eozhik (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taku, could you provide us list of either synonyms or broader and inclusive terms and phrases for stereotype space? "locally convex algebra" is one. After you do this, Eozhik, I think it would be good to evaluate them and whether you agree with Taku's judgement.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there are many synonyms for stereotype spaces (locally convex algebra isn’t a synonym but a related term); they are a special case of a topological vector space. So, it’s fine to mention the term “stereotype space” in that article. But the question here is whether there are enough literature on the subject to justify a standalone article in Wikipedia; by literature, I mean the works other than by Eozhik. His works are indeed extensive but we need works by other people so that we know the topic is something studied by a math community not by an individual. —- Taku (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: in fact, this term has synonyms. Probably, the most authoritative source is the book by G. Köthe, "Topological Vector Spaces", Vol. I, where these spaces are called “polar reflexive spaces” (§ 23.9, p.308). Apparently, I should have mentioned this in the article, but I forgot about it because, according to my observations, mathematicians did not form a general opinion as to which term is more convenient, some do not use any term at all, and in addition, this class has been opened and reopened many times. M.F.Smith in her pioneering work did not name these spaces in any way, she simply described the topology on the dual space X * and proved that X = X ** (and the topology she introduced was formally different from the topology of uniform convergence on totally bounded sets, but the results on Banach and reflexive spaces follow from her constructions). Same thing with W.C.Waterhouse. B.S.Brudovsky called these spaces "c-reflexive space" (as far as I remember), and K.Brauner calls them “p-reflexive spaces”. F. Garibay Bonales, F.J. Trigos-Arrieta, R. Vera Mendoza, S. Hernandez call them polar-reflexive spaces following Kothe. In Russia, these spaces are usually called "stereotype". Eozhik (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list a variety of such Russian sources here?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, if we don't count my own papers and the papers of my co-author, then the list will be the following:
In three of these papers the stereotype spaces are not studied "in itself", the authors apply them to an old problem, the problem of constructing duality theory for non-commutative groups. And they receive important and very unexpected results: they construct duality theories for different classes of groups without the shortcomings of the other theories, as it is explained here and here:
One of the drawbacks of these general theories, however, is that in them the objects generalizing the concept of group are not Hopf algebras in the usual algebraic sense.[1] This deficiency can be corrected (for some classes of groups) within the framework of duality theories constructed on the basis of the notion of envelope of topological algebra.[1][2]
I think it is worth noting that this area, topological vector spaces, is currently not as popular as in the 60s and 70s, for this reason now quite a few people are engaged in it. In particular, conferences on this science are not being held now (and that is why there are no workshops). After the well-known events in Russia I know only several people here who are interested in these things. I believe, however, that this doesn't mean that these people must be treated as madmen. Eozhik (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order to demonstrate notability under the GNG rule, you would need to show examples of the use of the term from the papers, and it would probably have to be employed more than once. (And please translate for us, too.) This is because term "stereotype" is not evident from the titles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, I don't understand. Does this mean that people don't look inside the articles? I can give pictures if this is necessary.
For a pdf, no they probably don't, unless you provide a phrase for them to search. For Google Books, it often highlights the phrase for you which is nice. I've never seen pictures in a deletion discussion before. If they don't get deleted, this is great and I think it will prove your point better than anything you've written so far.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, what were we talking about all this time, if it turns out that people don't look inside the references that give to each other? If this is important the procedure must be formalized by indicating that the author of the article is obliged to give scanned pictures that confirm references. Eozhik (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also because "mathematicians did not form a general opinion as to which term is more convenient, some do not use any term at all, and in addition, this class has been opened and reopened many times". This quote by the main opponent to deletion shows clearly that the term "stereotype space" is not notable by itself. The notability of the associated concept (topological space that is isomorphic to its bidual) is less clear. The defining property is evidently interesting for everybody who works on topological spaces. So, Topological vector space could have section on this subject, and all names that have been given to this property could be redirected there. For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here), or it should have been useful outside the strict study of the concept. No evidence has been given that this is the case here. Therefore I support deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, Could you work at adding a section to Topological vector space, even now? In particular, the stereotype space article has more equations than the topological vector space article, and appears to be more developed. Can you bring topological vector space to a similar, or even better level?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, being "useful outside the strict study of the concept" means the use by others than the inventor of the concept, or the solution of a problem that has been set before the invention of the concept. In the section on applications, I see only generalizations and reference to works by the inventor of the concept and his frends, not the solution of pre-existing problems. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard: constructing duality theories for non-commutative groups is a pre-existing problem. And this problem is far from a final solution. That is why the "inventor and his friends" find support from colleagues abroad (and publish their results in reliable journals). Eozhik (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY say Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. As this article is based only on primary sources, this is sufficient for deleting it, without examining its notability. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources in the article as well. Eozhik (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to Reflexive space#Other types of reflexivity: Per the arguments made by Taku and D.Lazard, this is not a term widely-used by independent secondary sources to the point that WP:GNG is not met and WP:NEOLOGISM can apply.Once could argue for a merge to topological vector space, the greater class of objects for which there is substantial secondary sources and standard terminology, but very little content in this article should be merged there on the basis of WP:DUE. — MarkH21talk 01:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC); changed to redirect 03:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 this sounds as if there was a controversy between people who prefer to use the term "stereotype" and those who use other terms. There is no such a controversy: people use differenct terms, and this is normal for mathematics. For example, some people use the term linear mapping while others linear operator, and there are no misunderstandings between them. Similarly people use different notations. Eozhik (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about there being a controversy. There just needs to be evidence that the term is widely used. In the evidence that you provided (currently in image form), I see four total articles that mention the term. But one of them has you as a co-author and one of them only says that Akbarov calls them stereotype spaces. That's not really evidence that many people use the term. For linear mapping and linear operator, we can easily find thousands of different independent sources that use each term. — MarkH21talk 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, it’s not my fault that Wikipedia has no rule regulating how many references there should be. And it’s not my fault that when I posted this article 7 years ago nobody warned me. This is what I am talking about here. If these details were indicated in the rules, this would save everyone present from unnecessary waste of time. Eozhik (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, MarkH21, there is still a possibility to edit this article by adding there the term "polar reflexive space" from G.Köthe's book. The relations between these two terms are the same as between linear map and linear operator. This would resolve this local problem, although, of course, the global one (concerning the rules) will remain actual. Eozhik (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines are intentionally vague so that we may rely on editor consensus instead of rigid numerical rules. If we had "more than 10 independent secondary sources use the term", for instance, what if there were 9 Annals papers from 9 different renowned mathematicians dedicated to the term and its theory and a Fields Medal awarded to someone for developing its theory? That's very different from 11 papers from two mathematicians publishing in an obscure journal that only briefly mention the term. Having rigid rules would prevent us from properly assessing the merits of a topic and would make WP overly inflexible. — MarkH21talk 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 is exactly correct here. As I wrote below, trying to invent numerical scales and thresholds is likely to create an illusion of precision rather than actual clarity. XOR'easter (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And by flexibility you mean the possibility to kill other people's work without any legitimate reason. And to advertise the work of the people that you liked, also without being bothering with formalities. I have an opposite opinion. There must be clear rules that allow people to play fair game independently of whether they are your friends or not, whether they live in Europe, America, Russia etc., whether they have enough money to publish their own journals or not. Those who have these money, have the possibility to advertise themselves without Wikipedia. Eozhik (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's assume a measure of good faith here. Nobody is out to "kill" anything. We're not trying to stop anyone from posting on the arXiv, or publishing in journals, or writing a textbook, or expanding the nLab's entry on stereotype spaces. We're not even objecting to having material about stereotype spaces in another article, like topological vector space. We're just trying to decide, honestly and as fairly as we can, whether having three whole dedicated articles — stereotype space, stereotype algebra, stereotype group algebra — is the right course of action. As MarkH21 explained, if the Wikipedia community relied upon numerical rules like "a topic must be mentioned in 10 different journal articles" or "a paper must be cited at least 15 times", then people could just game those rules, just like they already game their impact factor and h-index. Making the rules sound exact does not mean that people will play fair. We rely upon community discussion because we believe that building an encyclopedia is too important for metrics that are only superficially precise. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter I spent a lot of time for creating and editing these articles. When doing this I was sure that this is legitimate and nobody will destroy my work. Because this is in human culture that if something does not contradict the laws, it is legitimate. And these articles are important for us since they give us a possibility to explain to our colleagues what we are doing (there are not so many possibilities, you can trust me). Even nLab, although being a very good website, is not so good since there are technical problems with pictures there (as far as I know). You compare this with h-index and impact factor, but the difference is that to play those games people already should have a good support from their countries: the possibilities to publish their own journals, to visit conferences, etc. for being successful. A mathematician living in Russia, or in Georgia, or in Uzbekistan is not in the same conditions as the one who lives in USA (and who because of this can easily enter the necessary clubs). Of course, nobody of us will refuse to use arXiv or to publish our works in normal journals after this story. But what happens here is not fair. And this contadicts human understanding of decency. Even h-index and impact factor are more fair, since they are based on clear rules. Eozhik (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against merging this with other articles like topological vector space and topological algebra (although I foresee problems since these articles are only drafts). Another possibility, as I told already, is to add the term "polar reflexive" to the article with the references to Köthe and other authors. But what I definitely don't like is the idea to kill everything. On the base of suspicions. Eozhik (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's naturally disappointing if something that you have worked on is nominated for deletion, but the general notability guideline has always been clear (including in 2012) that the most basic metric is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's not really much of that in this case, with perhaps one(?) example in the Kuznetsova article. If there is a lot of coverage from Russian, Georgian, or Uzbek mathematicians (or journals), the outcome is the same as if the coverage is from American mathematicians; there's no difference here. The article deletion discussions on WP are quite fair and based on logical arguments. — MarkH21talk 16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 formally these requiremets are met. "More than a trivial mention", "reliable", "secondary sources", "independent of the subject", the only vague point is "presumed". The rules must be more clear. And your idea of "flexibility" is not convincing. Eozhik (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one reference (Kuznetsova) that can be considered significant coverage and independent, not multiple. Also, this "flexibility" isn't my idea; the guidelines were agreed upon via the consensus of many many WP editors over many years. — MarkH21talk 17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 what are you looking for? These spaces are studied by different authors. Some of them, like Smith, don't use any terms at all, some, like Brauner, use the term "p-reflexive", some, like Garibay Bonales, Trigos-Arrieta, Vera Mendoza, Hernandez, write "polar reflexive", some, like me, Kuznetsova, Aristov, Shavgulidze, use the term "stereotype". Some study algebras (stereotype or topological). There are mutual references. Are you speaking about generalizations of my own results? They are in the works by Aristov, Kuznetsova and Shavgulidze. Eozhik (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For multiple published papers not written by you or your co-authors that explicitly use the term stereotype ____ in-depth (i.e. not just Akbarov calls them "stereotype ____"). — MarkH21talk 21:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stylistically it would be good to add here: "...and not by people who are familiar with you". MarkH21 this is the situation when mathematicians in different countries use different terms. This often happens, I told this already when I gave the example of linear mapping and linear operator. As far as I understand, adding to the article another, equivalent term, "polar reflexive space", will not satisfy you, right? Eozhik (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merging this to Topological vector space or Reflexive space is more appropriate, although I see that the latter already has a section on this. I'm not sure whether "stereotype space" and "polar reflexive space" are collectively notable enough for an article, although even in that case one must determine a title based on WP:COMMONNAME, but that's a separate issue. — MarkH21talk 07:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not reading walls of text. Please give concise, policy-based reasons to delete or keep. The images added here look like copyvios; I've reported them at Commons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what happens and what to do with these pictures. Eozhik (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein that, except for really involved people, nobody want to read these walls of texts. Therefore, I have collapsed the long technical discussion that follows the nomination and does not contain clear policy-based arguments. Remains uncollapsed the nomination, the comments and !votes that are opened by a bolface header, and their answers.
In summary, so far, three editors support deletion, TakuyaMurata (the nominator), MarkH21 and D.Lazard (myself). Two editors are for keeping the article, Epiphyllumlover and Eozhik, the latter having a blatant WP:COI, being the author of the WP article and the author of its main references. D.Lazard (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein's comment is about the upload of copyrighted images. "Walls of text" is about the whole discussion that I have collapsed. By the way, this page is not for personal discussions between editors. So, I do not answer here to any personal question. D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, this is not a personal question, this concerns the rules of Wikipedia. If you write that your vote is based on this opinion
For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)
— while there is no rule that establishes the standards, it is natural that interlocutor asks you where you find these standards. Eozhik (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Eozhik could be due to language.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: Could be. But it is true that we cannot find a general reference work that gives the definition of a stereotype space. Of course, Google can miss some references, especially off-lines but so far we are not presented evidence that the notion has gained a general currency in the mathematics community. —- Taku (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Epiphyllumlover actually, all Russian mathematical journals (at least important ones) are translated into English, so there is no necessity to translate anything (thank god). Moreover, almost all recent papers are translated now by the authors and posted in arxiv.org. Most of the articles I refered to as well. That is why I have doubts that still (after removal those pictures) there is a necessity to give the quotations. As XOR'easter said,
I expect the people who participate in a deletion debate for a fairly abstruse mathematical topic to be conscientous and check into the available sources, even if it requires clicking a mouse button to expand a section of text.
(He meant clicking this Wikipedia page, but the difference is not too great, I believe.) The absense of this term in Encyclopedia of Mathematics is explained by the fact that after collapse of the Soviet Union (I am not its fan, but the problem exists) mathematics and mathematicians are not well-payed, and there is not enough money for publishing many mathematical books, including encyclopedias. Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community maintains lists of ongoing deletion debates organized by topic. Mathematics is one such topic; there are many others. These lists help editors who have an interest in a subject area to stay informed about when articles pertaining to that subject have been nominated for deletion. For example, I myself make fairly regular checks on the lists for mathematics, science, and biographies of scholars and academics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks XOR'easter for your response to Eozhik's question, my attitude is the more wikieditors involved in afds the better, hence why i add them to these lists:) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--the best evidence of notability (that is, the list of citations and the images) is now collapsed. This risks rendering the whole deletion discussion illegitimate and I expect that it could be overturned should Eozhik wish to pursue deletion review.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eozhik should just post quotes and links, not copyvio images. The removal of copyvio images isn’t a reason for DRV. — MarkH21talk 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The images are significantly worse for discussion purposes than simple quotations of text, not least because it's harder to tell how many of them come from the same source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody can read the collapsed part of the discussion by clicking on the button "show" on the right. D.Lazard (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you wouldn't like it if someone collapsed your best arguments. (But they tend not to read it and that is the point of collapsing.) And (directed to XOR'easter), the citations were collapsed too. Is the purpose of inexperience with the methods of this website to give a tactical advantage to an opposer? Or is it to learn? Do you expect the closer to enable this sort of thing?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the people who participate in a deletion debate for a fairly abstruse mathematical topic to be conscientous and check into the available sources, even if it requires clicking a mouse button to expand a section of text. And I expect those people to organize their thoughts sufficiently well that they can articulate a reason to keep or delete the article that is grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, providing an honest evaluation in terms that someone who does not specialize in the mathematics can still understand. I expect that mathematicians and scientists can do what I do and recognize that not every idea I have thought up and published necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia yet. I expect that scholars can appreciate how evaluating research work can be difficult, and that trying to invent numerical scales and thresholds is likely to create an illusion of precision rather than actual clarity. I expect that intellectuals can summon the emotional maturity not to treat a discussion about how to organize an encyclopedia like it is a battlefield. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the only statement I intended to direct you specifically was that the citations were collapsed too.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but no non-primary sources that are not already listed at stereotype spaces are presented at this discussion so far. So no key sources are hidden. —- Taku (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To find them go to "Technical discussion continued" and uncollapse it. The relevant part of the discussion can be found by doing a browser search for " Kuznetsova "--also see the screenshots slightly below the Kuznetsova and other citations.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: I think the key phrase was not already listed at stereotype spaces. The Kuznetsova and Hernández–Trigos-Arrieta sources are both referenced in the article already. The assumption is that anyone looking at this AfD would look at the reference list. — MarkH21talk 01:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Further) comment. Fondamentally, this article is about duality in topological vector spaces. There are a Groethendieck's master work and a Bourbaki's book on topological vector spaces. I have not read them, but I do not imagine that they do not study duality, since duality was fundamental for both authors. None is mentioned in this article, even in the history section. I suspect that many of the theorems that appear in the article can be found in these works, although they are all presented as found by Akbarov. Whether I am wrong or not is not important, as, in any case, the article is biased as not giving any indication of what is really new in Akbarov theory, and what has been discovered by previous authors. This makes the article purely self-promotional. D.Lazard (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many of the theorems that appear in the article can be found in these works, although they are all presented as found by Akbarov.
In such cases, it is considered necessary to provide evidence. And you can send protest to the journals where this is published. Eozhik (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was the term in use during the soviet era? Do you have any of these soviet era offline works laying around? If so, please cite them for us and give short quotes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, no, as far as I know, in Soviet Union people did not study this class of spaces. And the term "stereotype space" appeared in 90ies. But I don't understand this concern about the term. It is usual in mathematics that people suggest new terms. For example, the term quantum group appeared not long ago. I only heard it in 90ies. Outside of Russia these spaces were called "polar reflexive spaces". The book by Köthe was not translated into Russian, that is why it did not occur to anybody here to use this combination of words. And that is why it did not occur to me to mention this in the article. Eozhik (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have offline 90's era Russian sources using the term, could you cite them for us and give short quotes? Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the format of Eozhik's post for making understandable the change of paragraphs. I hope to not having changed the meaning.
Please, do not discuss other's posts, discuss the content of the article. For being clear, my point is firstly that there are important results on duality of topological vectors published by Grothendieck, Bourbaki, and other members of Bourbaki group ("important" is not my own opinion, as these result are a part of the motivation of Grothendieck's Field medal). Secondly, these results are not cited in the articles. Thirdly nothing is said in the article for distinguishing Akbarov own results from those that must be credited to others (the fact that Akbarov papers have been accepted by editors means that some results are new, not that they are all new). Thus the Wikipedia article does not follows the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). None of these points is addressed in Eozhik's answer. D.Lazard (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, it would be good if you would not edit my text. It is not yours. There is no intersection between the results listed in the article and Bourbaki's texts. This happens in mathematics. Eozhik (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that D.Lazard should not edit Eozhik's posts. I hope Eozhik will not be too distracted by this to answer my question about whether he has offline 90's era Russian sources using the term and if he could you cite them for us. To D.Lazard: If we do not delete the article, maybe it can be improved somewhere along the lines you suggest. I think there could be room for compromise.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, no, I don't know papers in Russian where this term is used (and which don't belong to our group). But you know, it seems to me you take what happens more serious than I do. This is not the end of the world. I just wanted to do what I can, and that is all. Eozhik (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) D.Lazard has a valid point that several of the results come from elsewhere, e.g. basically all of the Examples section. The claim that There is no intersection between the results listed in the article and Bourbaki's texts is dubious: Chapter IV of Bourbaki's Topological Vector Spaces has significant intersection, including several entire sections after section 3 which begins with: A locally convex space E is said to be reflexive if the canonical mapping cE from E into E" is a topological vector space isomorphism from E onto the strong dual of Eb~. Some of the example in this article are facts given in Bourbaki, e.g. Definition 4 - A locally convex Hausdorff and barrelled space in which every bounded subset is relatively compact is called a Montel space (i.e. X Montel if and only if X barrelled + Heine-Borel; for locally convex X), Proposition 9 - The strong dual of a Montel space is a Montel space. (i.e. X Montel if and only if X* Montel), or Corollary - The bidual of a locally convex metrizable space is a Frechet space. There's certainly unattributed overlap and dependence on earlier results. I don’t think that this isn a major concern in terms of the delete/keep discussion though, that’s moreso a cleanup point. — MarkH21talk 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious? In Bourbaki's book reflexive spaces are defined by tradition, i.e. as those for which the mapping is an isomorphism, where and are endowed with the strong topology (i.e. the topology of uniform convergence on bounded sets). And the results on duality are either about weak diality, or about strong duality. Not about the duality where the dual and the bidual spaces are endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on totally bounded sets. Which proposition in the article is contained in Bourbaki, MarkH21? Eozhik (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that some of the content, e.g. much of the "Examples" section, come directly from older sources like Bourbaki. Otherwise, you're claiming that it is entirely your original result that X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X* is a Montel stereotype space, or that X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X is a barrelled and Heine-Borel stereotype space. These examples are based on the works covered in Bourbaki. — MarkH21talk 08:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Montel spaces and their strong duals the topology of unform convergence on totally bounded sets coincides with the usual strong topology on X*, so this result becomes indeed trivial:
X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X* is a Montel stereotype space
I gave it for the completeness of the picture. And this is just a definition of Montel spaces:
X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X is a barrelled and Heine-Borel stereotype space
Maybe it should be omited. Each Montel space is stereotype, and this follows from its definition and from the fact that each quasicomplete and barreled space is stereotype. This statement belongs as far as I remember, to W.C.Waterhouse. I don't know, perhaps one should mention this in the article. Eozhik (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montel spaces are in addition reflexive in the usual sense. So the fact that they are stereotype follows from M.F.Smith's results. One can say that she is the author. I agree that this section could be filled with more references. Eozhik (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a lay person looking at the article it appears way too WP:TECHNICAL, belonging in a journal on mathematics, not an encyclopedia. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what people write here I see a reasonable reproach that this article reflects mostly the point of view of a group of specialists from one country, Russia. Formally all views must be represented, including other people's understanding of what these spaces must be called. To clear my conscience, and if no one objects, I will add the term "polar reflexive space" and a link to the Köthe book. Eozhik (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did this. MarkH21, if you are still seeking intersections with the results of Grothendieck, this is hopeless. There are no such intersections. Our general reproach to him is exactly that he did not pay attention to the results of M.F.Smith and others, and did not understand the importance of this class of spaces which simplifies everything. Eozhik (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Mathematics is a technical source, moreso than Wikipedia is supposed to be.I am not claiming that the results described in this article are due to Grothendieck, but just adding to D.Lazard's point some of the content here is based on older works not referenced here (see the comments above about the "Examples" section). As mentioned before though, it's really a cleanup issue and not the deletion argument so we shouldn't focus on it. — MarkH21talk 08:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! This article reveals so many ways to get around the difficulties of locally convex spaces! It is tremendously useful for anyone looking at the subject and wondering, "Is there a better way?" It garners interest in a subject that would otherwise be dead (topological vector space duality) by providing a fresh perspective. I never would have discovered it by looking at the journal articles. Isn't Wikipedia all about creating community around ideas? Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wham Bam Rock II (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Wham Bam Rock II, I think you should explain how you found out about this discussion because it's not good to look blankly at this picture. Even in absurdity, there must be a measure. Eozhik (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How else? I came to the page to look up some properties of stereotype spaces and saw that the article was about to be deleted! Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you want proof that I'm not canvassed, here's what turns up when I search "topological vector space" in my Math PDFs folder: Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, feel free to check my talk page. You'll see I've been a user since 2010. Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wham Bam Rock II, thank you and excuse me for what you see here. The owners of this club forgot to put a sign on the entrance: "Anyone entering here must be ready to play a role in our absurdist theater!" Eozhik (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of the AfD is a redirect, then we can discuss specific targets, I suppose. (I myself prefer deletion so a discussion like that is moot.) —- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, with a slight preference to Reflexive space#Other types of reflexivity as the target. I don't think the case has been made that we need an entire article on this topic, let alone three. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to ask people what is meant by monographs here? Eozhik (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The article lists ~20 non-inline references, not a single one however seems to use the article name it their title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this time this is a WP:BLP that cites only IMDB and no reliable sources. Deletion is therefore mandatory. The article can be recreated if better sources are cited. Sandstein 12:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable actor. Some hits but nothing I could find that would indicate notability. Currently sourced with just IMDB. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actresses. IMDb is not a reliable source. We really need to make "IMBD only source" grounds for speedy deletion that can only be overcome if one reliable source is added to the page. The article should never have survided the prod back in 2008. That some of her roles were characters that had names and spoke is no where near the threshold for determining a "significant" role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy deletion is a serious process that usually requires egregious misuse of the encyclopedia or obvious rule-breaking. This is why insufficient sources is not usually enough to go straight to speedy deletion with no cleanup or oversight. In my experience, there have been many pages sourced solely with IMDb that turned out to more than meet notability guidelines with a bit of searching. The reason we have AfD is to weed out the articles that can be improved from the ones that just have to be cut.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although it seems like there should be more coverage for such a prolific, if not starring, actpr, I only found a couple of sources, not enough to meet notability guidelines.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm tentatively voting "Weak Keep" while I wait for some sources to come back from WP:RX. I think the subject has just enough supporting roles in notable films plus a main role in Joanie Loves Chachi to make a weak case for WP:NACTOR, and I've also been able to ascertain (via newspapers.com) that she's had some main roles in plays. My vote is ultimately going to depend on the quality of the sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dflaw4. She played a leading character in a TV show that pops up often in trivia contests and memes, a show everyone loves to hate that wasn't that bad. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While tragic, his death does not automatically accord him notability per our standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:BIO. The only thing he seems notable for is dying from CV19; I can't find any coverage of him other than short obituaries. There are no articles during his lifetime to indicate he had done anything other than have a routine medical career. Spike 'em (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least a article can be notable from a death cause and the one of you saying no coverage of what he has done or whatever. It seems to me that you need to read all the sources from the article. I haven't seen or read any Guidelines or policies here in WP that implies article should be deleted through the commends of it title in sources because that's what make me thinks Spike 'em you're confused through the title of the article about his deaths but at all it's through it discussed his Biography and works he has done.
Note for the administrator: Please try check in the page edit history before taking any hard action. You can see many editors have put out what is needs, what is to fixed or changed and issues fixed. At least maintenance tags is OK . Respect (F5PILLAR--Let's talk) 06:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all of the sources on the article and they show me that the subject had a decent career as a medical doctor. I then searched for coverage of him that did not mention CV19 and found none. If be was truly notable then he would have received significant coverage during his life not just after it. As an aside, why does your signature link to another user? Spike 'em (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just copy his style of signature and forget to link with my user name, sorry for that, it's already fixed
Did you know that many article here in WP are notable after deaths and what am just conferring you is that atleast the page is covered through the deaths cause and if he isn't notable BBC and BenTV and other Newspaper wouldn't have noting to do with his career and biography after deaths just consider that Spike 'em. This man here is not a media likes person. (F5PILLAR--(Let's talk) 06:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
F5pillar, why do you repeatedly put words in bold? Also please don't make opinions about other editors, some people may attack — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doctors are notable and this may seems to be the time we know them, their work and may be appreciate them more.Em-mustaphaUser | talk 10:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M-Mustapha, I agree we should appreciate doctors more, but that isn't a valid reason to keep the article. It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 10:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject was only known for a single event (his death) and was not discussed in reliable sources prior to his death. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 15:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A doctor who dies of Covid 19 is notable and is a hero in this pandemic. Eschoryii (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think i over watch television discussing that he's a living legend medical direct in Essex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.12.65 (talk)
Comment. Unfortunately we don't have a hero inclusion policy here Eschoryii, he needs to either pass WP:GNG or the parent projects inclusion guidelines, which he doesn't. StickyWicket (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Asides their death I’m not seeing anything that satisfies our general notability guidelines.Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as coverage is WP:Routine, and therefore subject of the article is not notable and does not have independent sources. erctalk/contribs 15:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Jai49 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for actors. If we actually enforrced GNG on actor articles we might avoid making it to 1 million articles on living people this year. Considering that some editors fight tooth and nail against even considering deleting actor articles with not even one reliable source which should be speedy deleted under biography of living people criteria if no reliable source is added, I have my doubts we will see any progress against actor articles especially considering how many with one non-reliable source have sat in that condition for over a decade. There is hope for change, but not much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: The subject is an up-and-coming actor who has already had some significant roles in notable films, so I don't see much of a problem with WP:NACTOR. WP:GNG is the bigger issue here, with only one The Hindu article—although it does provide a fair amount of coverage. I realise I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but there seems a good chance that his notability profile will rise in the near future. However, not all editors will agree with my approach, and so I would also suggest "draftifying" the article as opposed to outright deleting it—especially as it is in good shape to be improved and worked upon. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and still too soon to create article about him. Ashishkafle (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the page being a mess visually, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The page is mainly sourced to liner notes and the musician's website. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the text was ripped from somewhere else. KidAd (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reliable source album review here so there could be more, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found three critical reviews (one, two, and three) of his music, all of them published by Expose (a newsletter). I'm not sure if Expose is a reliable source though. According to its About page, the newsletter has writers but do not mentioned them. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 16:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - He's not notable just because he looks like someone else, nor has he come anywhere close to any of the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN regarding reliable and significant coverage. Delete per WP:TOOSOON as a charitable conclusion; WP:PROMOTION is more to the point. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Carter (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no released music so far. If he does chart then he may qualify for an article in due course, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject for this article is not notable. It is about a rap artist who has yet to publish any music, making the artist fail both GNG, and also TOOSOON. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously deleted article with exclusively non-English sources. I believe some if not most of the biographical content here can be merged into Tally Solutions. Woerich(talk) 04:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not having English sources is not a basis for deletion. In any case another editor has helpfully added three English languages sources, if that helps some people. Winners of the Padma Shri are clearly notable so I think this subject is fine as a stub for the time being and no merger is needed. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Mccapra. I am genuinely curious and trying to learn, so please don’t think I’m hounding you... it just seems/feels to me that there should be a requirement for English language sources in an English language encyclopedia, but I can accept that I’m wrong in that assumption. I do see the new sources that were added. Thanks for pointing that out. Woerich(talk) 05:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well one of our principles is verifiability, but we allow references to rare books in collections that don’t have general public access and don’t have a link to a Google book. We don’t omit these because if we did, we would lose a substantial body of knowledge. Another of our principles is that we want to be the sum of all human knowledge, not just the sum of things already written about in English. We prefer English languages sources of the right quality because they’re easier for a reader to verify, but most languages can be google translated well enough to allow us to establish whether they support the point they’re referencing in an article. If not we can ask other editors who are native speakers of that language to verify them for us. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and revised the text. The subject passes WP:GNG. Pinging Mccapra and Woerich - As a native Hindi speaker, I can confirm the sources added by the page creator does mention the subject winning the Padma Shri. I have added more English references and revised the whole text. Maybe the AFD should be withdrawn?! Csgir (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct website that has now been sold to a payday loan service. I checked the website's own claimed news coverage, and could not find evidence that any of the news articles actually exist. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An obscure website without proper reliable source coverage that no longer exists. 11:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)
Going to add that merely being mentioned in passing wouldn't be enough if we had that. We'd need enough material to actually build a proper page out of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of any notability. All refs read like press releases, blogs or paid for advertorials. Nothing that gets close to RS. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 04:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I'll self-delete, I can see your point. Was reading a lot of her articles lately. Nominating for speedy now. Isingness (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn - article speedily deleted at author's request. VelellaVelella Talk 04:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Surely the article isn't being nominated for deletion because it happens to be about a psychoanalytic concept? Obviously that would not be a proper basis for deleting it. Anal eroticism as a psychoanalytic concept is not identical with either anal masturbation or anal sex. According to Charles Rycroft in A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, "anal eroticism" refers to "sensuous pleasure derived from anal sensations"; clearly that is much broader than simply masturbation or sex. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Freeknowledgecreator above, it is sufficiently distinct from Anal masturbation and Anal sex to warrant its own article. --John B123 (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merely being about psychoanalysis is not the problem; failing MEDRS/MEDDATE and being a POV fork are. And even in non-medical topics (which this is not), WP:RS AGE applies. And some of the problem sources, like Kinsey and Comfort, are not psychoanalysis, but are still bad because they are too old. Crossroads-talk- 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I have not supported "keep" yet - my comment above is just a comment. But I am certainly not persuaded yet that there is a convincing case for deleting the article, and I'm not sure why anyone else would be either. It's fine to cite policies and guidelines, but not terribly helpful to cite them without explaining clearly how they support deleting the article. So far that is all I see here - mentioning of various guidelines or policies ("failing MEDRS/MEDDATE and being a POV fork") absent a substantive case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussions in sources date back to Freud at least. The mental aspect of eroticism is distinct from the mechanical aspects of sex and masturbation.--Eostrix (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about a specific concept that happens to be (partially) related with another is not necessarily a POV fork. A concept being old is not a reason for deletion either, as the concept is still discussed in the academia today (per quick JSTOR search). Even a concept itself being "wrong" is not a reason for deletion. --MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not initially support keep, but I am supporting keep now, as the nominator has not presented a satisfactory case for deletion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing sufficient independent notability to have a separate article on the subject; and neither his Ladybird spoofs nor the other works appear to have attracted substantial written attention. Should be redirected to Ben & Jason, where both members receive appropriate short coverage.
See also Joel Morris, the other half of the duo, and Bollocks to Alton Towers, a book they co-authored; both of which are also up for AfD. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number of sources to show notability have doubled this week, this writer has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bollocks to Alton Towers, but leaning to keep based on the sources added by Hildreth gazzard and a few I'm adding here shortly. To whit, here does seem to be a growing amount of press about this topic, but it's merged with two others fairly equally: the book Bollocks to Alton Towers and writing partner Joel Morris. 172.119.187.94 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Joel Morris to Jason Hazeley and Joel Morris for a single article about their writing and comedy work together, to match other writing duo articles like Esmonde and Larbey where a pair of writers work almost exclusively together, and sources always interview them as such. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into a "team" article would seem like a good solution - also avoids duplication of what shared material there is on these two. Would suggest keeping the book separate, based on the reviews that have been found now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NALBUM; no media coverage or articles about the subject. lullabying (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album just doesn't appear to be notable at all. I'd like to make a detailed argument here, but really that's it. Not notable. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 04:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a good definition of what "remote companies" actually are (we don't have an article on it either), making this a list without clear inclusion criteria. Is it a company without headquarters (like some companies here), or companies with "a lot" of teleworkers (but which percentage?), or something else? Many, many companies have some teleworkers, some remote aspects, this is rather standard nowadays (and certainly now). Is Uber a remote company? It isn't teleworking, but it is a company where most employees never see a building owned by the company or meet their bosses. Fram (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the criteria for inclusion is that all of its employees must be working remotely (not partial remote workforce). This list includes only such companies that have 100% remote employees. Störm(talk) 16:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the evidence that this is true for these companies is...? e.g. SUSE: [26]? I would expect companies matching your definition to lack headquarters, only having an official address (for legal reasons) without any actual presence there. In any case, we don't have an article on the concept as you describe it, which seems a rather arbitrary and hard to verify one to use as a list inclusion definition (I notice companies self-identifying as "remote companies", but that's not really sufficient I think). Fram (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without remote company existing as more than a redirect to this list, it's hard to tell what should be included in this or whether it's WP:OR. Unclear if this is actually a substantive or notable concept. Note that article creator has also created Category:Remote companies, so that should probably be nominated at CFD as well. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, and is impossible to maintain due to having scant documentation and sources about what constitutes a company with a 100% remote workforce. The inclusion criteria aren't clear at all. For example, GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which is definitely not remote, and GitHub itself has a headquarters. Where do you draw the line? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "remote companies" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
"according to FlexJobs, a job-search site whose workforce is fully remote."
"But putting the entire office in the cloud takes some getting used to. Zapier, a Web-services company with a San Francisco mailing address and 250 employees scattered around the globe, including several in Boston, faced skepticism when it started raising funds in 2012."
"The cloud services provider Egenera recently moved its engineering team out of its Boxborough office and made its workforce 100 percent remote."
"When Kate Criniti, the Lexington-based chief legal officer for the all-remote health care technology company Redox, visits her mother in Connecticut, the only co-workers who notice are the ones she video-conferences with regularly."
"Robert Glazer, the Needham-based founder and chief executive of the marketing agency Acceleration Partners, is careful about hiring “raging extrovert” types who say they work better around other people. Most of his 160 employees are located within an hour of one of 10 hub cities to make it easier to gather employees together — though there are no offices."
"said Becca Van Nederynen, head of people operations at Help Scout, a fully remote software company founded in Boston that pairs up employees for “intentional water cooler talk” via video calls."
"Each Whodunit worker — they are 10, soon to be 15 — logs in from home."
"A pioneer in this area is the website development company Wordpress, which closed its head office in San Francisco in 2017 and converted all of its employees to teleworking."
"In the full-remote galaxy, some companies have never owned any office, even at first. BoondManager is one of them."
Among the perks mentioned by these companies, the easiness of recruiting, the savings in rent, the possibility to grow fast. O'Clock, a "wall-less" web developing school has gone from four collaborators to 46 in just two years."
When people seek out GitLab’s address, they wind up at a UPS store in downtown San Francisco where it has a mailbox. ... GitLab ranks among the largest all-remote companies in the world. ... Other all-remote companies with more than 500 workers cited by Murph — all in the tech sector — include WordPress developer Automattic, talent network Toptal, software maker Elastic, digital product-design company InVision and app-automation maker Zapier.
Here are three companies that have taken remote working a step further. In contrast to IBM’s no work from home mandate, Buffer, Zapier, and GitLab have a 100% remote workforce.
"Social media management company Buffer shut its San Francisco office in 2015 after finding its rent cost more than marketing, advertising or health insurance."
"'We just pay for a virtual office which provides an address, a mailbox and someone to answer the phone. If we need offices we hire them by the hour,' Andy Clark, managing director of Commerceworks, tells Techworld."
"Trust is a crucial element to making an 'office-less' company work, according to Zapier cofounder and CTO Bryan Helmig, who has worked with a fully remote team since launching the firm in 2011."
The article previously had 0 sources. It now has 15 sources.
The article previously did not have a clear definition of "remote companies". I provided a clear definition of what "remote company" by writing, "Fully remote companies are companies that do not have a physical office where employees work and may have a mailbox as their headquarter. Their workers have the option of either telecommuting or working from somewhere else. Many fully remote companies employ workers in numerous timezones."
Pinging Otr500 (talk·contribs) who wrote, "At this point it would seem a WP:Hey or WP:SAVE would be required. Short of this I am leaning towards "Delete", so ping me if any improvements result."
Keep: Per ping, article issues were addressed. Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: you have now written an article on "remote companies", which includes a very basic list: this basically shows that the original list had poor or no inclusion criteria, with multiple entries not even included any more. It would have been more logical to simply create the articleRemote company with the current contents, and delete and redirect the poor list. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- excellent work from Cunard, should have been done by me. Störm(talk) 19:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice one Cunard, good work at spotting how to fix this article and going ahead and fixing it. HighKing++ 14:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard analysis. There are enough reliable sources to cover the topic. If you pay attention to the topic, you'll notice that remote companies usually refer to fully or partially distributed teams with work from home employees. It applies to companies that would otherwise have offices. Obviously it does not apply to construction companies, for example. Working on the field is not the same as working from home. --MarioGom (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trivial mentions are not significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable actor with only minor roles and no evidence of coverage from substantial secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No References Found,Only blogs and random websites states he's an actor! twerk000] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are still trying to correct the mistakes of 13 years ago. An article sourced to just IMDb should not be surviving 13 minutes, let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most if not all of his roles were no where close to being significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR with mainly minor roles. There is a bit of coverage for his role in Jack Frost but not enough for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have located some sources on newspapers.com and have applied to have them clipped. I will post them here as soon as I can. They demonstrate that the subject has, at the very least, received some level of coverage over the years, mainly for his starring role in a play, The Dock Brief. In addition to that role, he had a main role in Jack Frost (1997 film), supporting roles in several films, and lots of television appearances. The problem with character actors is that they don't usually have long-running roles, but I think there is enough here to pass WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately in my view there's not enough coverage for WP:GNG, and his film role was a direct to video effort so the play is really his only good role, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can request more sources, Atlantic306, because there are many more, since the play had about four separate runs. If you think that might change your mind vis-à-vis WP:GNG, I'll certainly do that. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He also had a supporting role in Jinxed!. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable awards ceremony. It's had a sourcing banner on it since 2010 that never got dealt with and a WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything. Maybe it could be merged into GMA Dove Award, but there isn't anything to merge. Since the article is essentially devoid of content. Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the ceremony here is not related to the use references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Walter Görlitz:, What's the notability related to then? There isn't currently any solid guidelines about the notability of ceremonies or awards from my understanding. So it goes to the WP:GNG guidelines. Which requires the use of references. Otherwise, any ceremony or award would be notable by default, no matter how mundane it might be. I'm not even saying the ceremony itself isn't notability anyway, I'm just saying this particular article about it isn't. Those are two different things. If there's going to be a spin off article of a subject it has to be justified. An essentially blank page isn't. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the BEFORE you did, was that through print publications from 1982, because that's where you're going to find the publicity for this particular event? All detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (events). It's disingenuous of you to suggest anything else was thorough. I'm expecting a thorough review of CCM Magazine back-issues, Campus Life, Cornerstone and other publications that would have covered this. I suspect you did a simple Google search. As for what's the notability, it was in the press at the time but I don't have access to the sources. The awards that were distributed that night are are detailed at the Dove Awards past winners page and this page, the latter is not a RS though, but suspect it could be used for the nominations alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's disingenuous is voting keep because supposedly the existence of sources don't matter to notability, and then berating another user about how thoroughly they searched for sources you claim aren't important. Do the existence of sources matter or don't they? Also, plenty of articles about historical events (if that's your notability claim) are well sourced from Google searches, because the topics are actually notable. Not that I'm saying that's all I did. I sure as hell didn't sift through a bunch of 80s high-school teen mags (that probably don't cover the subject in-depth anyway) before doing the AfD. Your rant about it is a good example of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST though. Finally, neither of your sources work for establishing notability. Maybe go find some that do by sifting thorough old teen mags or something. I don't really care. It's at least better then just going off, hand-waving, or attacking other users. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only citation is a non-independent WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. A Google search turned up two newspaper clippings, 1 and 2 from The Tennessean, the first of which is effectively an advertisement. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walter Gorlitz, who seems to be the only one who knows what they are doing here. -Roxy, the PROD. .wooF 15:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What it is that he's doing exactly? It seems to me the main reason he voted keep is a personal grudge. He didn't even bother to provide the magazine sources to establish notability that he claims exist. Just making vague assertions of potential notability isn't enough. So I'd love to know what it is that both of you know that makes this notable that we don't. Your suppose to say why you think something is notable or not in a vote anyway, and not just defer to another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A personal grudge? Could it be that the article is on my watchlist and I know where to look for sources but have no access to those print editions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Id go for that if it wasnt for your prior actions and the way you treated me in relation to other edits done to Christian articles. Although that aside, personally I dont think keep arguements like "hey we should keep this because I seem to remember the topic being discussed somewhere. Although I cant provide a source or even tell you exactly where/when it was" kind of weak. Any AfD could be kept on that standard. Your free to disagree though. Obviously everyone judges notability different. For some hunches of notability are fine, for others like me, not so much. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion doesn't seem done, and consensus hasn't been reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one primary source in the external links. Only one independent secondary source has been presented in this AfD [27]. However this seems to be a routine announcement, which is akin to public relations. It is not significant coverage. This is not enough to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. Multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are needed. Saying there might be sources somewhere or there should be sources somewhere does not demonstrate notability. Fails GNG, NMEDIA, ORG.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Sandi Patti, a former music student who was virtually unknown a year ago, was named gospel music's artist of the year and top female vocalist at the 13th annual Dove Awards.
Dottie Rambo and the Imperials won two Dove statues -- gospel music's equivalent to the Grammy Awards -- Wednesday. The winners were selected by the Gospel Music Association's 3,000 members.
...
Russ Taff was named top male vocalist for the second year in a row and B.J. Thomas won a Dove Award for gospel album of the year by a secular artist for his 'Amazing Grace' album.
...
The 2 -hour ceremony at Opryland Hotel was sprinkled with references to religion and God, but some poked fun at the gospel-oriented crowd.
Grady Nutt, a regular on the television show 'Hee Haw,' brought a huge roar of laughter from the crowd.
'If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I'm in trouble,' Nutt said. 'I know he has a sense of humor because he invented Baptists.'
Sandi Patti, Dottie Rambo and the Imperials each won two Dove Awards at last night's 13th annual presentation, with Patti taking top honors as gospel music's artist of the year.
... she whoed the crowd of 800 last night why she has become so popular so fast.
...
Hee Haw regular Grady Nutt emceed the show and provided a constant flow of humor that other award shows would envy.
"We all know this is just an uptown version of all day singing and dinner on the ground," Nutt said at the beginning of the night. Most of his monologues continued in that vein, examining the gospel music's roots—the primary one being out on Route 2, he said.
...
Wendy Bagwell also contributed some humor with a comic monologue, cut short he said because he and his group had to get down to Opp, Ala., where they were playing a filling station opening this morning.
Sandi Patti, the self-proclaimed new kid on the block, was awarded the top Gospel Music Assn. (GMA) honor last week when she was named Artist of the Year during the 13th annual Dove Awards. Patti also took Female Vocalist of the Year honors during the two-and-a-half hour awards program at the Opryland Hotel here.
The Imperials were also honored with two awards: Gospel Group of the Year and Contemporary Gospel Album of the Year for its "Priority" album, produced by Michael Omartian.
The well-produced, smooth flowing awards program, hosted by humorist Grady Nutt, whose downhome sense of humor was one of the highlights of the evening, featured 18 awards presented and inductions into the Gospel Hall of Fame in two different categories, plus a special slate of inductees. In the living category, Thomas A. Dorsey joined 11 other members in the Hall of Fame, while in the Deceased category, John T. Benson, Sr. was inducted. This year, for the first time in 10 years, there was also a special slate of inductees, which included Charles Gabriel, Haldor Lillenas, B.B. McKinney, Lowell Mason and John Newton.
Impact Records artist Sandi Patti, a relative newcomer to the gospel music field, won the gospel artist of the year and the female vocalist of the year honors at the 13th annual Dove Awards ceremony held here Wednesday (3). The event capped the Gospel Music Assn.'s Gospel Music Week activities.
Patti gained her first national visibility last year touring with the Bill Gaither Trio and through her initial album for Impact, "Love Overflowing." In taking the gospel artist prize, she edged out veterans Cynthia Clawson, Andrae Crouch, Dallas Holm and the Imperials. The other Dove honors and their winners were: [long list of winners]
Keep although the present article is merely a skeleton saying nothing much, the topic itself is notable. We have trouble finding online sources because the Internet was so young back then! But magazines covered the topic as found by Cunard. The content in them is substantial and independent. So WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject was a local (county level) politician who was caught hitting on a male student. Subject fails WP:NPOL. The incident got some newspaper coverage and became a local scandal. Bottom line, local pol caught in local sex scandal does not ring the WP:N bell. See also WP:BLP1E. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local politician, only routine media coverage except for a minor sex scandal. Does not meet notability criteria. --IamNotU (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politicians are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because a small handful of local coverage offers technical verification that they exist — for both mayors and county/parish presidents, the notability test is the ability to demonstrate that they're significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office, by virtue of having much more, deeper and/or geographically wider coverage than just what every mayor of everywhere can always show. But Kenner LA is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of much better sourcing than this — and having local notoriety for having had an inappropriate relationship with a teenager is not in and of itself something that automatically makes him special in the absence of any evidence that it got wider than just local coverage, either. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "name and shame the sex offenders" database — we consider the enduring significance of our article topics, not just their temporary newsiness, and nothing here satisfies the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, as the creator of this article, I am biased in this discussion, but I believe that this person passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. He has received coverage for the announcement that he would be acting in a animated kids series, as can be seen here: [28] and here: [29]. There is also this source, [30], which provides a couple of paragraphs of coverage towards him. Admittedly, the third source is rather fluffy and does devote a couple of sentences to quotes, but I believe it still contributes enough information to count towards notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, The first two links you just showed us are passing mentions, they only mention the fact of him acting in an animated series, and the third doesn't even mention him all. Koridas (Speak) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, scroll down to the bottom of the third source, I think you will find it does indeed mention him. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, It's one of the few non-primary sources that aren't a passing mention. Every other source is a primary, passing, or non-reliable source. Koridas (Speak) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not that much reliable sources and no neutral tone. Koridas (Speak) 21:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - arguably, with 8,200,000 followers, he would be notable. Sadly, he viewers are of a younger demographic, so sourcing is problematic. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains(talk) 02:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteThatMontrealIP Can I just speedy this since it was made by a sock or do you want an AfD for future occurrences? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy away, the sock news is fairly new!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 04:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person vaguely connected to the mortuary business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GNG. The article is in sorry state but the person has in-depth coverage and widely acknowledged for his volunteering works. Most significantly he owns both Padma Shri and Pravasi Bharatiya Samman from the government of India.Gritmem (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only says that the Kerala Government nominated or wanted him to be given the Padma Shri. But cannot confirm the Indian Central governmnet gave it to him.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good find. Here is a source[31] from the Ministry of Home Affairs (India) that mention him as a nominee for the Padma Shri. A nomination for such awards from a State Government is also considered as notable. Gritmem (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subjects only claim to notability is having been nominated (not actually being awarded) for India's fourth-highest civilian award. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He (Ashraf Thamarassery) received the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award in 2015
The Pravasi Bharatiya Samman is an award constituted by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India in conjunction with the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, to honour exceptional and meritorious contribution in their chosen field/profession. The award is given by the President of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp7com (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Hoping for more consensus on whether the award nomination is enough for notability (
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 04:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book notes, "And in 2008, working on behalf of the Sailor Jerry 'lifestyle' brand of rum and apparel, Gyro Advertising, a company profiled in detail in chapter 3, spent $100,000 to produce a full-length documentary, replete with oral histories and interviews about the brand's titular character, which then aired at film festivals across the country."
Rozansky, Michael L. (1993-02-22). "An ad agency with a new view: Three-year-old Gyro is making a name for itself as cutting edge. Some would say the edge cuts too deep" (pages 1 and 2). The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-07. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
Whalen, Jeanne (1992-06-01). "Brash Gyro shop has Philly spinning". Ad Age.
A book. No page, no section and hence it’s anybodies guess whether or not they are mentioned. If they are, it’s alongside a slew of other companies. A passing mention.
An interview with the owner, the company is not mentioned.
Another interview with the owner (not independent, not even about the company)
a newspaper clipping, about Gyro. But at least independent, by the looks of it.
Comment: I read the article and do not consider it promotional. Please explain how it is promotional so I can help remediate any issues. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Namedropping clients in the lede does not strike you as promotional? Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use some tweaking but it certainly seems to meet notability requirements.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKleuske re: some of your comments, Cunard has already helpfully highlighted a passage from the book so you do not have to go to the trouble of searching for it yourself. The book also describes the agency in some depth on pages 68-69. The NYT ainterview does actually discuss the agency in-depth, in fact that is the "ad agency" mentioned in the article's title. The Philadelphia Inquirer interview mentions them extensively as well, although we might not count those because they are interviews. There is nothing wrong with the newspaper article or "clipping" from Philadelphia Inquirer either so that absolutely is a useful source. In addition to the sources found by Cunard I found these in a few minutes of Googling:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 04:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palo Alto-based Talech gets its name from an ancient Mayan word for someone who listens to the needs of others, and that is certainly true of this iPad-based POS system.
The company was first established back in 2012 and since then it has grown to provide POS solutions to small retail and restaurant businesses in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland and Spain.
...
Talech delivers a full-featured POS system for retail and restaurants, and because of its large development team, new features will likely be added over time. The company’s customer support goes above and beyond, which could certainly be helpful for businesses using a POS system for the first time.
If you’re comfortable being locked into using Apple’s iPad (which many users are) then Talech is well worth a look, and its Starter Plan is incentive enough to give this POS system a try for yourself.
Talech, headquartered in Palo Alto, California, provides POS solutions to small retailers and restaurant businesses in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain. The company serves more than 8,000 businesses and was recently acquired by U.S. Bank. It has an app that lets you use an iPad as your POS terminal. Alternatively, you can use it with the Poynt Smart Terminal and the all-in-one Elo PayPoint. As it's a cloud-based system, you can access your data anytime, anywhere, from any device with a browser.
...
Drawbacks
There's no free trial period for Talech, which makes it difficult to determine whether the software is a good fit for your business before you subscribe. However, you can check out how-to videos on its YouTube channel and schedule a demo to get some idea of how the software works and what it can do. If you want to take the software for a test run before buying, it's not a bad idea to start out with a month-to-month subscription to the Starter plan. You'll want to avoid the Standard and Premium plans until you're ready to commit, since they require you to purchase the Getting Started package, which costs extra. The setup and training fees are another extra cost to consider before signing up with Talech, as some of the other top POS systems don't charge extra for these services.
The Talech website doesn't specify which reports are included with the basic accounting tools that come in the Starter plan. One item not included in the Starter plan is the dashboard, which most other POS systems include in all their plans.
Talech doesn't offer as many integrations as some of its competitors either, so you might not be able to seamlessly use all your related programs in conjunction with the system.
U.S. Bank has acquired Talech, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based software company that provides point of sale services for small- and medium-sized companies.
Talech point-of-sale system is primarily for restauranteurs, retailers and service businesses. Among its functions the software can develop a digital map of a restaurants tables to aid in ordering and payments, manage a retailer’s inventory or schedule guests at salons and other service companies.
...
Talech which was founded in 2012 has 86 employees and serves more than 8,000 clients and processes approximately $2.3 billion worth of transactions. It is a business that U.S. Bancorp is familiar with. Elavon, a U.S. Bank subsidiary, has sold talech’s services for the past five years.
U.S. Bancorp recently completed the acquisition of Talech, a Palo Alto-based software company, thus taking another step toward digital banking, which has become essential in the technology-driven environment. Financial terms of the deal, however, remain undisclosed.
Talech works to simplify operations for small- and medium-sized businesses. It focuses on turning operational tasks, like order management, inventory and staff reporting, customer management, business insights and payments processing, into a single, united point-of-sale system.
[1] and [2] are tech blog articles and not reliable. [3] and[4] are press releases about the aquisition and not independent or secondary. So these sources are not meeting primary criteria of WP:COMPANY. - The9Man(Talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the articles provide substantial commentary about Talech. The TechRadar article says in a "Cons" section that Talech has "No free trial", "Less integrations than rivals", and "Additional features cost extra". The Business.com article says:
Drawbacks
There's no free trial period for Talech, which makes it difficult to determine whether the software is a good fit for your business before you subscribe. However, you can check out how-to videos on its YouTube channel and schedule a demo to get some idea of how the software works and what it can do. If you want to take the software for a test run before buying, it's not a bad idea to start out with a month-to-month subscription to the Starter plan. You'll want to avoid the Standard and Premium plans until you're ready to commit, since they require you to purchase the Getting Started package, which costs extra. The setup and training fees are another extra cost to consider before signing up with Talech, as some of the other top POS systems don't charge extra for these services.
The Talech website doesn't specify which reports are included with the basic accounting tools that come in the Starter plan. One item not included in the Starter plan is the dashboard, which most other POS systems include in all their plans.
Talech doesn't offer as many integrations as some of its competitors either, so you might not be able to seamlessly use all your related programs in conjunction with the system.
The Star Tribune and Zacks Investment Research articles provide further details about Talech.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge with U.S. Bancorp and redirect. The test is not merely for "independent sources" or sources published by "reputable" publishers. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. One further note which is relevant for software companies in particular is that a review of the software often fails to include in-depth information on the company and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This TechRadar review of the software is not significant coverage (of the company) and fails to provide any in-depth information on the company. The article also openly acknowledges that it has taken information from the company's website. Reference fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and (for information on the company) WP:ORGIND.
This from Business.com is another in-depth review of the software and support services but it also contains virtually nothing about the company itself and what information is there is copied from their website or from the press releases after the company was acquired by US Bank. Reference fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and (for information on the company) WP:ORGIND.
This from Zacks is also entirely based on the same announcement. No "Independent Content" whatsoever, it is all copied from the announcement including the various quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND
I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of *the company*. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reviews from TechRadar and Business.com contain substantial analysis of Talech software. They present the positive and negatives of the product. This is the independent analysis required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources which says, "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." That the sources include some screenshots from Talech and a summary of the product does not make the source non-independent.
Half of the body of the Wikipedia article is about the software so this article could be refocused to be about the software.
Response There's some fair points there Cunard. This article is currently about the company though and as per WP:NCORP, the references must establish the notability of the company. If the article was about a product (which would be a different article) then different guidelines are applicable. As it stands (and you're kinda agreeing with me), the references don't deal significantly with the company and therefore can't establish the notability of the company. HighKing++ 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do generally focus on the product instead of the company so I would prefer to refocus the article to be about the software instead of delete the article entirely. Another alternative to deletion is to merge this article to U.S. Bancorp, which acquired Talech in 2019. I am fine with either refocusing the article to be about the software or doing a merge to U.S. Bancorp.
I've no problem with merging the article with U.S. Bancorp - I've changed my !vote to reflect this. I'm not too sure what guideline is applicable for software, it is a little confusing. NCORP says that the company must be notable in its own right before discussing the product but basic GNG would suggest otherwise. HighKing++ 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional perspectives on the sources ability to convey notability would be good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. And salt. Further discussion can occur at DRV and other appropriate venues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G4 speedy delete tag was deleted (without explanation) by someone else than the creator. G4 does apply and this article should additionally be salted. MrClog (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The version we have now (despite its stubbiness) contains enough additional material compared to the version that was deleted in 2011 that I don't think this should be a G4 case; we should continue to discuss the article here instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 speedy deleted and salted the original title. Maybe he can weigh in here. --MrClog (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did honor a REFUND request and think now that it is in mainspace that an AfD discussion would be beneficial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I thank you for honouring my refund request, but I would like to take you up on what I feel is a couple of pertinent details. My request was for draftification not userification. The advantage of draftification would have been it would have been a common location to which any could have contributed. As a result @Suhail hidaya could claim they were not aware of that version at User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. If it was at draft and that draft had been trumped by a mainspace over the top I would have been miffed but I'm not sure that move is against policy or guidelines. (I'd also note I think this is salted against a move from userspace to draftspace but I'm not sure on that).Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt: The only claim to notability is being listed at The 500 Most Influential Muslims and that's not a free pass to notability. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and most of the sources are not even reliable. The article is also a victim of WP:REFBOMB.GSS💬 04:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With whatever salting is required, however no prejudice to the version at User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi being re-introduced if good faith improvements achieved and agreed by closer Barkeep49 or DRV. My personal belief is their some possibility/probability of the subject has notability but investigating the same is not highest on my priority list at the moment nor should it be raised so by attempts to raise this at AfD. @Suhail hidaya and Kunchava KK ... between WP:CITEBOMBing, removing WP:AFD templates, bypassing WP:DRV, failure to assign to WikiProjects, and seemingly failing to discuss and collaberate on a article subject to discretionary ipa and blp sanctions you are deemed aware of you are making it far more difficult for others to re-introduce this to an article ... I expect you to have a competent response and indications you understand the problems you are causing and indications this will not happen again. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD template has just been removed from article for the second time (by an anon IP) and I have just spent my time reverting this removal and I am now very grumpy. Is their no sign of Wikipedia:Competence is required being displayed by some who wish to retain this article? Because they are very much going the wrong way about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling for the re-introduction of User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, that would need to go through process, and I would not advocate it re-introduction to mainspace until notability can be reasonably show (and the article content) and per the article shown above. Obviously someone may show notability here by e.g. WP:THREE but in essence I'm not wasting my time at present working through the citebombing. Draftifying this WP:CFORK would probably have been better than AfD'ing it as this could get a little messy .... deep joy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me too not calling to introduce the draft to the main space now. I asked for discussion like AFC.--Irshadpp (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, I could not find a single reliable review of this film, and the article is currently sourced only to a Rotten Tomatoes with no reviews on it, therefore this article fails NFILM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, the article could be redirected to the film's writer/director, John Campea. MarkZusab (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we removed all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is whether sources exist, not whether they are in the article. I don't have time to look right now and therefore won't comment on notability, but delete !votes that solely comment on the lack of sources in the article and not those that may or may not exist elsewhere should be disregarded. Smartyllama (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The previous comment is correct: per WP:NEXIST the current state of sourcing in an article is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Sources could exist. With that being said, this gentleman has been listed in pre-Internet sources on the early New Orleans jazz scene. I found him listed at various events of interest that were described in two books: A Trumpet around the Corner: The Story of New Orleans Jazz by S. Charters and The Story of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band by H.O. Brunn. He also has a mention as a historical figure of interest in a walking tour of New Orleans jazz sites ([32]). Unfortunately I can find nothing beyond basic listings of his presence somewhere and he seems to have no significant coverage of his own works and career. The article may have been created by a relative or local historian who did some archival research, but for Wikipedia, personal interest does not outweigh notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added one source, from the Samuel Charters book. Some other sources appear to give the subject's first name as Mike rather than Joe: [33], [34]. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I saw the Google Books source that AllyD added to the article yesterday. I always search before I submit a proposal for deletion. I have a shelf full of books. I look before I leap, think before I type. The documentation says we can't use a source that mentions the subject only in passing, and that's what this source does, though it looks like an interesting book I might read. There are only a few sentences about Ragbaby Stevens in that book. That's not enough to sustain an article. I propose that AllyD revert her edit. If we retain only this one, thin source, then the article will likely receive a "this article relies on only one source" template. Then what? Then nothing. Wait another eleven years for someone to touch this article? Has AllyD or anyone else found any other sources with enough content to provide an article of substance? I suspect not. That is why the article should be deleted. No sourced content, no article. Vmavanti (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"delete !votes that solely comment on the lack of sources in the article and not those that may or may not exist elsewhere should be disregarded". That's absurd. The existence of Wikipedia articles depends on the existence of sources, no matter where they may occur. No sources, no article. Simple as that. Don't make it complicated. It's not rocket science. Vmavanti (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I voted above.) The one book source that has been added to the article does not help with the gentleman's notability, because the book only briefly listed him as a member of an ensemble that is itself only briefly discussed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Jeff Coffin: There are a few articles which barely talk about the album, but they're not good enough for the article to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It appears to be the consensus that lists of contestants on a particular reality show or contest are not notable, (for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 1 (American season) houseguests. It is a loose attempt to get around the WP:BLP requirements by assuming they have inherited notability just from being finalists. If they are notable, then they should have their own articles (as a few already do). The sourcing in both these articles are low level, some are from social media posts as well. Ajf773 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:
Delete. As was shown in the several lists of Big Brother AfDs, the consensus is against seasonal list of contestants. The main reason is as the nom states, if the people in those lists are notable, they already have an article about them and any section here is both redundant and also a WP:CONTENTFORK, and if they are not notable, then the section is not needed at all. --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I am assuming that Catalyst's comment should be taken as a "lean delete" as so far nobody has provided any references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the Barnaby Jones pop culture reference: I haven't seen the episode, but it's hard to imagine that they set something in an RV camp. Besides a long abandoned building, that's all that was there then and is there now. The RV place's website does state that the name shows up on GMaps, but that's pretty much what all references look like: a name drop of the location, but no description. On topo maps the name doesn't show up until relatively late, and the gothic font says they didn't think it was a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an unusual one. The Parker Junction name has been in use a lot longer than the RV camp has existed; there was a service station there in 1929, and an agriculture inspection station was built there in the late 1930s. That being said, everything I can find on those two buildings seems to imply it was more of a named highway junction at the time than an actual community. So this is a case of a place that is both populated and established, but it was established as a junction and hasn't been populated for all that long comparatively. I'm leaning toward this not being notable, but if someone finds any more references I could be convinced otherwise. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Road junction not a notable community. Didn't find any other sources; wish the California National Gazetteer were available online, it would probably have it appropriately as a locale. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's a named place, but not all named places are notable or "populated". This one does not meet the GNG criteria as required by WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave☎ 04:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
